RADIATION WATCH 2011
Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by rebeldog
Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, yep!
If you lived here you'd understand why it's spelled that way.
No, i cannot say i have seen the radiation levels here.
Same question though, Are the Japanese dead or dying by the thousands yet?
Until "Ground Zero" starts showing troubles, why worry?
Heck, why worry at all, we have a huge kelp farm in between us and the problem.
Why is everyone mongering the fear of something that has shown no teeth yet?
• In 2000 alone, civilian reactors in the U.S. produced enough [color=5CB3FF]plutonium -- the most dangerous substance in the known universe -- to make [color=Chartreuse]34,000 nuclear bombs.
What were they for?
Wasn't the cold war over, and had not a Democrat been in the White House for almost two complete terms?
'An average 1,000 MW reactor contains approximately 16 billion curies of radioactive material -- the equivalent of 10,000 Hiroshima bombs.
Tritium, krypton, xenon-135, iodine-131 and iodine-129 (with a radioactive half-life of 16 million years) are routinely vented into the air, contaminating downwind rivers, land and residents.'
...However, this weak logic is clear when the waste dilemma and warhead issues are considered -- not to mention a Chernobyl or a Fukushima.
And the financial, insurance and net-energy issues with nukes are incurable. So Nuclear Roulette: The Case Against the 'Nuclear Renaissance' is a solid attempt to build on the post-Fukushima momentum (at least in some countries) to defeat the resurgent pro-nuclear forces.
The Fukushima disaster should have done the job many times over, but activists and citizens cannot rest.
The uneconomic nature of nuclear power, and the lack of energy gain compared to cheap oil, are two huge reasons for society to quit flirting with more nuclear power, never mind the catastrophic record and certainty of more to come.
[color=Cyan]Somehow the evidence and true track record of dozens of accidents and perhaps 300,000 to nearly 1,000,000 deaths from just Chernobyl, are brushed aside by corporate media and most governments.
So, imaginative means of helping to end nuclear proliferation are crucial, the most careful and reasonable-sounding ones being included in summary form in Nuclear Roulette.
Tepco announced Wednesday that, according to the Times, “There is the possibility that criticality, a sustained nuclear chain reaction, had occurred ‘temporarily’ and ‘locally’ in the No. 2 reactor.”
During it’s testing, Tepco has detected xenon-133 and -135, “Products of uranium or plutonium fission.”
“A rare type of radioactive decay, not a renewed chain reaction, appears to have produced the radioactive xenon gas,” reports CNN.
According to the report, on Thursday Tepco said “it believed the gases were produced by ‘spontaneous fission’ of uranium, since the shorter-lived isotope persisted after the use of boric acid”.
Regarding the detection of xenon, TEPCO has “played down the find, saying there was no evidence of a ‘criticality’ in the reactor,”...
“It shows there are still considerable problems. It’s concerning because it shows they are not in total control of the nuclear processes in the plant – and even a small amount of fission is a concern because it can become a large amount of fission ...”
“South Korea’s Institute of Nuclear Safety says it has discovered a patch of pavement in Seoul is emitting radiation at levels 10 times higher than normal,” according to Voice of America News.
- for 7 months, 26 days ...
• 20,736,000 seconds
• 345,600 minutes
• 5,760 hours
• 33 + weeks
This insanity must be addressed in a positive way and brought to a successful conclusion, or all life on Earth will perish - a real ELE.
The city of Ramsar Iran hosts some of the highest natural radiation levels on earth, and over 2000 people are exposed to radiation doses ranging from 1 to 26 rem per year. Curiously, inhabitants of this region seem to have no greater incidence of cancer than those in neighboring areas of normal background radiation levels, and preliminary studies suggest their blood cells experience fewer induced chromosomal abnormalities when exposed to 150 rem “challenge” doses of radiation than do the blood cells of their neighbors.
Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the United States National Research Council, or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report:
The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as “hormesis”) has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect. The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.
Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by muzzleflash
Science is evidence, not consensus. No matter how hard they argue that the LNT is valid, they cant quite clear the small hurdle of it having absolutely not empirical data to buttress it. Its philosophy at this point, not science.
If they took the LNT model as seriously as they claim, they would shut down commercial aviation and relocate everyone to the coast.
Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.
We now know, thanks to genome science, the entire sequence of DNA. However there are 3 million locations on the DNA that are different from person to person. So today, it doesn't make sense at all to proceed as if humans are the same.
The basic principal should be the "personalized medicine" when we look at internal radiation - which DNA is damaged, and what kind of change is taking place.
Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by muzzleflash
You speak of these 1000’s of studies as if they are relevant to the debate, they are not.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, NAS BEIR VII was an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature and writes, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses".
^ NAS BEIR VII Phase 2 Executive Summary retrieved 8 October 2008
A 2007 study of Swedish children exposed to fallout from Chernobyl while they were fetuses between 8 and 25 weeks gestation has found that the reduction in IQ at very low doses was greater than expected, given a simple LNT model for radiation damage, indicating that the LNT model may be too conservative when it comes to neurological damage
Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund, Mårten Palme, "Chernobyl's Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden" August 2007, NBER working paper 13347,
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress). endorsed the LNT model in a 2001 report that attempted to survey existing literature critical of the model.
UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses. page 160, paragraph 541
For example, a hot particle embedded in an organ (such as lung) results in a very high dose in the cells directly adjacent to the hot particle, but a much lower whole-organ and whole-body dose. Thus, even if a safe low dose threshold was found to exist at cellular level for radiation induced mutagenesis, the threshold would not exist for environmental pollution with hot particles, and could not be safely assumed to exist when the distribution of dose is unknown.
The absence of discernable effects in the epidemiological studies hitherto conducted does not mean that the existence of risks to living beings can be dismissed. Further research is essential. To identify these biological and/or pathological risks , complicated and necessarily long research needs to be carried out in a combination of epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies. Only diverse but complementary approaches will provide further knowledge.
This preliminary work suggests that any health effects of background radiation on the diseases studied do not exceed in magnitude those of environmental chemicals. It also suggests that models implying important long-term deleterious effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on humans may be invalid.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Can you address this in any reasonable manner or will you admit that logical reasoning and scientific evidence nullifies it as a legitimate point of discussion in this context?
There is little human data with which to address the issue of a possible hot particle enhancement factor for carcinogenesis. The limited data on lung cancer mortality following occupational inhalation of plutonium aerosols, and the incidence of liver cancer and leukaemia due to Thorotrast administration for clinical diagnosis, does not support a significant hot particle enhancement factor.
In-vivo animal studies have largely failed to show any appreciable carcinogenic enhancement factors for hot particles compared to uniform exposures. On the contrary, in general, at doses in excess of ~ 10cGy, evidence supports a significant reduction in carcinogenicity for hot particle exposures for alpha, beta and x-ray exposures. The majority of experiments, where direct comparisons between uniform and non-uniform exposures can be made, are for rodent lung and skin and involve acute and chronic exposures. Such data can be usefully applied to some environmental occurrences of radioactive particles where potential organ doses may be comparable with ICRP dose limits. As one might expect, there are no experimental data at mean organ dose levels that are comparable with, or within an order of magnitude of, natural radiation background levels.