Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

  • Fukushima
  • Thread starter petergreat
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nuclear
In summary, an accident at a nuclear plant can produce more radioactive fallout than an atmospheric nuclear explosion. No nuclear test has ever triggered panic around the global fearing radioactive dust spread by wind.
  • #36
GJBRKS said:
At which I could reply that your 430 megatonnes is but 10 seconds worth of rays from that other fusion generator high up above.

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?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
Joe Neubarth said:
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.
 
  • #38
Dmytry said:
well there's the source.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/physical/fs52.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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
NUCENG said:
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.
 
  • #40
Joe Neubarth said:
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.
 
  • #41
QuantumPion said:
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.
 
  • #42
JaredJames said:
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 ...




;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
GJBRKS said:
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.
 
  • #44
Dmytry said:
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.

Joe Neubarth said:
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?
 
  • #45
Borek said:
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=nucl...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=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.
 
  • #46
QuantumPion said:
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.
 
  • #47
QuantumPion said:
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?
 
  • #48
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+particle+microbeam+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.
 
  • #49
Joe Neubarth said:
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.
 
  • #50
Dmytry said:
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.
 
  • #52
  • #53
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.
 
  • #54
Joe Neubarth said:
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.
 
  • #55
Dmytry said:
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.

Thank you Dmytry.

As a note, I was referring more to Joe's specific claims when requesting sources.
 
  • #56
Joe Neubarth said:
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?

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull332/33205883235.pdf" , 0.2 Gray (20 Rads) is the threshold between known acute effects. Meaning there is no statistical evidence of doses below 20 Rads directly causing cancer.

Note that I am not saying that low levels of radiation do not cause cancer. What I am saying is that the risk is so small that it is impossible to tell whether low radiation dose causes cancer or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
JaredJames said:
If it isn't the same radiation, how can you compare them? It's a different issue.

Nothing clever about comparing apples with oranges.

The question raised by this thread pertains not to the immediate effects of a nuclear explosion or reactor breach , but to the possible amount of radioactive fallout produced.

Thus the introduction of megatonnes of energy can as well be harmlessly compared to energy of incident rays as it is therefore not conducive to this discussion.

Your thoughts as well as my words ...

PS I'm glad I have the talent to compare apples and oranges , helps me a lot during shopping fi.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
JaredJames said:
Thank you Dmytry.

As a note, I was referring more to Joe's specific claims when requesting sources.
ahh, also, regarding LNT. The EPA page is kind of out of date. The microbeam studies are additional evidence in support of LNT.
The reason it is not possible to show effects of low levels of radiation is that you need large sample sizes to eliminate noise, i.e. random fluctuations. The statistical noise is proportional to square root of sample size. Meaning that if it takes e.g. 100 people to conclusively show dose effect of 1 sievert - which causes excess cancer rate of 10% on background of 40%, it will take 100 million for 1 millisievert (and another hundred million for control).
It is not possible to control for healtcare (rate of failure to diagnose), age, smoking, race, etc. when big populations are involved. It is theoretically impossible to directly show that radiation effects continue at low doses - there is a threshold to sensitivity of population studies. However, theoretical considerations - and single cell single track studies - lead to conclusion that effects are linear.

Generally, in science, the continuation is adopted as null hypothesis, in absence of proof of non-continuation.
For example, how much money would you bet that 1 gram of matter does not attract 1 gram gravitationally over distance of 2 meters? Such attraction would be EXTREMELY difficult to show, but surely we aren't going to bet our money it isn't true, as simple logic shows there must be some very complicated effect to make gravity not work on 1 gram, but work on 1000 pieces each of 1 gram.
Would you bet human lives on such an assertion? I can't show that 1 gram attracts 1 gram over distance of 2 meters directly, sorry, all i have is theory that it does, based on evidence with larger masses or smaller distances and the perceived complexity of a theory which would fit the experimental data but would not have 1 gram attract 1 gram over 2 meters distance.
It's a simple matter of occam's razor - and occam's razor is very much in favour of LNT.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
QuantumPion said:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull332/33205883235.pdf" , 0.2 Gray (20 Rads) is the threshold between known acute effects. Meaning there is no statistical evidence of doses below 20 Rads directly causing cancer.
no. Cancer is not 'acute effect', it happens after many years if at all. The acute effects are like, white blood cell decrease, immune system less effective, hair loss in particularly radio-sensitive individuals, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome
cancer is never included as acute effect.
http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/effects.html#accute

The word 'acute' has specific meaning in medicine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Dmytry said:
...

Just to reiterate, my issue was Joe attributing all his claims to low level radiation and ignoring any other possibilities and then not supporting them in the slightest.
 
  • #61
Generally, in science, the continuation is adopted as null hypothesis, in absence of proof of non-continuation.
For example, how much money would you bet that 1 gram of matter does not attract 1 gram gravitationally over distance of 2 meters? Such attraction would be EXTREMELY difficult to show, but surely we aren't going to bet our money it isn't true, as simple logic shows there must be some very complicated effect to make gravity not work on 1 gram, but work on 1000 pieces each of 1 gram.
Would you bet human lives on such an assertion? I can't show that 1 gram attracts 1 gram over distance of 2 meters directly, sorry, all i have is theory that it does, based on evidence with larger masses or smaller distances and the perceived complexity of a theory which would fit the experimental data but would not have 1 gram attract 1 gram over 2 meters distance.
It's a simple matter of occam's razor - and occam's razor is very much in favour of LNT.

The comparison of scientific theories and the effects of radiation on human health is not possible. Scientific theories have FAR fewer variables to contend with than someone studying a person. That is one reason medical science has so many mysteries in it. Does 1 gram of matter attract another 1 gram of matter gravitationally? Of course! How do we know if we couldn't measure it? Because the rule of gravitational attracted has been proven to be correct from things as large as supermassive stars down to the size of small asteroids at least. We don't EVER see any sudden jumps where a small increase in mass results in a large increase in gravity. It is steady the whole way.

On the other hand, you have uncountable variables that could cause cancer in a person compounded by the fact that we aren't nearly as knowledgeable about how the human body works as we are about the basic laws of physics. Was their cancer caused by radiation, smoking, genetic anomolies, viruses, or one of a thousand other things?

The only way to decide anything is to look at statistical data and make an educated guess. We can look at individuals known to have been exposed to radiation and observe their progress in the long term. This gives us at least some general knowledge of how radiation affects someone. Does it tell us that every person reacts the same way? No! On the contrary, people are all slightly different and will respond slightly differently than your observed person does. Do you look at this fact and just throw away all of your observations because they aren't 100% accurate? No! For then you wouldn't have ANY data to go off of.
 
  • #62
Dmytry said:
no. Cancer is not 'acute effect', it happens after many years if at all. The acute effects are like, white blood cell decrease, immune system less effective, hair loss in particularly radio-sensitive individuals, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome
cancer is never included as acute effect.
http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/effects.html#accute

The word 'acute' has specific meaning in medicine.

You misunderstood. It is the dose that is acute, not the formation of cancer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
QuantumPion said:
You misunderstood. It is the dose that is acute, not the formation of cancer.

you said "Meaning there is no statistical evidence of doses below 20 Rads directly causing cancer."
which is you misunderstanding the source.
 
  • #64
Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent. The immediate concern for the Japanese government should be the children living around Fukushima nuclear reactors.
"Today, 20 years after the Chernobyl accident, the large increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed in childhood and adolescence continues."
http://www.hotthyroidology.com/editorial_158.html
 
  • #65
andybwell said:
Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent. [/url]

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.
 
  • #66
@ Joe Neubarth:
I'd be much more worried about living downwind of a coal plant. You will get a little over a 100x more of a yearly dose from a coal plant then a nuclear plant (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html" .

/sarcasm on/

I really hope you and every anti nuke out there get San Onofre shut down.

/sarcasm off/

Really the loss of San Onofre would considerably hurt the state of California. The loss of 2350 GW of base load power would be disastrous. Also the loss of 2K + well paying jobs would be disastrous. But then again the western states with large rivers or reservoirs might not mind all of the money/jobs that would come from making a large base load power plant to replace San Onofre.

@ Dmytry:
Yes the USA accepts the LNT, however France, China, and Japan follow Radiation hormesis in their guidelines. Even the medical publication Radiology has come out against LNT saying:

LNT was a useful model half a century ago. But current radiation protection concepts should be based on facts and on concepts consistent with current scientific results and not on opinions. Preconceived concepts impede progress; in the case of the LNT model, they have resulted in substantial medical, economic, and other societal harm.

Boding mine, http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full"

If the LNT were a hard and fast rule then places like Ramsar Iran would be wasteland and the populace that was crazy enough to live there would be in oncology wards. Instead this High background radiation area (260 mSv/y) has no noticeable increase of cancer rates. And there are several other areas on the globe that have a HBRA. http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf"

Also on a side note if humans were single celled organisms then the LNT would be an essential rule to follow. However last I checked we are multiple celled organisms with several repair functions that evolved on a hot planet. The LNT is just over an over cautionary theory.

A factor that must also be looked at when comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima is that the populace living Ukraine/Belarus had a iodine deficiency, therefore when a large quantity of iodine was released into the environment the body picked it up and the thyroid concreted it. Since this iodine was radioactive and in a large dose in the thyroid an increase of thyroid cancers are to be expected. Because of the Japanese high iodine diet I really doubt that there will be a significant increase of thyroid cancers seen. If the Thyroid is saturated with iodine it will not absorb any more, even if it is radioactive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Argentum Vulpes said:
@ Joe Neubarth:
I'd be much more worried about living downwind of a coal plant. You will get a little over a 100x more of a yearly dose from a coal plant then a nuclear plant (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html" .

/sarcasm on/

I really hope you and every anti nuke out there get San Onofre shut down.

/sarcasm off/

Really the loss of San Onofre would considerably hurt the state of California. The loss of 2350 GW of base load power would be disastrous. Also the loss of 2K + well paying jobs would be disastrous. But then again the western states with large rivers or reservoirs might not mind all of the money/jobs that would come from making a large base load power plant to replace San Onofre.

@ Dmytry:
Yes the USA accepts the LNT, however France
nope.
, China
workers there breathe in all sorts of nasty chemicals when manufacturing ipods for you. Work safety is nearly non-existent. A great example of progressive country when it comes to protection.
, and Japan
terrible nuclear safety record for past 20 years, not just Fukushima.
follow Radiation hormesis in their guidelines. Even the medical publication Radiology has come out against LNT saying:

LNT was a useful model half a century ago. But current radiation protection concepts should be based on facts and on concepts consistent with current scientific results and not on opinions. Preconceived concepts impede progress; in the case of the LNT model, they have resulted in substantial medical, economic, and other societal harm.

Boding mine, http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full"

If the LNT were a hard and fast rule then places like Ramsar Iran would be wasteland and the populace that was crazy enough to live there would be in oncology wards. Instead this High background radiation area (260 mSv/y) has no noticeable increase of cancer rates. And there are several other areas on the globe that have a HBRA. http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf"
That's always the thing... the hormesis studies always rely on some third world place where they barely even have diagnosis to start with. Places where the only data is from fools who take a consumer grade geiger counter, and think it's mSv/h figures have anything to do with reality. (hint: most counters are overcounting betas).
Also on a side note if humans were single celled organisms then the LNT would be an essential rule to follow. However last I checked we are multiple celled organisms with several repair functions that evolved on a hot planet. The LNT is just over an over cautionary theory.
Cancers start from 1 cell. It is a fact that cancer is a clonal expansion of a single cell.
There is a baseline cancer rate of about 40%. Small changes to amounts of carcinogenic chemicals (that's what radiation does, makes reactive chemicals), which leads to small increase in mutation rate, can be expected to result in proportionally small changes to the cancer rate. Radiation is nothing special.
The 'repair mechanisms' - and most importantly, not the repair mechanism, but the programmed cell death - they work. They work extremely well. There is about 1014 cells in the human body, and in the whole life of human, in only 40% of the humans, over whole lifetime, a single cell becomes cancerous. Depending to the diet, it can be anywhere from 30% to 50% though.
A factor that must also be looked at when comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima is that the populace living Ukraine/Belarus had a iodine deficiency, therefore when a large quantity of iodine was released into the environment the body picked it up and the thyroid concreted it. Since this iodine was radioactive and in a large dose in the thyroid an increase of thyroid cancers are to be expected. Because of the Japanese high iodine diet I really doubt that there will be a significant increase of thyroid cancers seen. If the Thyroid is saturated with iodine it will not absorb any more, even if it is radioactive.
Its BS. Firstly, it may come as surprise but soviet union had such thing as dietary supplements, secondarily, the doses required for saturation - such as in the typical radiation protection pills, you can look it up, are on order of several hundreds times larger than the RDA. 130 milligram
http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/phpr/ki/kifaq.html
vs RDA of 150 microgram
http://www.nutriherb.net/iodine.html
so taking your RDA doesn't quite equate to the protection pills. Those protection pills aren't something you'd just take, too, having too much iodine is not good for you. Saturation is not normal, and does not happen with those 'iodine rich' diets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Dmytry did you even bother to read either paper? What dose the fact that HBRAs are in third world areas have to do with anything. I guess the PhD researchers or the assistants that are sent to do a study are using the cheapest equipment out there and ignoring scientific procedures when taking in data. Thanks for opening my eyes to that fact.

Also the WHO has come out in a http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1997/Suppl-6/gembicki-full.html" that came to the same conclusion. As for the protection pills being distributed the USSR the government would of had to of handed them out quickly. However they didn't acknowledge the accident till 3 day later after they were embarrassed into it.

This really bugs me that you are acting just like the global climate change deniers. You have been shown a mountain of evidence from reliable engineers, and reliable sources, yet you arguments come from sources of questionable reliability or from studies with very narrow scopes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Argentum Vulpes said:
Dmytry did you even bother to read either paper? What dose the fact that HBRAs are in third world areas have to do with anything
Very low quality data. Low quality radiation measurements, and low quality healthcare (low quality cancer rate measurement). The lowest is the confidence in the data, the strongest are the deviations from LNT.
In the developed world there was a LOT of people exposed to well measured doses of radiation, and a very good follow up.
Things such as this:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/rupnose.html
and all the other overuses of radiation till the 60s and 70s.
But of course, hormesis proponents won't go and check if high quality data - from the USE of their hypothesis - matches their hypothesis.
. I guess the PhD researchers or the assistants that are sent to do a study are using the cheapest equipment out there and ignoring scientific procedures when taking in data. Thanks for opening my eyes to that fact.
To Iran? Ohh come on.
Also the WHO has come out in a http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1997/Suppl-6/gembicki-full.html" that came to the same conclusion. As for the protection pills being distributed the USSR the government would of had to of handed them out quickly. However they didn't acknowledge the accident till 3 day later after they were embarrassed into it.
Everyone picks on soviet union all the time. But it could do something as simple as dietary supplements. The far bigger difference for Fukushima, if you want to look for differences, is that the wind was blowing to the west into populated areas, versus to the east into pacific ocean.
This really bugs me that you are acting just like the global climate change deniers. You have been shown a mountain of evidence from reliable engineers, and reliable sources, yet you arguments come from sources of questionable reliability or from studies with very narrow scopes.
No, you are linking a bunch of controversial papers that deny LNT and revert back to old hormesis 'hypothesis' which if you recall was the first hypothesis about effects of the radiation. See all the early 20th century quack radium medicines. You are the effects-of-pollution denial person here.
What do you want, totally unanimous scientific opinion?
See, on one hand we have pretty much every nuclear regulatory body, the microbeam studies, the theoretical understanding of cancer. On the other side, we have a couple people - a minority - trying to do statistics on apriori insufficient numbers of people for getting any result, doing it with almost the worst data available. Iran, lol. What's next for the data sourcing, North Korea?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
I'm sure you will like this... (I just posted it on the "more political thread" about Fukushima).I post this recent video which debunks MSNBC propaganda proposed at the date of 25th anniversary of Chernobyl accident. MSNBC is owned by GE who also built some of the reactors at Fukushima.

If you didn't know that people returning living in the controlled zone around Chernobyl are in fact living LONGER than the ones staying outside, then it's probably because you didn't hear MSNBC propaganda recently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BlJIMxwKg&feature=related

For a long time nuclear activities, even the "civil" ones, were managed in military styles. Now, in addition, private companies make marketing out of them.

In the first case, the lies were called "top secret defense". Now they are called "communication and propaganda for the masses"...

What's threatening in Fukushima crisis?

Well, just an other proof that lies combined to false safety measures leads to unforeseen desaster: some really didn't believe it was possible, but some others didn't WANT to believe it was possible and shut their eyes on purpose.

Money. Power. Ignorance. And lies. A bunch of lies.This is what's threatening, applied to nuclear risks AND consequences.
 
Back
Top