Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?


by petergreat
Tags: fukushima, nuclear crisis
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#37
May2-11, 04:09 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by Joe Neubarth View Post
You never cease to amaze me with the silliness of your posts. Please, at least, get a high school education in Physics.

I have seen too many loved ones die because of cancer. Saying that something is not present because the fine measurements to detect it at low levels is just plain silly. If it is present in large numbers and is obvious in large numbers, it only stands to reason that a proportional amount would be present in small numbers.

We know what causes cancer, and it only takes one gamma ray to trip that trigger. YOu can deceive people all you want if they are stupid enough to believe your humerous posts.

I do not know why you feel you have to be silly all of the time, but it is not becoming.
Joe, start backing up your claims as per forum guidelines or they are worthless.
QuantumPion
QuantumPion is offline
#38
May2-11, 04:14 PM
P: 733
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
well there's the source.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fact....radiation.cfm
for proving the hypothesis: the history is such that anything is presumed harmless until some large number of people are absolutely certainly harmed by it - e.g. see radium dial painters, see quack radiu, medicines of first half of 20th century, see all the needless nuclear testing in USA (almost twice the testing that soviets did).
Fortunately, now, instead that proving that new drug or medicine is harmful, it has to be proved it is harmless.
It's only fortunate in the sense that by keeping products not known to be dangerous but known to be beneficial off the market, the people harmed by the unavailability of such products are invisible. In other words, no one blames the government when a life-saving drug gets banned from the market due to not being able to prove it is harmless, because no one is aware of products that are unavailable to them. So it's only fortunate for bureaucrats with a safety-at-any-cost mentality.

The same situation is analogous to nuclear power vs. fossil fuels. People would rather we continue to have hundreds of coal miner deaths, who knows how many lung cancer cases, possibility of global warming, acid rain, conflicts over resources, etc etc rather than risk being exposed to a tiny amount of radiation because that can't be proven to be harmless. Nevermind the fact that we know that the alternative really is very harmful.
Joe Neubarth
Joe Neubarth is offline
#39
May2-11, 04:15 PM
P: 238
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
Geiger Counters have been around since 1908. Radiation was known since the Curies. Scientific inquiry and the concept of proving one's hypotheses goes back to the ancient greeks. But we can dispense with all that because Joe Neubarth is here. "The US government will not tell them, but I know." Hypothesis: San Onofre is causing breast cancer."
Proof is not required because Joe Knows. There is no need to consider smoking or California tans. No need to worry about atmospheric quality, or obesity, or any other genetic or environmental causes like radon or petroleum or chemicals, or consumption of Twinkies.

Next he'll trot out the Tooth Fairy Project. Joe knows. The little green men told him so. Tell us it ain't so Joe, BTW why do you all still live in such a dangerous place?
I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.

Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer??? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.

You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.

I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#40
May2-11, 04:17 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by Joe Neubarth View Post
I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.

Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer??? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.

You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.

I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
Joe seriously, there are rules here, you must support your claims with valid sources and not just make random statements you believe to be true.
Dmytry
Dmytry is offline
#41
May2-11, 04:17 PM
P: 505
Quote Quote by QuantumPion View Post
It's only fortunate in the sense that by keeping products not known to be dangerous but known to be beneficial off the market, the people harmed by the unavailability of such products are invisible. In other words, no one blames the government when a life-saving drug gets banned from the market due to not being able to prove it is harmless, because no one is aware of products that are unavailable to them. So it's only fortunate for bureaucrats with a safety-at-any-cost mentality.
Indeed. For example, the products for treating morning sickness are not available to the pregnant women without extensive testing...
Think first, ok? The life threatening conditions are only a small fraction of the market, and there are relaxed rules for those.
GJBRKS
GJBRKS is offline
#42
May2-11, 04:18 PM
P: 82
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
Is there more to this I'm not seeing?

Are you saying that equivalent of nuclear radiation (same type of radiation from the bombs) is hitting us (humans) from the sun every ten seconds?
No , of course not ...different photon frequencies , no kinetics , no alpha , beta's ...

But I can understand you're temporarily being blinded by my flashes of insight ... ;)

Remember , you can't look too long at a radioactive cloud ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JrIYR8jArk


;)
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#43
May2-11, 04:19 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by GJBRKS View Post
No , of course not ...different photon frequencies , no kinetics , no alpha , beta's ...

But I can understand you're temporarily being blinded by my flashes of insight ... ;)
If it isn't the same radiation, how can you compare them? It's a different issue.

Nothing clever about comparing apples with oranges.
QuantumPion
QuantumPion is offline
#44
May2-11, 04:24 PM
P: 733
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
Indeed. For example, the products for treating morning sickness are not available to the pregnant women without extensive testing...
Think first, ok? The life threatening conditions are only a small fraction of the market, and there are relaxed rules for those.
I was speaking in generalities to make a point. We all take risks, it's part of life and the fact that we do not have unlimited resources. Someone that already has cancer, receiving radiotherapy treatment, may risk further damage due to acute radiation dose. But they believe based on evidence that it does more good than harm.

Quote Quote by Joe Neubarth View Post
I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.

Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer??? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.

You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.

I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
I already quoted you text from the American Cancer Society stating that low level radiation is not known to cause cancer. You have posted nothing except your own personal opinion based solely on an emotional appeal. Whom between us is more in line with reality?
Joe Neubarth
Joe Neubarth is offline
#45
May2-11, 04:29 PM
P: 238
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
Do you have data to support this statement?

Note that according to forum rules such data must be published in a peer reviewed magazine.
Gosh Borek, I'll just stick with my Google link for your edification. There has to be some peer review publications in there or articles that have been copied from them.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nucle...ient=firefox-a

The Breast cancer link to nuclear plants and processing sites came out Many years ago. There is one thing that skews the numbers and that is the far higher number of African American women who develop breast cancer. If that is compensated for, it is easy to see the relationship.
Dmytry
Dmytry is offline
#46
May2-11, 04:32 PM
P: 505
Quote Quote by QuantumPion View Post
I was speaking in generalities to make a point. We all take risks, it's part of life and the fact that we do not have unlimited resources.
You were speaking not in generalities, but of a rather rare case (when the new product is for treatment of a life-threatening condition), for which indeed there is exception and much relaxed rules when it comes to testing. It still has to be the case that there must be some prior testing otherwise the chance that the new medication is superior to old ones is too small.

In most of the cases, it is something like a new cough syrup of dubious efficacy, or a new supposed flu remedy, of other non-essential stuff which is barely better, or not any better than existing, tested medicine.
Someone that already has cancer, receiving radiotherapy treatment, may risk further damage due to acute radiation dose. But they believe based on evidence that it does more good than harm.
yes, that is the accepted view. Big doses of radiation, carefully targeted, are useful for curing cancer by their acute toxicity. The neighbouring tissues experience increased probability of developing another cancer though, so the dose to non-cancer tissues has to be kept to a minimum.
Joe Neubarth
Joe Neubarth is offline
#47
May2-11, 04:32 PM
P: 238
Quote Quote by QuantumPion View Post
I was speaking in generalities to make a point. We all take risks, it's part of life and the fact that we do not have unlimited resources. Someone that already has cancer, receiving radiotherapy treatment, may risk further damage due to acute radiation dose. But they believe based on evidence that it does more good than harm.



I already quoted you text from the American Cancer Society stating that low level radiation is not known to cause cancer. You have posted nothing except your own personal opinion based solely on an emotional appeal. Whom between us is more in line with reality?
I am, because I know what is happening. You live in a dream world where people only get cancer if they have stepped across an imaginary threshold. Say it ain't so.

What is that threshold? 60 REM? 70 REM? One Sievert?
Dmytry
Dmytry is offline
#48
May2-11, 04:42 PM
P: 505
Joe Neubarth: Nuclear authorities, actually, accept the linear no threshold model. The pro-nuclear bs people and healing stones salesmen (radon spring tour salesmen etc) don't. Some altogether claim it false, some view it as mere precaution.

There is a lot of experimental evidence in support of linear effect for small doses (google cell microbeam studies)
http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha...eam+cell+study
, as well as theoretical support (basically all we know about cancer). The pro-nuclear people evidently have a problem with using the accepted theories, and demand 'proof' in same way how global climate denial crowd or creationist crowd does. They demand that the carcinogenic effects of radiation be shown on human populations, when the resulting cancer rate is 1/1000 the baseline and below, which is impossible.
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#49
May2-11, 04:42 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by Joe Neubarth View Post
because I know what is happening.
What you 'know' is irrelevant. Back it up. Link to some published papers on the matter as per forum rules.
You live in a dream world where people only get cancer if they have stepped across an imaginary threshold. Say it ain't so.
He's never implied that at all.

So far only one of you has provided evidence to support their claims.
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#50
May2-11, 04:45 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
Joe Neubarth: Nuclear authorities, actually, accept the linear no threshold model. The pro-nuclear bs people and healing stones salesmen (radon spring tour salesmen etc) don't. Some altogether claim it false, some view it as mere precaution.

There is a lot of experimental evidence in support of linear effect for small doses (google cell microbeam studies), as well as theoretical support (basically all we know about cancer). The pro- nuclear people evidently have a problem with using the accepted theories, and demand 'proof' in same way how global climate denial crowd or creationist crowd does.
It would be acceptable if we had some valid sources cited in support of the claims.

If it's so widely accepted just link to them.

I'm not accepting/denying anything here, just asking you support claims.
Dmytry
Dmytry is offline
#51
May2-11, 04:47 PM
P: 505
http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha...eam+cell+study
first 5 results should do fine. You go read and educate yourself. Can't force education down your throat. Biology is complicated science.
JaredJames
JaredJames is offline
#52
May2-11, 04:49 PM
P: 3,390
Quote Quote by Dmytry View Post
http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha...eam+cell+study
first 5 results should do fine. You go read and educate yourself.
Wasn't so hard was it, now let's get some from Joe regarding all his claims (including those that support the conspiracy style ones) and everyone is happy.
Dmytry
Dmytry is offline
#53
May2-11, 04:49 PM
P: 505
ahh, and for acceptance of the LNT: see
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/risk.html
really, guys, you only show your ignorance here by demanding sources for common knowledge. It's as if in one of the scientific forums here someone demanded sourcing on the derivative of sine or cosine.
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#54
May2-11, 04:51 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Joe Neubarth View Post
I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.

Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer??? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.

You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.

I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
If we shut every nuclear plant in the world today, we will lose 20% of the power generation in the US. You will still be exposed to low level radiation. There will still be cancer deaths. In the hot California summer there will be more brownouts and rotating blackouts. Power shortages cost lives more certainly than your lack of proof of harm from nuclear plants. If I recall the great Northeastern Blackout a few years ago had 6 deaths blamed on the blackout. Remember the people in Chicago that died of heatstroke after the steam explosion in the utility tunnels cut off their power? Even a traffic light out of service can be deadly. It is time for you to start justifying those kinds of threats before we start shutting anything down. Economic disaster and increased death rates are a common sense approach?

The same God that gave me a soul gave me a brain - my dreamworld, your reality. Okay I'll choose my dreamworld where I will try to make things better. You can have your reality where we all should be huddled in a corner waiting to die. You have seen many people die from radiation exposure. Really? Were they first responders at Chernobyl? No? Then, Sir, show your proof.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fukushima Daiichi rated? Nuclear Engineering 49
Japan nuclear crisis Nuclear Engineering 17
Nuclear Crisis/North Korea Current Events 7