Fukushima radiation… what you need to know and why

wishes
I would also argue (hypothetically because I really don't have the time to dig and compile statistics) that more people do not die of coal fumes than radiation

My dear friend, that comment suggests you don't even understand that coal IS radioactive and people living near coal plants may get exposed to more radioactivity than people living near nuclear plants (which haven't been involved in an accident of course)

www.physics.ohio-state.edu...
From pdf page 7 of 20:

Several analyses show that coal-fired plants can release
substantial radioactivity. J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P.
Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco, “Radiological impact of
airborne effluents of coal and nuclear plants,” Science 202,
1045 (1978).
How can that be? All fossil fuel contains radioisotopes.
Radiation comes with all deep-Earth minerals, and the
radioactive decay chains exist in secular equilibrium in
the rock—including coal. The amount of uranium and
thorium isotopes in coal is greatly variable, but an
analysis of suggests that 1 mmol/mol (1 ppm) and
mmol/mol (2 ppm), respectively, for these is
representative. Since the coal fired plant (operating at
80% capacity) produces electricity from 674,000 tonnes
of coal, we find 2.32 million kg/MWyr, and calculate
that 2.32 kg/MWyr of uranium and 4.64 kg/MWyr of
thorium will be released, even assuming only 1% coal
ash in the smoke (10% was more typical at the time of
the study). The conclusion was that Americans living
near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher
radiation doses, particularly bone doses, than those
living near nuclear power plants that meet government
regulations.

Not only is coal radioactive (and burning the coal releases that radioactivity), but it releases lots of other toxic stuff, like lead, mercury, etc.

From pdf page 12:

If a nuclear reactor released the same quantity of
radioactive waste in fly ash that a coal-fired plant does,
there would likely be national protests.

Now do you understand why it doesn't even make sense to talk about "more people do not die of coal fumes than radiation", when coal plants can actually give off more radiation than nuclear plants? This is something that people who want to switch away from nuclear power don't seem to understand. On pdf page 3 there is a graph of the death rates from coal versus other forms of power that you didn't feel like looking up, but now that you have the link you may want to look at it. You might be shocked, and based on your comments, you probably will be.

nonconformist
reply to post by wishes

 

Also the birth rate of babies born with cancer in canada has gone up i think it was like 35% in the last 2-3 years since this has happened both scientist and doctors belive it is direct cause.

You realize the parents would become sterile long before enough radiation could effect the fetus. In most cases when a baby is born with cancer the mother has it and she passed on some cancer cells to the newborn.

reply to post by wishes


Dr Alice Stewart is a little outdated there has been several studies showing biological units being just fine with low level radiation. We have learned alot in the past 20 yrs. And discovered alot of what we thought to be true about radiation in fact isnt. See researches were kinda stupid in there approach to testing radiation damage.For one they would give just one massive dose and watch for effects well that doesnt tell us a thing about beta exposure for example. Yet these became the guidelines for radiation exposure even though we see over and over nature proving us wrong. Here is a study done by MIT it will at least calm some people down they discuss beta radiation.

web.mit.edu...

reply to post by dragonridr


I really want to know if there is a huge difference of the needed Energy
for a X-Ray in 1956 and now but cant find anything, do anyone know?

Also in which Year we stopped to X-Ray pregnant Women?

Human0815
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I really want to know if there is a huge difference of the needed Energy
for a X-Ray in 1956 and now but cant find anything, do anyone know?

The answer is a little complicated. There are standard X-rays which have been around a long time, since before 1956, The amount of radiation exposure for those has dropped over time as more sensitive X-ray film was introduced, I think. However, don't conclude from this that exposure to X-rays has been reduced. The opposite has happened, it has increased because of more advanced X-ray techniques now in widespread use that use more radiation than the old standard 1956 type:

Reducing Radiation from Medical X-rays

-In the early 1980s, medical X-rays made up about 11 percent of all the radiation exposure to the U.S. population. Current estimates attribute nearly 35 percent of all radiation exposure to medical X-rays....
-Radiation dose per person from medical X-rays has increased almost 500 percent since 1982.
-Nearly half of all medical X-ray exposures today come from CT equipment, and radiation doses from CT are higher than other X-ray studies.
Source: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

So if you get the standard type instead of CT, I think the radiation for the standard type has gone down, but now you often get the CT type, in which case the radiation has probably gone up. The difference is, CT gives more of a three-dimensional view instead of 2-dimensions, so you do get better analysis potential from all that extra radiation, maybe 12 times as much radiation.

About pregnant X-rays:

Is it safe to get an X-ray while I'm pregnant?

Yes, it's often safe to get an X-ray during pregnancy. The level of safety depends on the type of X-ray you need and exactly how much radiation you're going to be exposed to.

Most diagnostic X-rays don't expose the fetus to high enough levels of radiation to cause a problem. It is true, though, that the greater your exposure is to radiation, the greater the risk could be to your baby.

While fetal exposure over 10 rads (the unit of measurement for absorbed radiation) has been shown to increase the risks for mental retardation and eye abnormalities, you needn't worry. It's rare for a single X-ray or group of diagnostic X-rays to exceed 5 rads.

For example, the amount of radiation that a baby gets from a mother's dental X-ray is only 0.01 millirad. Since a rad is equal to 1,000 millirads, one would have to have 100,000 dental X-rays for the baby to receive just one rad. Other estimated fetal doses are 60 millirads for a chest X-ray, 290 millirads for an abdominal X-ray, and 800 millirads for a computerized tomographic (CT) scan.

So you can see that most X-rays are way below 10 rads but you can also see the difference between the 60 millirads of a chest X-ray and the 800 millirads for the CT scan (There was no such thing as CT scan in 1956, as the first type of CT scanner was installed in 1971).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thank You!

reply to post by wishes


Coal has, does, and WILL kill more people than nuclear ever has or will. Not only does it produce radiation when burned, it also releases toxic levels of heavy metals into the atmosphere.

www.catf.us...

That link has a good PDF document at the bottom you can view.

dragonridr
reply to post by wishes

 

Dr Alice Stewart is a little outdated there has been several studies showing biological units being just fine with low level radiation. We have learned alot in the past 20 yrs. And discovered alot of what we thought to be true about radiation in fact isnt. See researches were kinda stupid in there approach to testing radiation damage.For one they would give just one massive dose and watch for effects well that doesnt tell us a thing about beta exposure for example. Yet these became the guidelines for radiation exposure even though we see over and over nature proving us wrong. Here is a study done by MIT it will at least calm some people down they discuss beta radiation.

web.mit.edu...

Just like they tell doctors to not talk about the real effects of radiation 'today', they did so yesterday as well. The nuke industry has kept a tight control on what studies get done and what studies get reported. Unless the MIT is an independent study (to me) it has no merit - and it highly unlikely it is independent. Scientists have previously come out and said they were not allowed to publish anything that showed radiation as dangerous so of course all the studies today will minimize, downplay and make everyone think it's not as dangerous as it really is.

The nuke/energy industry is pretty much at the top of the pyramid - governments are well below them and universities even lower. Is fine for anyone who believes radiation is harmless in small doses, I don't because I don't believe their paid for research results anymore than I believe their paid for progress reports.

You're never going to get honesty out of the nuclear industry.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No, I don't know coal is radioactive - what I do know is Tesla developed clean and safe energy that we're never going to see, they want to keep using this crap on us known full well the damage it does.

I don't believe anything the IAEA says and I don't believe any of their reports and research studies. They are well known for not allowing any real studies come to light that show the true effects/harm of radiation. They do things like tell you to smile in Japan and the radiation won't get you. They lie perpetually. They are letting all this crap go on intentionally. That Fukushima is still running water into the ocean 24/7 with no end in sight after 3 years?!?!? And they don't even have the technology to deal with the other reactors yet? But it's all ok, not to worry, just smile and take it?

No, I'm not an engineer or radiation expert, I'm just someone who has a lot of common sense and can read and really hates to see this amazing planet and all live on it pillaged and plundered. I'd be far less upset about Fukushima if it wasn't running into the ocean and hadn't exploded all that crap into the atmosphere and remained a local problem instead of effecting North America and the Pacific Ocean. I'd be far less upset about it if the nuke industry and Ineptco were actually addressing it on all fronts simultaneously with a sense of "urgency". I'd be far less upset about it if the Japanese government didn't ram through the secrecy laws so we get to know even less than before. But wait... we have their 'reports'.... lololol..... yeah, right, I'm sure they're totally accurate.

Tesla's coil is the answer to energy as well as wind, solar and water. All this other stuff is just propaganda upon propaganda upon propaganda to keep us dumbed down. Working pretty good, don't ya think?

wishes

dragonridr
reply to post by wishes

 

Dr Alice Stewart is a little outdated there has been several studies showing biological units being just fine with low level radiation. We have learned alot in the past 20 yrs. And discovered alot of what we thought to be true about radiation in fact isnt. See researches were kinda stupid in there approach to testing radiation damage.For one they would give just one massive dose and watch for effects well that doesnt tell us a thing about beta exposure for example. Yet these became the guidelines for radiation exposure even though we see over and over nature proving us wrong. Here is a study done by MIT it will at least calm some people down they discuss beta radiation.

web.mit.edu...

Just like they tell doctors to not talk about the real effects of radiation 'today', they did so yesterday as well. The nuke industry has kept a tight control on what studies get done and what studies get reported. Unless the MIT is an independent study (to me) it has no merit - and it highly unlikely it is independent. Scientists have previously come out and said they were not allowed to publish anything that showed radiation as dangerous so of course all the studies today will minimize, downplay and make everyone think it's not as dangerous as it really is.

The nuke/energy industry is pretty much at the top of the pyramid - governments are well below them and universities even lower. Is fine for anyone who believes radiation is harmless in small doses, I don't because I don't believe their paid for research results anymore than I believe their paid for progress reports.

You're never going to get honesty out of the nuclear industry.

Yeah i take it you dont know who MIT is they are The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a private research university in Cambridge Massachusetts. Lets just say they have very reputable scientists working there since the 1800s and are well known in the scientific community. So now dont dismiss thee study look at it. Thats the problem with people today they dont want things to be true so look for reasons to dismiss them.

wishes
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No, I don't know coal is radioactive - what I do know is Tesla developed clean and safe energy that we're never going to see, they want to keep using this crap on us known full well the damage it does.

I don't believe anything the IAEA says and I don't believe any of their reports and research studies. They are well known for not allowing any real studies come to light that show the true effects/harm of radiation. They do things like tell you to smile in Japan and the radiation won't get you. They lie perpetually. They are letting all this crap go on intentionally. That Fukushima is still running water into the ocean 24/7 with no end in sight after 3 years?!?!? And they don't even have the technology to deal with the other reactors yet? But it's all ok, not to worry, just smile and take it?

No, I'm not an engineer or radiation expert, I'm just someone who has a lot of common sense and can read and really hates to see this amazing planet and all live on it pillaged and plundered. I'd be far less upset about Fukushima if it wasn't running into the ocean and hadn't exploded all that crap into the atmosphere and remained a local problem instead of effecting North America and the Pacific Ocean. I'd be far less upset about it if the nuke industry and Ineptco were actually addressing it on all fronts simultaneously with a sense of "urgency". I'd be far less upset about it if the Japanese government didn't ram through the secrecy laws so we get to know even less than before. But wait... we have their 'reports'.... lololol..... yeah, right, I'm sure they're totally accurate.

Tesla's coil is the answer to energy as well as wind, solar and water. All this other stuff is just propaganda upon propaganda upon propaganda to keep us dumbed down. Working pretty good, don't ya think?

It is a local problem that the Japanese will be dealing with for another 10 years. If you aren't within a hundred miles of the plant you have no concerns. Other than for the people of Japan Because unlike people in north America they will be talking about an increase in cancer. And believe it or not the ocean will be fine do you realize far more radiation has been dumped into the ocean then the japanese plant. Even scarrier there are still countries doing it.This was a common way to dispose of nuclear waste. I think there was a treaty signed banning this in the 90s but dont quote me im on my cell so not looking it up.

reply to post by dragonridr

It is a local problem that the Japanese will be dealing with for another 10 years. If you aren't within a hundred miles of the plant you have no concerns. Other than for the people of Japan Because unlike people in north America they will be talking about an increase in cancer. And believe it or not the ocean will be fine do you realize far more radiation has been dumped into the ocean then the japanese plant. Even scarrier there are still countries doing it.This was a common way to dispose of nuclear waste. I think there was a treaty signed banning this in the 90s but dont quote me im on my cell so not looking it up.

They say at least 40 years, not ten. And that's 'if' they develop the technology and 'if' there's no further major earthquakes that completely topple #3. Yes, I know many sites are polluting the waters globally - this thread is about Fukushima. Canada now gets countries to 'promise' the uranium they're importing from here is used for 'peaceful' purposes but that's just to appease people - Canada has no control over what they're doing with uranium - peaceful purposes? What peaceful purpose would uranium even have? It's a sham to say the uranium leaving Canada is going for 'peaceful purposes' but that's what they all do - snow us.

As for MIT - all these places rely on funding - if you look up who fund MIT I 'bet' you'll find energy industries in there somewhere either covertly or overtly. Covertly means they have another corporation they run whose name goes on the list of supporters, or they fund someone else who then supplies the money under their own name. It takes a ton of time to research all this - decades ago I spent tons of time researching other corporations and they all fold in and under umbrella after umbrella so you end up with a multitude of corporations that are all from the same 'source'. I do not take any reports from any publicly or privately funded science schools because I know how they work it. They bury real reports and fudge, manipulate, whatever until they get acceptable reports for the public.

Many doctors and scientists have come forward and said they were told "no" to publishing real information! We are lied to beyond most people's comprehension. There is no need to pollute anything on this planet yet it goes on daily by these energy multinationals yet we're supposed to feel bad because we use plastic bags?!? They want us to believe "we" are causing global warming? Uh uh - not us - it's 'them' doing it all from behind the curtain, has been that way for thousands of years. We've always been their slaves and just 'think' we're free.

dragonridr

wishes
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No, I don't know coal is radioactive - what I do know is Tesla developed clean and safe energy that we're never going to see, they want to keep using this crap on us known full well the damage it does.

I don't believe anything the IAEA says and I don't believe any of their reports and research studies. They are well known for not allowing any real studies come to light that show the true effects/harm of radiation. They do things like tell you to smile in Japan and the radiation won't get you. They lie perpetually. They are letting all this crap go on intentionally. That Fukushima is still running water into the ocean 24/7 with no end in sight after 3 years?!?!? And they don't even have the technology to deal with the other reactors yet? But it's all ok, not to worry, just smile and take it?

No, I'm not an engineer or radiation expert, I'm just someone who has a lot of common sense and can read and really hates to see this amazing planet and all live on it pillaged and plundered. I'd be far less upset about Fukushima if it wasn't running into the ocean and hadn't exploded all that crap into the atmosphere and remained a local problem instead of effecting North America and the Pacific Ocean. I'd be far less upset about it if the nuke industry and Ineptco were actually addressing it on all fronts simultaneously with a sense of "urgency". I'd be far less upset about it if the Japanese government didn't ram through the secrecy laws so we get to know even less than before. But wait... we have their 'reports'.... lololol..... yeah, right, I'm sure they're totally accurate.

Tesla's coil is the answer to energy as well as wind, solar and water. All this other stuff is just propaganda upon propaganda upon propaganda to keep us dumbed down. Working pretty good, don't ya think?

It is a local problem that the Japanese will be dealing with for another 10 years. If you aren't within a hundred miles of the plant you have no concerns. Other than for the people of Japan Because unlike people in north America they will be talking about an increase in cancer. And believe it or not the ocean will be fine do you realize far more radiation has been dumped into the ocean then the japanese plant. Even scarrier there are still countries doing it.This was a common way to dispose of nuclear waste. I think there was a treaty signed banning this in the 90s but dont quote me im on my cell so not looking it up.

edit on 1/28/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

I have to disagree with the 10 year statement....they are dependent on technology that hasn't even been invented yet to deal with this,,,, there is no way in the world you can put a time frame on anything when it depends on something that doesn't exist to complete.

Even Tepco's road map to decommissioning is a lot longer than 10 years

I doubt if humans will even be able to go inside the 3 reactors in 10 years for any length of time.... they will still be too radioactive....

"And believe it or not the ocean will be fine do you realize far more radiation has been dumped into the ocean then the japanese plant. Even scarrier there are still countries doing it"

I find that statement to be pure irony,,,,trying to say Fukushima is okay because other countries are doing it is absurd...if you can source some material that proves other countries are dumping/leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean on a daily basis, I'd like to see it. Whats even scarier should be the fact that there is no way to know when the radioactive water will stop leaking from Fukushima...Mankind has been polluting the oceans for centuries... eventually there will have to be a tipping point that is reached.....who can possibly say the Fukushima won't be a factor in that tipping point?

You're trying to put time frames and consequences of events on a uncontrolled on-going event.... you simply can't do that based on an educated guess....... an educated guess by the smartest person in the world is still just a guess.

reply to post by wishes


Again...no idea how many times this has been proven...

Fukushima is NOT affecting North America...it isn't even effecting all of Japan yet...

wishes
reply to post by dragonridr

 

It is a local problem that the Japanese will be dealing with for another 10 years. If you aren't within a hundred miles of the plant you have no concerns. Other than for the people of Japan Because unlike people in north America they will be talking about an increase in cancer. And believe it or not the ocean will be fine do you realize far more radiation has been dumped into the ocean then the japanese plant. Even scarrier there are still countries doing it.This was a common way to dispose of nuclear waste. I think there was a treaty signed banning this in the 90s but dont quote me im on my cell so not looking it up.

They say at least 40 years, not ten. And that's 'if' they develop the technology and 'if' there's no further major earthquakes that completely topple #3. Yes, I know many sites are polluting the waters globally - this thread is about Fukushima. Canada now gets countries to 'promise' the uranium they're importing from here is used for 'peaceful' purposes but that's just to appease people - Canada has no control over what they're doing with uranium - peaceful purposes? What peaceful purpose would uranium even have? It's a sham to say the uranium leaving Canada is going for 'peaceful purposes' but that's what they all do - snow us.

As for MIT - all these places rely on funding - if you look up who fund MIT I 'bet' you'll find energy industries in there somewhere either covertly or overtly. Covertly means they have another corporation they run whose name goes on the list of supporters, or they fund someone else who then supplies the money under their own name. It takes a ton of time to research all this - decades ago I spent tons of time researching other corporations and they all fold in and under umbrella after umbrella so you end up with a multitude of corporations that are all from the same 'source'. I do not take any reports from any publicly or privately funded science schools because I know how they work it. They bury real reports and fudge, manipulate, whatever until they get acceptable reports for the public.

Many doctors and scientists have come forward and said they were told "no" to publishing real information! We are lied to beyond most people's comprehension. There is no need to pollute anything on this planet yet it goes on daily by these energy multinationals yet we're supposed to feel bad because we use plastic bags?!? They want us to believe "we" are causing global warming? Uh uh - not us - it's 'them' doing it all from behind the curtain, has been that way for thousands of years. We've always been their slaves and just 'think' we're free.

Really doctors not publishing working in medical research at one point in my career i can assure you that doesnt happen even though you would like it to be true. Please show us these doctors that were told not to publish and ill show you there research paper and how it was destroyed in the early stages of peer review. Meaning there conclusions were wrong. There is no way to stop any scientists or physician from publishing there research some places you pay 20.00 dollars and they'll publish anything. You think you understand how the world works but i hate to tell you that you dont.

As far as this huge nuclear power industry its not there because there's very little money to be made right now takes new plants 15 yrs just to break even on investment.For what one nuclear plant costs you can build several coal fired plants and most power companies did just that.You're going to find most reactors are owned by governments and not companies. For example in the US there has been no nuclear reactors built since 1974.With just last year two new reactors were approved and currently being built both are owned by the government of the United States. So this huge corporate entity you created is only in your head.

As for MIT its a university they get their funding not from grants but from donations and of course tuition. Now a professor may take a grant to do research but that doesn't mean some corporate entity is in control.It means a scientist's pitched an idea to a corporation and they thought it was beneficial to research. But most grants for research are through the colleges themselves loose your grant and you can end up booted off campus.

Seems to me the real reason you choose to ignore studies is because they dont agree with you premise see people like you are the reason we can't move to cleaner energy you would rather have a coal or petroleum plant sending toxic chemicals into the atmosphere emitting radioactive isotopes and continue are dependence on fossil fuels. As the old saying goes dont throw out the baby with the bathwater the potential for nuclear energy far outweighs the risks involved.And finally the clean up its not as big a task as you think and the Japanese seem very determined. There no reason they can't make the 10 yr goal the technology is here theres no waiting for it. collecting radioactive particles isnt difficult the hard part is storing them once you do.Thats why countries with nuclear reactors dont they dump them into the ocean. As i said earlier several countries signed a treaty to stop this practice i know US Russia,France and the United Kingdom have but several have not such as China. Now me personally id much rather live within 20 miles of a nuclear reactor then a coal plant . With coal i still get the radiation in things such as radon and radium. But then i also have to breath the other toxins it puts in the air not to mention the CO2. You want to see what coal burning gets you look into the smog in beijing.

reply to post by raymundoko


Again, I don't know how many times this has been proven, but N America is seeing radiation from Fukushima, and science has no idea how this will effect the environment.

All it takes is to go back through the thread and see who has posted legitimate links to prove what is happening.

reply to post by dragonridr

As for MIT its a university they get their funding not from grants but from donations and of course tuition. Now a professor may take a grant to do research but that doesn't mean some corporate entity is in control.It means a scientist's pitched an idea to a corporation and they thought it was beneficial to research. But most grants for research are through the colleges themselves loose your grant and you can end up booted off campus.

Yeah, essentially it is like political campaign finance. If you do not pitch something the donors and corporations want to support, you don't get financing for your research. If you go outside of the system, then you can count on getting your research trashed, like Cinderella getting attacked by her sisters before the big ball.

I suspect you know this very well.

reply to post by dragonridr

With coal i still get the radiation in things such as radon and radium

Your ignoring the fact that in order to run a nuclear power plant, they have to mine Uranium. Uranium miners have an extraordinary amount of lung cancers, mostly due to the radon given off by the uranium as they mine it. The tailings from Uranium mines are radioactive and toxic and they exist in large amounts around the world, they have been mining it for a while now......

www.ccnr.org...

Neither nuclear or coal is clean or safe or less dangerous. But until mankind can come up with a "clean" source of power that is available in sufficient quantities, then one of the two has to be used.

reply to post by game over man


Im not being A dick or anything Just curious ,but who debunked them and where is the supporting evidence?,because according to MANY scientists and marine biologists they have never seen anything like this in the history of marine life and its not just cracked star fish and sea urchins turning to goo .

reply to post by dragonridr


What if the mother is unknowingly eating food that is contaminated throughout her pregnancy ( because they are not going to tell us everything that is contaminated) such as this radioactive pacific tuna,not that pregnant women can eat fish anyway but you get what im saying) or has just been exposed to low levels of it at a consatant and is still contaminated afterwards giving birth to the baby ,she is then breast feeding ,couldn't they perhaps pass it on through the breast milk?