Register to reply

Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

by petergreat
Tags: fukushima, nuclear crisis
Share this thread:
andybwell
#73
May5-11, 08:41 PM
P: 46
"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!
andybwell
#74
May5-11, 08:50 PM
P: 46
The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends that all radiation exposure be kept as low as achievable, and for the public, on top of background radiation and any medical procedures, should not exceed 1 mSv per year.

For nuclear industry workers, they recommend a maximum permissible annual dose of 20 mSv averaged over five years, with no more than 50 mSv in any one year.

In Japan the maximum allowed annual dose for workers, 100 mSv, was already higher than international standards. This has been increased in response to the Fukushima disaster to 250 mSv.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer.

But a critical factor is that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.

Females’ overall risk of cancer related to radiation exposure is 40 percent greater than for males. Fetuses in the womb are the most radiation-sensitive of all.

In Germany, a recent study of 25 years of the national childhood cancer register showed that even the normal operation of nuclear power plants is associated with a more than doubling of the risk of leukemia for children under 5 years old living within 5 kilometers of a nuclear plant.

Increased risk was seen to more than 50 km away. This was much higher than expected, and highlights the particular vulnerability to radiation of children in and outside the womb.

In addition to exposure measured by typical external radiation counters, the children of Fukushima will also receive internal radiation from particles inhaled and lodged in their lungs, and taken in through contaminated food and water.

A number of radioactive substances are concentrated up the food chain and in people. As a parent, the decision to allow the children of Fukushima to be exposed to such injurious levels of radiation is an unacceptable abrogation of the responsibility of care and custodianship for our children and future generations.
andybwell
#75
May5-11, 08:59 PM
P: 46
Sorry, I forgot the links.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushi...te-NewScie2-11
Drakkith
#76
May5-11, 10:14 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,884
Quote Quote by andybwell View Post
"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!
I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I was simply pointing out that your post didn't make sense with what was said in the link.

Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent.
This is incorrect. Thats all.
andybwell
#77
May5-11, 11:21 PM
P: 46
"Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent."

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

"In childhood, once exposed even to low doses of ionizing radiation, either externally or internally, the cancer-prone cell damage within the thyroid gland can be preserved for a long time. Today, special attention should be paid to a high risk group of individuals who have been exposed to radioactive iodines just after the Chernobyl accident and who are now 20 to 30 year-old. Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is expected to contribute to the disease prevention and treatment in the coming future. "

Yes, and this must now include the children in schools near the Fukushima "troubled" reactors.
andybwell
#78
May6-11, 12:11 AM
P: 46
A different opinon:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nuclear-safety
andybwell
#79
May6-11, 12:21 AM
P: 46
Thyroid cancer was the first solid tumor reported to be increased in frequency among atomic bomb survivors. 1 Subsequent surveys found a significant excess of papillary thyroid cancer. A straight line adequately describes the relationship between radiation dose and thyroid cancer incidence, relative risks are similar in males and females, and age at exposure substantively influences risk. Risk is highest for children exposed when younger than 10 year but the risk per unit dose following exposure in childhood is higher than for any other radiation-induced malignancy.
andybwell
#80
May6-11, 12:32 AM
P: 46
JAPAN WITHHELD INFORMATION TO AVOID PANIC


http://enenews.com/official-japanese...-causing-panic
andybwell
#81
May6-11, 12:51 AM
P: 46
A different opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Orbach
jlduh
#82
May6-11, 04:35 AM
P: 468
To Andybwell: just a reminder about the form (and not the subjects or ideas) so the thread can be easily readable:

- it would be better if you separate what you write yourself from extracts copied from an article that you link: just use the quote function of the forum to put the copied extracts in between. Your messages will be much easier to read for others
example: your message #74 is a copied extract of this article (that i read previously): http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3595 so it's better to source it with link and put this into quotes.

- if possible group different elements in one message if the subjects are similar to avoid multiple successive posting for one matter.

- your last message is not clear as the wikipedia article on "Orbach" doesn't explain why it is a "different opinion" (different from what?)

Please don't be offensed by these remarks which just have the aim to make your arguments more easily readable (in my opinion!).
gmax137
#83
May6-11, 03:18 PM
P: 856
Quote Quote by jlduh View Post
... Mangano, Joseph ...
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/...deception.html
JaredJames
#84
May6-11, 03:34 PM
P: 3,387
Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.
gmax137
#85
May6-11, 03:43 PM
P: 856
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.
Well, read it, and read the comments. Follow the links and draw your own conclusions. PF used to be a pretty good place to find roadmaps to real science, not opinions. I see that (sadly) slipping away lately. To be blunt, it seems the crackpots have found PF.
JaredJames
#86
May6-11, 03:45 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by gmax137 View Post
Well, read it, and read the comments. Follow the links and draw your own conclusions. PF used to be a pretty good place to find roadmaps to real science, not opinions. I see that (sadly) slipping away lately. To be blunt, it seems the crackpots have found PF.
A blog is not a valid source on PF. A blog is an opinion.
gmax137
#87
May6-11, 04:04 PM
P: 856
Quote Quote by jlduh View Post
From: Archives of Environmental Health
Date: 2/1/2003
Author: Chang, Carolyn; Dave, Amie; Feinberg, Elyssa; Frimer, Marina; Mangano, Joseph J.; Sherman,

http://www.c-10.org/pdf/Elevated%20c...e%20to%20U.pdf

I just extract some of the main results:
Quote Quote by JaredJames View Post
A blog is not a valid source on PF. A blog is an opinion.
Is the www.c-10.org website a "valid" source? Is it somehow different to the www.nei.org site?

I linked the nei blog because it is a convenient starting point for interested readers who might want some background on the 'paper' cited in the post by jlduh. I didn't think it would be appropriate to just state my opinion ("Manganero is a well known charlatan and publicity seeker who benefits from donations by well-meaning but ill-informed celebrities like Christie Brinkley and Alec Baldwin.")
Dmytry
#88
May6-11, 04:07 PM
P: 505
There's the prevailing scientific opinion - LNT, supported by theoretical understanding of the cancer.
And there's 2 fringe groups, one claiming much weaker negative effects than LNT (or even positive effects in small doses, ala homoeopathy), and other group claiming much stronger negative effects than per LNT. It is only fair that when hormesis is brought up, the opposite side of spectrum is also brought up (as long as it aint blogs lol).
Both hormesis and superdanger proponents rely on deception by statistics in the same way. The LNT predicted effects for small exposures drown in the noise; 10 times smaller dose requires 100 times larger population for the study; so far there simply hasn't been nuclear accident severe enough.

Speaking of the LNT.
The cancer rate in a population of size n and cancer probability p (approximately 0.4 lifetime) will have standard deviation of sqrt(n*p*(1-p))/n = sqrt(p*(1-p)/n). The difference of cancer rate in two two equal sized populations will have standard deviation of sqrt(2)*sqrt(p*(1-p)/n). Two standard deviations is 95% confidence interval, that is
+-2*sqrt(2*p*(1-p)/n) is the range that we can expect with 95% confidence.
For the dose of 0.01 Sievert, the change in cancer rate is 0.001 and solving above for n , the population size is about 4 million (the samples and controls) . That is the population size when fluctuations have less than 5% probability of resulting in the difference in cancer rate that is equivalent to 0.01 sievert. In practice, you will need to study substantially larger population (ten, twenty millions) to demonstrate the LNT-predicted effect to any degree of accuracy beyond 'there is likely some bad effect at low doses'.

For other doses, the rule is quadratic - 10x smaller dose, 100x larger population required.

With all the other complications (such as controlling for smoking, race, age, etc, as well as unknown doses) - there is a definite threshold for direct statistical detection of low dose effects. HOWEVER, the threshold of detection does not mean there is threshold in effect. There is no theoretical reason to believe in threshold in effect; handwaving about natural defences does not count any more than climate change denialist's handwaving about complexity of the earth. There's plenty of theoretical reasons to assume linear effect from small doses, just as approximation of a tiny piece of a curve with a line. The radiation level may be varying by many orders of magnitude at 'small doses', but the actual amounts of reactive chemicals - that's through what radiation damages the DNA - is varying only a tiny bit, and so does the cancer rate.

Just because nobody figured out quantum gravity we don't assume that two 1-gram masses don't attract each-other at distance of 2 meters even if it is presently below threshold of direct detection.

edit: clarification of the figures, the base group and control group.
gmax137
#89
May6-11, 04:15 PM
P: 856
Criticism of Manganero is not necessarily a criticism of LNT.
andybwell
#90
May14-11, 09:12 PM
P: 46
Lets get back to Fukushima and the latest meltdown in reactor 1 and, in all likilihood, 2 & 3 as well. What is a nuclear meltdown and what are the ramifications.

This appears to be the best explanation that I can find on the internet.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/quests.htm


Register to reply

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