Fukushima Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

[petergreat]

I don't understand. How can a nuclear plant accident 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.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't understand. How can a nuclear plant accident 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.

When was the last atmospheric test of a nuclear weapon? What was the public reaction to that test?

How were more recent tests conducted? What was the public reaction?

How is current research of nuclear detonations conducted in the US?

 

[Borek]

I guess atmospheric tests were stopped before word "radiation" became synonym of "panic".

 

[russ_watters]

Heh - I'm annoyed I didn't think of that. For anti-nuclear activists, equating nuclear weapons and nuclear power has always been a key tactic. It's just that they haven't had anything to raise panic over in more than 20 years.

I would be curious to have a more concrete answer to the question though: how does an accident like this compare to an above-ground test? (which, it is my understanding, hasn't happened since the 1960s)

 

[bcrowell]

I would be curious to have a more concrete answer to the question though: how does an accident like this compare to an above-ground test? (which, it is my understanding, hasn't happened since the 1960s)

Interesting question!

A useful statistic in measuring how bad a radiation release is is how many curies of 131I were released. 131I is an efficient carcinogen.

Three Mile Island released 20 Ci of 131I.
Chernobyl released 7x10^6 Ci of 131I
Above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada released about 1.5x10^8 Ci of 131I.

It's likely that nuclear testing caused hundreds of thousands of excess thyroid cancers; Chernobyl thousands; TMI none.

Sources:
http://streaming-online-free.blogspot.com/2011/03/three-mile-island-accident-japan.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=tf...="three mile island" chernobyl curies&f=false
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/nuclear_testing_and_the_rise_of_thyroid_cancers

 

[petergreat]

A useful statistic in measuring how bad a radiation release is is how many curies of 131I were released. 131I is an efficient carcinogen.

Three Mile Island released 20 Ci of 131I.
Chernobyl released 7x10^6 Ci of 131I
Above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada released about 1.5x10^8 Ci of 131I.

A complication is that nuclear testing is sometimes done on high altitudes (e.g. >4000 m) to reduce fallout, while nuclear plants are all at ground level, though I don't know the exact numbers about how much difference this makes.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting question!

A useful statistic in measuring how bad a radiation release is is how many curies of 131I were released. 131I is an efficient carcinogen.

Three Mile Island released 20 Ci of 131I.
Chernobyl released 7x10^6 Ci of 131I
Above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada released about 1.5x10^8 Ci of 131I.

It's likely that nuclear testing caused hundreds of thousands of excess thyroid cancers; Chernobyl thousands; TMI none.

Sources:
http://streaming-online-free.blogspot.com/2011/03/three-mile-island-accident-japan.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=tf...="three mile island" chernobyl curies&f=false
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/nuclear_testing_and_the_rise_of_thyroid_cancers

Excellent, that is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks very much.

 

[Borek]

It's likely that nuclear testing caused hundreds of thousands of excess thyroid cancers; Chernobyl thousands; TMI none.

Still, from what I remember, there is no Chernobyl effect visible in the epidemiological data - background is high enough to mask it.

 

[CAC1001]

A complication is that nuclear testing is sometimes done on high altitudes (e.g. >4000 m) to reduce fallout, while nuclear plants are all at ground level, though I don't know the exact numbers about how much difference this makes.

I had read that one of the best ways to spread radiation over a country would be to detonate a nuclear weapon in the upper-atmosphere so that the wind blows the radiation around.

 

[QuantumPion]

I don't understand. How can a nuclear plant accident 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.

A typical nuclear reactor fissions as many atoms as a nuclear bomb every 4 hours. A bomb is made up of a few kg of fuel, a reactor has as much as 100 tons. There are a lot more fission products in reactor fuel than a bomb explosion.

 

[russ_watters]

Still, from what I remember, there is no Chernobyl effect visible in the epidemiological data - background is high enough to mask it.

While I would tend to agree, it does depend on who you ask. Not that I'd ever ask them anything, but Greenpeace speaks loudly on the issue and some people listen.

 

[minerva]

I don't understand. How can a nuclear plant accident 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.

Let's look at the Hiroshima bomb, for example. 15 kT of explosive yield, or so. That's equal to 17.43 GWh of thermal energy, if you convert the units.

Let's say a typical large nuclear power reactor has a thermal power output of about 3 GW.

That means it generates one bomb worth of energy - and one Hiroshima bomb worth of fission products - every 6 hours.

That's why the amount of fission products that can potentially be released from a severe reactor accident is, in theory at least, larger than from a bomb - because it has fissioned much more uranium, generated much more energy, and made much more fission products, than the bomb.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

It all depends upon the amount of further contamination of the planet. I do not know what normal background radiation was in 1940, but I am willing to bet that it is higher now than it was then.

Any amount of radiation can cause cancer to start growing in your body. Usually very low doses like a chest X-ray are dismissed as not causative; but, the reality is that your next X-ray could start a cancer growing in your body. We just do not know when the radiation can cause that type of damage. One thing we do know is that if we receive increasing doses, we increase the potential for Cancer to grow.

SO, people have a good reason to be afraid of any additional radioactive pollution to the planet. By being proactive, the life you save may be your Great Great Grandchild's.

 

[rowmag]

Atmospheric tests were generally conducted away from places where people lived.

 

[NUCENG]

LIFE EXPECTANCY

US WORLD
1950 69 46

2000 77 66

Obviously, background radiation, atmospheric testing, and nuclear power are major impacts on world health.

 

[Dmytry]

NUCENG:
Obviously going to use the fact that nuclear testing did not manage to nuke away all the impact of advancements in medical science as some sort of point.

I don't understand. How can a nuclear plant accident produce more radioactive fallout than an atmospheric nuclear explosion?

Easily. Chernobyl has released 890 times the Cs-137 (major medium term pollutant) of the nuclear bomb type dropped on Nagasaki. (albeit the bomb would of released also comparable amount of Sr-90 whereas reactor won't)
Over the time of operation, reactor produces far more energy than such bomb does. The short living isotopes in reactors decay during that time though, so if you compare the short living isotopes you get a smaller reactor:bomb ratio.

The atmospheric nuclear testing has released something on order of 740PBq of Cs-137 according to
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8.html
, Chernobyl has released 85 PBq or over one-tenth .

Remember that the typical nuclear power plant is not only a power plant, but also a MASSIVE radwaste repository. Much of the radwaste from the plant is stored on site. There can be 5 core loads stored right next to the reactor in a modern spent fuel pool (re-racked for storage). 4 reactors, and you get 24 cores. Much of the remaining radwaste is also somewhere on the site, in a common spent fuel pool.
The total inventory of Cs-137 at a nuclear plant of several reactors, including the spent fuel pools, can easily exceed by several times the total release from atmospheric nuclear testing. Simply walking away from a nuclear power plant (multiple reactors + radwaste repository) can result in a release exceeding that of all the atmospheric nuclear testing for the medium term pollutants (with half life of several decades).

 

[Joe Neubarth]

LIFE EXPECTANCY

US WORLD
1950 69 46

2000 77 66

Obviously, background radiation, atmospheric testing, and nuclear power are major impacts on world health.

When you start tabulating the ever increasing number of people killed by radiation induced cancer it is obvious that the impact on health is MAJOR, and very sad, because it just does not HAVE to happen.

 

[Borek]

When you start tabulating the ever increasing number of people killed by radiation induced cancer it is obvious that the impact on health is MAJOR

Do you have data to support this statement?

Note that according to forum rules such data must be published in a peer reviewed magazine.

 

[QuantumPion]

When you start tabulating the ever increasing number of people killed by radiation induced cancer it is obvious that the impact on health is MAJOR, and very sad, because it just does not HAVE to happen.

There is no way to determine whether someone's cancer was caused by normal biological causes, carcinogenic chemical, natural background radiation, or man made radiation. There is no statistical evidence that very low levels of radiation induce cancer.

There are not an "ever increasing number of people killed by radiation induced cancer", this statement is purely fabricated and you have presented no evidence to back up your claim.

From http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...icaltreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer":

Most studies on radiation and cancer risk have looked at people exposed to very high doses of radiation in the settings above. It is harder to measure the much smaller increase in cancer risk that might come from much lower levels of radiation exposure. Most studies have not been able to detect an increased risk of cancer among people exposed to low levels of radiation. For example, people living at high altitudes, who are exposed to more natural background radiation from cosmic rays than people living at sea level, do not have noticeably higher cancer rates.

 

[JaredJames]

It all depends upon the amount of further contamination of the planet. I do not know what normal background radiation was in 1940, but I am willing to bet that it is higher now than it was then.

Got numbers for that? Or can I just dismiss it as 'invented'?

Any amount of radiation can cause cancer to start growing in your body. Usually very low doses like a chest X-ray are dismissed as not causative; but, the reality is that your next X-ray could start a cancer growing in your body. We just do not know when the radiation can cause that type of damage. One thing we do know is that if we receive increasing doses, we increase the potential for Cancer to grow.

Actually, we have a pretty good idea how much you can take for various stages of damage.

That's how we know things such as lethal dose of radiation.

Of course, any amount could do something, but that doesn't mean we don't understand dosage and effect on the body.

 

[clancy688]

All atmospheric nuclear tests ever conducted (~500) have a total yield of ~430 megatons. That's roughly 30.000 times Hiroshima (and 90% of the current US operational ICBM and SLBM arsenal).

Based on all the horror stories I have heard in my life about the ecological impact of nuclear weapons, I come inevitably to the conclusion that all of us must've been dead since at least 40 years.

[PLAIN]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4784/atomtestsbis1995.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/648/megatonnageatomtestsbis.jpg

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1996I have no evidence, but at the beginning of the Fukushima crisis, german news channels reported, that during the early 1960s background radiation in Europe was three times the number after the Chernobyl disaster.

 

[Dmytry]

the insane megaton figures come largely from fusion, not fission.

 

[NUCENG]

NUCENG:
Obviously going to use the fact that nuclear testing did not manage to nuke away all the impact of advancements in medical science as some sort of point.


Easily. Chernobyl has released 890 times the Cs-137 (major medium term pollutant) of the nuclear bomb type dropped on Nagasaki. (albeit the bomb would of released also comparable amount of Sr-90 whereas reactor won't)
Over the time of operation, reactor produces far more energy than such bomb does. The short living isotopes in reactors decay during that time though, so if you compare the short living isotopes you get a smaller reactor:bomb ratio.

The atmospheric nuclear testing has released something on order of 740PBq of Cs-137 according to
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8.html
, Chernobyl has released 85 PBq or over one-tenth .

Remember that the typical nuclear power plant is not only a power plant, but also a
MASSIVE radwaste repository. Much of the radwaste from the plant is stored on site. There can be 5 core loads stored right next to the reactor in a modern spent fuel pool (re-racked for storage). 4 reactors, and you get 24 cores. Much of the remaining radwaste is also somewhere on the site, in a common spent fuel pool.
The total inventory of Cs-137 at a nuclear plant of several reactors, including the spent fuel pools, can easily exceed by several times the total release from atmospheric nuclear testing. Simply walking away from a nuclear power plant (multiple reactors + radwaste repository) can result in a release exceeding that of all the atmospheric nuclear testing for the medium term pollutants (with half life of several decades).

Back to your old tricks. That is your interpretation of what I wrote. I will not allow you and Neubarth to portay this as the end of the world. There is nothing you can do to undo atmospheric testing or reactor accidents. So let's deal in facts:

The average annual background radiation level from cosmic and terrestrial sources pre-1942 was and is about about 2.4 mSv/yr with tremendous variation due to altitude and geology.
Atmospheric testing and the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1945 to 1963 period added 0.15 mSv to background. Since the atospheric test ban this level has decayed to 0.005mSv.

TMI2 and Chernobyl and Windscale and SL-1 and Torsk and all other releases before Fukushima have resulted in a background radiation average of (you guessed it!) 2.4 mSv/yr.

In areas of Europe outside of the old Soviet Union and nearby countries, the Chernobyl accident reportedly added a total lifetime dose increase of 1 mSv.

Your own numbers that Chernobyl was over 10% of the atmospheric release of radiocesium from atmospheric testing was bad. Fukushima releases are bad, but may be 10% of Chernobyl so far by some estimates (I agree that is highly uncertain).

You throw out numbers like PBq and 890 times worse that an A-bomb to make a it sound bad. Unless you put those numbers in context with consequences and comparison to other sources of risk, you are being alarmist, not informative.

Honestly I think we need to go back to atmosphic testing. It would take a nuclear flash to brighten your day. (For the humorless, that's a joke, sun.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I tried to find papers to link but all were subject to a fee. This was the best source I could spot in the time I had. It was put out by the IAEA.

The Chernobyl Forum:
Major Findings and Recommendations
Mikhail BALONOV Scientific Secretary

...Radiation-induced effects on plants and animals
•Irradiation caused numerous acute adverse effects on the plants and animals living up to 10-30 kilometres from the release point.
•The following effects caused by radiation-induced cell death have been observed in biota:
Increased mortality of coniferous plants, soil invertebrates andmammals; and
Reproductive losses in plants and animals.
•A few years were needed for recovery from major radiation-induced adverse effects in populations of plants and animals.
•Due to removal of human activities, the Exclusion Zone has paradoxically become a unique sanctuary for biodiversity.
•There is nothing that can be done to remedy the radiological conditions for plants and animals residing in the Exclusion Zone that wouldnot have an adverse impact on plants and animals.

http://www.sfrp.asso.fr/IMG/pdf/5-Balonov.pdf

 

[clancy688]

the insane megaton figures come largely from fusion, not fission.

Which doesn't produce less fallout than fission. At least those days. Google "Castle Bravo".

 

[QuantumPion]

the insane megaton figures come largely from fusion, not fission.

The large megaton bombs created huge amounts of fallout from fission. A 10 MT H-bomb may be 90% fusion, but that is still 1 MT worth of fission, which is ~40 times more than fat man/little boy. The extra neutrons generated by fusion were normally used to boost the bomb's output by fissioning a uranium tamper. The first H-bomb test was only ~75% fusion. Tsar Bomba was around 95% fusion but at over 50 MT, that is still 2.5 MT of fission.

 

[NUCENG]

It all depends upon the amount of further contamination of the planet. I do not know what normal background radiation was in 1940, but I am willing to bet that it is higher now than it was then.

Any amount of radiation can cause cancer to start growing in your body. Usually very low doses like a chest X-ray are dismissed as not causative; but, the reality is that your next X-ray could start a cancer growing in your body. We just do not know when the radiation can cause that type of damage. One thing we do know is that if we receive increasing doses, we increase the potential for Cancer to grow.

SO, people have a good reason to be afraid of any additional radioactive pollution to the planet. By being proactive, the life you save may be your Great Great Grandchild's.

You would lose that bet. background radiation due to cosmic and natural terrestrial sources is and has been 2.4 mSv/yr. BTW. the largest man made source of radiation release is not atmospheric testing, medical, or nuclear power. It is fly ash from coal-fired plants

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Got numbers for that? Or can I just dismiss it as 'invented'?Actually, we have a pretty good idea how much you can take for various stages of damage.

That's how we know things such as lethal dose of radiation.

Of course, any amount could do something, but that doesn't mean we don't understand dosage and effect on the body.

Come on Jared, you are trying to be humorous. When I say I'd be "willing to bet" means that it is a guess in the first place. It was vague and intended to be so because there are no numbers.

Now, for your edification, we could take the tremendous increase in radiation in Washington and other areas were radioactive processing has taken place (if you get the breast cancer charts for the United States per ratio of population you can see all the sites where fuel was processed or reactors have been in operation). Witness Eastern Idaho where there is a very high rate of breast cancer. The Winds usually (not always) blow from the west there.

So what was in Central Idaho or Western Idaho that caused this contamination that is killing thousands of women?

The answer, of course is Arco, Idaho where there were several nuclear accidents. At one nuclear site a control rod had an operator pinned to the ceiling after the dufus went to the top of the experimental reactor and pulled on the rod to free it because it was hung up on something. He created a super critical reactor and it exploded (Shades of Fukushima!) and launched him fifty feet into the air and pinned him on the ceiling for all to see and say. "Damn that fool was stupid!"

There was some debate as to whether or not they should take his body down. Some wanted to leave it up there as a warning to future generations about improper reactor operation. They eventually had to take his body down as his wife wanted it. They sealed it in a lead lined coffin so the family would not be irradiated during the religious services for his burial. There were other releases out there at that US Government site in central Idaho. In Idaho Falls and Pocotello Idaho they wonder why they have such a high incidence of breast cancer. The US government will not tell them, but I know.

All across America the breast cancer rates point to nuclear sites. And if you test with radiation meters, the increase in background is clear but small. San Onofre in Southern California is famous for the half million women who have died from breast cancer withing fifty miles of the plant and for 100 miles to the east of it. (The wind again is usually from the west.) The background radiation is only slightly elevated over background, but the cancer rate is very high. What have they been doing at San Onofre to kill all those poor women? The nuclear insustry will tell you they are not at fault. Something like mass psychosis is causing all of these women to get sick and die.

 

[JaredJames]

but I know.

And those are the only words that I take note of.

The rest would be interesting if you backed it up, but you finish with what stinks of conspiracy theory and so it loses all impact.

No comment on the veracity of what you say, but without something to substantiate it, there's really nothing in there to make me believe it.

EDIT: Your edit is noted, you really need to start posting sources to back up your claims or it will get you into trouble.

 

[elektrownik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Joe Neubarth]

And those are the only words that I take note of.

.

The breast cancer relationship to radiation is well known. Here is a Google search for you. Read any article that you desire.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nucl...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Dmytry]

The large megaton bombs created huge amounts of fallout from fission. A 10 MT H-bomb may be 90% fusion, but that is still 1 MT worth of fission, which is ~40 times more than fat man/little boy. The extra neutrons generated by fusion were normally used to boost the bomb's output by fissioning a uranium tamper. The first H-bomb test was only ~75% fusion. Tsar Bomba was around 95% fusion but at over 50 MT, that is still 2.5 MT of fission.

yes, that is true, but my point is, you can't just multiply total yield by the ratio from fatman. There's been some really dirty tests, and some relatively clean ones. E.g. same Tsar Bomba, in full yield configuration, would have been about 100MT, of them 52 from fission (of u-238 by fast neutrons from fusion). That's what, 20x difference almost.
For fusion fallout also greatly depends to where it explodes. at ground level it can neutron-activate some dirt, in the air it would only neutron-activate the air, which doesn't make anything long living.
everyone else:
So much typical pro nuclear crap here - LNT as mere precaution (or even not knowing what LNT is to start with), improvement in life expectancy from healthcare = radiation is harmless, calculating the fallout from yield alone, etc etc. It's a little wonder nobody promoted hormesis and low grade uranium ore as healing stones yet.

 

[NUCENG]

Come on Jared, you are trying to be humorous. When I say I'd be "willing to bet" means that it is a guess in the first place. It was vague and intended to be so because there are no numbers.

Now, for your edification, we could take the tremendous increase in radiation in Washington and other areas were radioactive processing has taken place (if you get the breast cancer charts for the United States per ratio of population you can see all the sites where fuel was processed or reactors have been in operation). Witness Eastern Idaho where there is a very high rate of breast cancer. The Winds usually (not always) blow from the west there.

So what was in Central Idaho or Western Idaho that caused this contamination that is killing thousands of women?

The answer, of course is Arco, Idaho where there were several nuclear accidents. At one nuclear site a control rod had an operator pinned to the ceiling after the dufus went to the top of the experimental reactor and pulled on the rod to free it because it was hung up on something. He created a super critical reactor and it exploded (Shades of Fukushima!) and launched him fifty feet into the air and pinned him on the ceiling for all to see and say. "Damn that fool was stupid!"

There was some debate as to whether or not they should take his body down. Some wanted to leave it up there as a warning to future generations about improper reactor operation. They eventually had to take his body down as his wife wanted it. They sealed it in a lead lined coffin so the family would not be irradiated during the religious services for his burial. There were other releases out there at that US Government site in central Idaho. In Idaho Falls and Pocotello Idaho they wonder why they have such a high incidence of breast cancer. The US government will not tell them, but I know.

All across America the breast cancer rates point to nuclear sites. And if you test with radiation meters, the increase in background is clear but small. San Onofre in Southern California is famous for the half million women who have died from breast cancer withing fifty miles of the plant and for 100 miles to the east of it. (The wind again is usually from the west.) The background radiation is only slightly elevated over background, but the cancer rate is very high. What have they been doing at San Onofre to kill all those poor women? The nuclear insustry will tell you they are not at fault. Something like mass psychosis is causing all of these women to get sick and die.

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?

 

[GJBRKS]

All atmospheric nuclear tests ever conducted (~500) have a total yield of ~430 megatons. That's roughly 30.000 times Hiroshima (and 90% of the current US operational ICBM and SLBM arsenal).

Based on all the horror stories I have heard in my life about the ecological impact of nuclear weapons, I come inevitably to the conclusion that all of us must've been dead since at least 40 years.

[PLAIN]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4784/atomtestsbis1995.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/648/megatonnageatomtestsbis.jpg

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1996I have no evidence, but at the beginning of the Fukushima crisis, german news channels reported, that during the early 1960s background radiation in Europe was three times the number after the Chernobyl disaster.

So you throw a lot of big numbers around to go wondering why it isn't a zero sum game ...

At which I could reply that your 430 megatonnes is but 10 seconds worth of rays from that other fusion generator high up above.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=430+megatons&a=UnitClash_*megatons.*MegatonsOfTNT--

You are saying that you are not impressed ... neither am I .

But some say that to save one life is to save all of humanity ...

 

[Dmytry]

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 [being told that this stuff is actually good for them, so they keep pointing the paintbrushes with their lips - what the hell?], see quack radium 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. Fortunately now, before entire factory will be licking paintbrushes with paint on them, the paint has to be proven harmless (unless the factory is in china, of course, but maybe even there). Still, people don't change; they see it as their right to make us ingest and inhale random stuff until it is proven beyond any slightest doubt whatsoever that it is harmful.

 

[JaredJames]

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?

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...




;)

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Dmytry]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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]

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.