It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

page: 23
139
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


That's a nice opinion, brother, but it does not reflect the data. Given that both the EPA and Berkeley didn't find significantly elevated levels of radiation (independently of each other). Not much I can do to influence an opinion based on faith, I'm afraid.




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


There is so much wrong with this I barely know where to begin. First, EPA monitoring is an epic FAIL. Second, Berkeley has been found to have credibility issues with their radiation sampling data. Third, EPA and Berkeley independent of each other? Berkley gets gov, navy and nuke industry funding... huummm, could it be the same gov that funds EPA and gets massive campaign contributions from nuke industry? You live in a very naive world "brother", I wish I could be so willfully blind, might make everything seem just that much more comfortable.

EPA fail

Berkeley changing sampling data

Berkeley conflicts of interest


edit on 20-11-2011 by Wertwog because: Accident blackspot...Those aren't accidents! They're THROWING themselves into the road gladly!



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 

The babies conceived from the time of fukushima will start to be born any day. We will see the damage this has caused. In 20 years, it will be like total recall, & we will have sent them to mars so that the 'beautiful' people won't have to look at them. Thank God that he promised to step in for us....



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertwog
EPA fail

Surely you have a credible, reliable, independently verifiable source?

Originally posted by Wertwog
Berkeley changing sampling data

Berkeley conflicts of interest

The issues were covered in both of those threads, did you read more than just the first post?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Wertwog
EPA fail

Surely you have a credible, reliable, independently verifiable source?

Originally posted by Wertwog
Berkeley changing sampling data

Berkeley conflicts of interest

The issues were covered in both of those threads, did you read more than just the first post?

I take it you don't find the watchers site credible, lol. I have a feeling you aren't going to find anything credible that isn't MSM, but here's another eNews or perhaps since you like Berkeley so much you'll like this exchange and will now understand how the EPA is in the hands of a key defense appointee? hmmm.... Berkeley EPA/Radnet.... Now whether or not you believe that the RADNET data has been falsified, even you should be able to see that there is controversy and that the data is not thought to be as solid as you seemed to think it was.

As for Berkeley sampling data, did you not read down to the end, lol, and are you capable of reading between the lines? More...from monster thread

Meh. No sweat off my back if you don't won't can't and prefer to believe what the government and MSM tells you. It's a pretty nice fantasy world you live in, don't blame you for wanting to hold on.
edit on 20-11-2011 by Wertwog because: a monkey ate my homework



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by adeclerk
 


why do you not post in the hard to debunk theories threads and can you address the issues I am raising ?


It's difficult to debunk conspiracies that are unfalsifiable, and since the people are already believing an unfalsifiable thing...it's not really my business to get up in their beliefs or faith. Something like this topic is easy, it literally has no foundation.

The issues you are raising are moot, because as is shown by Berkeley's data, there is nothing currently in the air. Also no evidence of a coverup whatsoever.
edit on 10/23/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


nO FOUNDATION? You pretend to tell us we saw no fukushima nor gunderson or whatsherface or japanese government's exasperated nuclear adviser ? What we saw was your purposefully annoying avatar again and again, denying the obvious , again and again .

Over here in London , a 'berk' is polite cockney rhyming slang for one 'Berkeley Hunt' . An hated individual in the early1900s. Who are 'Berkeley' for that matter and your demands for 'credible sources' of deniable information ?

On a presupposition they are related to UCLA who dont do nuclear weapons research for the government now do they ?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


I see citizens are concerned about the progression of the chart. Did they not realize it is because the chart only shows a limited number of dates?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Silverlok
 


That's a nice opinion, brother, but it does not reflect the data. Given that both the EPA and Berkeley didn't find significantly elevated levels of radiation (independently of each other). Not much I can do to influence an opinion based on faith, I'm afraid.


I am not your sibling, nor will I ever be , it's a dna thing, now let's get to the facts:are HOT isotopes a factor in the valley of death calculation .



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The hot particle theory was discredited practically millenia ago. If you to calculate real cancer risk then use LNT and DDREF, else you're discussing pseudo-science.
edit on 21/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


A millirem is a unit of radiation dose equivalent and is calculated by taking the absorbed dose of radiation and dividing it by the mass of what was exposed, which is then multiplied by the quality factor of radiation taking into consideration how damaging the type of radiation was. If you were calculating the radiation dose equivalent from a source that the inverse square law is relevant to it would matter; however since the radiation dose equivalent has been already given, the inverse square law is completely irrelevant.

5 millirem means that the equivalent to 5 millijoules of ionizing radiation with a quality factor of 1 (beta radiation for example) was absorbed per kilogram of the body or whatever organ is under consideration. It isn't really relevant where it came from, just that the body was exposed to the radiation. Internal radiation might be more damaging in that it may be stuck in the body for a longer period of time (therefore the body will be exposed to radiation longer).

For a good model of how radiation causes cancer please read the chapter of the BEIR VII report titled "Estimating Cancer Risk".

You might want to reconsider rubbishing a website next time when it is you who didn't understand it.

edit on 21/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
I am not your sibling, nor will I ever be , it's a dna thing, now let's get to the facts:are HOT isotopes a factor in the valley of death calculation .

Should they even be? Scientists don't seem to think so.


scientific consensus studies (e.g. CERRIE) conclude that the current ICRP risk model, despite being largely derived from studies of survivors of external radiation, adequately estimate the risk of hot particles i.e. internal radiation is no more dangerous than an equal amount of externally delivered radiation.[

Additionally:


CERRIE concluded there is no convincing evidence that the risks of internally delivered radiation differ from the risk projections derived from externally delivered radiation e.g. Japanese Atom Bomb survivors, and any differences between internal and external radiation are adequately accommodated by the established appropriate parameters (relative biological effectiveness, kinetic factors) in physiological models.


Source


This coupled with the lack of data showing the "hotbed" of nuclear activity that you'd like to think exists completely disproves your "valley of death". I must ask, why are you still fear mongering over this? Why do you want it to be dangerous?
edit on 11/21/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Thank you for the link.

Reading through, a couple of things stand out:


Risk estimates are subject to several sources of uncertainty due to inherent limitations in epidemiologic data and in our understanding of exactly how radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. In addition to statistical uncertainty, the populations and exposures for which risk estimates are needed nearly always differ from those for whom epidemiologic data are available. This means that assumptions are required, many of which involve considerable uncertainty.
emphasis mine



In addition, because the exposure was to the whole body, the LSS cohort offers the opportunity to assess risks for cancers of a large number of specific sites and to evaluate the comparability of site-specific risks.


Does this (whole body exposure) have any effect on the data or change it's applicability to people who may be exposed to particulate (submicron size) radioactive materials?


The use of data on persons exposed at low doses and low dose rates merits special mention. Of these studies, the most promising for quantitative risk assessment are the studies of nuclear workers who have been monitored for radiation exposure through the use of personal dosimeters. These studies, which are reviewed in Chapter 8, were not used as the primary source of data for risk modeling principally because of the imprecision of the risk estimates obtained. For example, in a large combined study of nuclear workers in three countries, the estimated relative risk per gray (ERR/Gy) for all cancers other than leukemia was negative, and the confidence interval included negative values and values larger than estimates based on A-bomb survivors (Cardis and others 1995).


This is odd, why would nuclear plant workers have negative risk?

Chapter 8 tells us:


Studies of populations with occupational radiation exposure are of relevance for radiation protection in that most workers have received protracted low-level exposures (a type of exposure of considerable importance for radiation protection of the public and of workers).
emphasis mine

I'm confused (nothing new there, I know), if the type of exposure represented by studies of people who work with these materials are of "considerble importance" why were they not used as as primary source?

In the section titled MEASURES OF RISK AND CHOICE OF CANCER END POINTS we have the following:


For exposure scenarios in which various tissues of the body receive substantially different doses, estimates of risks for cancers of specific sites are needed. Adjudication of compensation claims for possible radiation-related cancer, which is usually specific to organ site, also requires site-specific estimates. Furthermore, site-specific cancers vary in their causes and baseline risks, and it might thus be expected that models for estimating excess risks from radiation exposure could also vary by site. For this reason, even for estimating total cancer risk, it is desirable to estimate risks for each of several specific cancer sites and then sum the results.


Forgive my continuing denseness, but this bit isn't quite clear to me. Specifically it's the final sentence which is a has me flummoxed.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

This is odd, why would nuclear plant workers have negative risk?

Radiation is good for you.

Just kidding.

I don't know. There's a bid of a debate about something similar here in the comments section between DV82XL and Bob Applebaum. Some claim it's the healthy worker effect, others claim it's because of radiation hormesis.

I'll try to figure out the answers to the rest of your questions tomorrow, but your guess is as good as mine.


Forgive my continuing denseness, but this bit isn't quite clear to me. Specifically it's the final sentence which is a has me flummoxed.

They calculate total risk by taking the risk of cancer on each organ and add them to get the total risk for the person.
edit on 21/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 

The Chernobyl deniers use far too simple a measure of radiation risk


Those who downplay the dangers of nuclear energy are wrong to focus only on dose.
Snippett...from The Guardian Article


ICRP has admitted that its model cannot be applied to post-accident situations. Fortunately the European Committee on Radiation Risk employs weighting factors to modify sievert-based doses for internal exposures. This won't cure the mess in Fukushima but it will mean better public protection.

Nuclear radiation: There is no safe dose
Snippet...


The authorities apparently refer to the so-called standards of permissible or acceptable limits set by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as basis for declaring that exposure levels of the public are "small" and within "safety" limits and that significant risk of harm is limited to the immediate vicinity of the power plants. These standards, in fact, have been set to accommodate the interests of the nuclear industry and countries with nuclear weapons. The ICRP recommendations of exposure limits are not based on worker and public health criteria, but on value judgements with respect to the acceptability of risk estimates for what it sees as benefits of the activities. Since the decision makers, were either users of ionizing radiation in their employment, or are government regulators, primarily from countries with nuclear weapon programs, the vested interests are very clear.

ICRP director admits that the ICRP model can not be used by governments to predict the risk.


ICRP model is currently used to predict the risks from Fukushima, Japan.
Dr. Busby debates Dr. Jack Valentin, creator of ICRP model - part one
Dr. Busby debates Dr. Jack Valentin, creator of ICRP model - part two


Stockholm, 22nd April 2009. The recently resigned Scientific Secretary of the ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin (icrp.org), conceeds to Pr. Chris Busby, ECRR (euradcom.org) , that the ICRP model can not be used to predict the health effects of exposures and that for certain internal exposures it is insecure by up to two orders of magnitude. He also said that as he was no longer employed by ICRP he could agree that the ICRP and the United Nations committee on radiation protection (UNSCEAR) had been wrong in not examining the evidence from the Chernobyl accident, and other evidence outlined below, which shows large errors in the ICRP risk model.

No Safe Dose
Snippet...


Karl Morgan was an American physicist who was a founder of the field of radiation health physics. After a long career in the Manhattan Project and at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, he became a critic of nuclear power and weapons. Morgan, who died in 1999, began to offer court testimony for people who said they had been harmed by the nuclear power industry.

“Nobody is talking about the fact that there is no safe dose of radiation,” Cabasso added, “One of the reasons Morgan said this is because doses are cumulative in the body.”

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report in 2006 titled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, VII Phase 2. NAS BEIR VII was an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature and wrote, “the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses.”

The concluding statement of the report reads, “The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.”

ECRR radioactivity risk estimation for Fukusima, 30-03-2011
Snippet...


The ECRR risk model has been applied to the 3 million people living in the 100km radius of the Fukushima catastrophe. Assuming these people remain living there for one year the number of excess cancers predicted by the method is approximately 200,000 in the next 50 years with 100,000 being diagnosed in the next 10 years. If they are evacuated immediately, the number will fall by a significant amount. For those 7 million living between 100km and 200km from the site, the predicted number of cancers is slightly greater with 220,000 extra cancers in the next 50 years and about 100,000 being expressed in the next ten years. These predictions are based on the ECRR risk model and also the findings of cancer risk on Sweden after the Chernobyl accident.

2. The ICRP model predicts 2838 extra cancers in the 100km population. The eventual yield will therefore be another test of the two risk models…”


edit on 26-11-2011 by Wertwog because: Noone was harmed in the making of our nuclear power - move along



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
The hot particle theory was discredited practically millenia ago. If you to calculate real cancer risk then use LNT and DDREF, else you're discussing pseudo-science.
edit on 21/11/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

whom was detonating and testing for aerosolization in atomic materials and their active decay products (and time of decay linger ) from aerosolization a "millenia" ago ?




This coupled with the lack of data showing the "hotbed" of nuclear activity that you'd like to think exists completely disproves your "valley of death". I must ask, why are you still fear mongering over this? Why do you want it to be dangerous?


again you use a negative to try and prove something, when so may positives are present ...and IT IS NOT MY HOT BED THEORY...you do not use facts or scientific method. I observe out loud on SCIENCE ISSUES and clearly define when I am expressing my opinion otherwise.

about fear mongering ...hmm that was said way back in the beginning of the fuku thread but almost everythin to the letter I posted there has come true ...is it fear to assess the facts in an honest fashion?

and if you put words in my mouth again i will become quite nasty ( I am sure you are desiring this ) : I DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want this to be dangerous ...but it is , the evidence you ignore supports this both currently and historically ( Chernobyl ), so in fact I WANT to know the extent of the "danger", and to hold every last person in the loop accountable for it
edit on 28-11-2011 by Silverlok because: some people are just shills

edit on 28-11-2011 by Silverlok because: by accountable I mean all and I mean not able to ever do it again



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
again you use a negative to try and prove something, when so may positives are present ...and IT IS NOT MY HOT BED THEORY...you do not use facts or scientific method. I observe out loud on SCIENCE ISSUES and clearly define when I am expressing my opinion otherwise.

Facts or the scientific method?
You've made the assumption that Fukushima would be dangerous, and looked for the evidence to fit your conclusion. Whereas I'm just looking at what the data shows. Had you done the same thing without your initial assumption, you would have noticed that there is no evidence to support the "danger" or "cover up" claims.


Originally posted by Silverlok
about fear mongering ...hmm that was said way back in the beginning of the fuku thread but almost everythin to the letter I posted there has come true ...is it fear to assess the facts in an honest fashion?

I haven't read the original thread, but if you assessed those facts in the same "honest fashion" you did here...

Originally posted by Silverlok
and if you put words in my mouth again i will become quite nasty ( I am sure you are desiring this )



Originally posted by Silverlok
I DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want this to be dangerous ...but it is , the evidence you ignore supports this both currently and historically ( Chernobyl ), so in fact I WANT to know the extent of the "danger", and to hold every last person in the loop accountable for it

How did you come to the conclusion that it was dangerous (in the "death valley")? Or did you already "know" it was going to be dangerous.

Confirmation bias up in here.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The SUN.

Every partical in our solar system was forged in the reactor of Sol. Where did the material for the nuclear generator come from? Sol.

Zero point energy is by far the way to go moving forward, extracting energy from molecules around you with a by-product of hydrogen (the most abundant molucule in the solar system).



God Bless,



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


And you reek of some bad normalcy bias, whew! OH SNAP! lol. Go ahead. Google it.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


Look at the data from the berkeley milk tests.

Is that abnormal? Did they ever detect anything above trace amounts?


Are radiation levels above normal?

Deny ignorance, brother



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


As I said, Berkeley is not solid, as in reliable, as in unbiased and conflict-of-interested. We've had this discussion 'brother' (you couldn't be more wrong as in genderifically impossible). I don't believe their data, but meh, go ahead, I'm not a missionary out to convert every 'savage' I run across - unlike the nuke industry that likes to spread shiate along with their waste.



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join