Radiation Health Effects URLS

  • #51
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Still waiting ...

Ad hoc Nereid scale of global damage to human health (0 = no net negative impact; open ended scale):

PBDEs - bad, 5
radioactive materials (man made) - not good, 1
radioactive materials (natural) - a million times worse, 106


theroyprocesses' assessment (inferred by Nereid, from reading theroyprocesses' posts):

PBDEs - 10
radioactive materials (man made) - 109
radioactive materials (natural) - 0
 
  • #52
Dr. Kaku on Art Bell

Dr. Kaku's comments on the Art Bell radio talk show..12/15/03

Recap
Nuclear Scenarios
Monday's guest, theoretical physicist Prof. Michio Kaku (mkaku.org) joined Art Bell (who was sitting in for George) in a conversation about the dark side of nuclear energy. Kaku detailed various little-known nuclear mishaps from earlier decades, such as a Soviet incident that happened in the Ural Mountains in the 1950's, which he called "the mother-of-all nuclear accidents before Chernobyl." The reactor was actually in flames and entire villages had to be evacuated, he noted.

"I would say I'm critical of nuclear power," Kaku said, pointing out that having a potentially unstable reactor near a large population center such as Indian Point (which is 20 miles away from New York City) creates a dangerous scenario. But while he believes small nation states and terrorists may soon have access to nuclear weapons technology, he suggested that the world was probably closer to the brink of extinction during the Cold War, when both the US and the Soviets seriously considered a first strike, which likely would have lead to a "nuclear winter."
 
  • #53
I heard the interview, too. I can't believe I ever thought that Dr. Kaku was a whimpy hippie child.
I think he's actually pretty level-headed and has some very good reasons why he switched from being a nuclear proponent to a nuclear opponent.
I've never thought nuclear power plants were a good idea but had always been behind nuclear weapons M.A.D.
Well, we can't feel too sorry for ourselves, though, since Russia has had even more accidents.
 
  • #54
russ_watters
Mentor
21,014
7,698
Nereid, I'm pleased to announce that you have been nominated for the PF Foam Rubber Headband Award. Congratulations.

Warren on the other hand, was eliminated from contention VERY early in the game.

Edit: Nereid, your mailbox is full so I couldn't respond to your PM. The award is to keep you from hurting yourself while you bang your head against the wall.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?
 
  • #56
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?
cozzmikjoker,

It means that I would like to engage in a fact-based debate with theroyprocess concerning the material which she posts, and her own views. However, the total of her answers to my questions (and others') so far is the null set.

As to what Michio's opinions on nuclear power, weapons, use of radioactive materials in medicine, science, industry, ... are, all there is in this thread is a couple of snippets from one radio interview, of which but 7 words are Michio's own. If he posts to this thread, I'd be glad to engage in a debate on his opinions.

What are your own views on the topic of public health aspects of radiation?
 
  • #57
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.
 
  • #58
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.
What are your own views? Which arguments do you find particularly convincing? Can you summarise them?
 
  • #59
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
This is an answer?

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The silkwood movie is a good reminder of what goes on
even today.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/2003/120303survey.html
Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

Your answer to the question "Why is it more important to reduce the use of nuclear power than reduce long-haul flights and time spent at high-altitude ski resorts, from the perspective of reduction in radiation-causes health problems?" is "Because whistleblowers have a hard time".
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Nereid

What are your own views?

My view used to be that I was against nuclear power plants because it's not worth the risks and it's still my view.
My view also used to be that I was pro nuclear weapons. Amen to Mutually Assured Destruction.
And of course I still think we have to protect ourselves (sometimes your only defense is the threat of offense) BUT someone needs to invent weapons that won't poison the earth.



Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

Can you summarise them?

And no, I don't summarize well. I sent something to Dr. Kaku once and I got a response demanding that I summarize it and I couldn't do it. Sorry. But yeah, the doctor had some interesting information about the dangers of nuclear stuff. Too bad you didn't hear it.


That said, Nereid, it's your turn why to tell us why you're such a big fan of nuclear power plants and weapons, if indeed you are....?
 
  • #61
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Radiation and public health

I'm interested to explore the relationship between radioactivity and public health, in the broader context of economic benefits and social values.

As you'll have seen from my questions to theroyprocess, there seems to be considerable emotion but not much reason behind an 'anti-nuclear' stance.

As with all choices in public health, there are pros and cons. So how do you go about making decisions, when all choices carry costs (monetary, health, collateral risks, ...), and all realistic ones deliver benefits?

That's why I came here - for an informed discussion and debate.

Being a board in Physics Forums, I also expect a high level of discussion on the underlying nuclear physics.

Is this why you're here too?
 
  • #62
FZ+
1,589
3
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.
 
  • #63
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
There is also the element of choice involved. We can decide not to have nuclear power, but there is very little we can do to eleiminate natural radioactivity, and only limited ways to avoid it. So if N is the natural radioactive dose in some location, and P is the dose resulting from nuclear power at the same spot, then the fact that P < N is irrelevant to the choice should we have N or N + P? Especially if you also believe that there is no minimum dose for harm from radioactivity.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. It's the reason I won't have a loaded gun in my house.
Without the bullets, it CANNOT kill you. With the bullets, however, there is a remote chance that it could go off regardless of where it's stored.
I weigh it like this: if I'm going to die without a certain thing and that certain thing has the potential of killing me, I have no choice.
But if I can live without something and it has that same potential, why should I keep/use it?
 
  • #65
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.
Interesting ... any particular nuclear problems? or is the use of all radioactive material a bad idea, whether in medicine (e.g. cancer therapy), industry (e.g. food sterilization), even science (e.g. RTGs on spaceprobes, testing GR)?

Perhaps the worse 'nuclear problem' is nuclear weapon proliferation; if so, do you truly believe we can put the genie back in the bottle?
 
  • #66
russ_watters
Mentor
21,014
7,698
Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Originally posted by Nereid
Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.
By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion?
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.
I think you are right, FZ+, but the problem is that most people don't know either the probability or the impact. So most people overestimate both the probability and the impact, leading them in the direction of theroyprocess - irrational fear of the unknown.
Sounds like it's not worth the risk. [re: FZ+'s post]
But he didn't SAY what the risks are!! See, this is exactly my point. Its as if the word "risk" itself is all the information you need. It isn't. There is a real and calculable risk associated with EVERYTHING we do as humans. To decide if something is worth the risk or not, you have to know WHAT the risk is.
 
  • #67
Russ said: By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion


Well, we already know that radiation and nuclear stuff is deadly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Let's be realistic.

Look at chemotherapy. The radiation might kill some or most of the cancer but many people die because the radiation compromises their immune system and they die as a result of the effects of the radiation weakening them.
Keeping all of that in mind, if someone is going to tell me that anything nuclear is safe, then isn't the burden of proof upon them?

Finally, with the toxic waste that has been dumped in the past, I really don't want to put my faith in someone else to "do the right thing" when it comes to nuclear power plants. Sorry, no can do.
 
  • #68
Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiousity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ.
 
  • #69
Physician Jailed for Chernobyl Research

FYI


Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details


Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey


Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.




* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Dr. Bandazhevsky Eco-Prisoner

FYI

Aleksei Smirnov,
Governments have a long history of cover-ups. A professor friend
of mine said 'the business' of government is to lie...lie...LIE!
This IS the reason Dr. Bandazhevsky is in jail...for daring to
tell the TRUTH about radiation health effects from Chernobyl.
So far as your government's 'recognized facts' on Chernobyl
caused sickness and deaths...a lie is a fact...not necessarily
the TRUTH !

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1993/may93/may93Gofman.html


Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix, Arizona
USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksei Smirnov (Mail.Ru)" <21185857772@mail.ru>
To: "davey garland" <thunderelf@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <nucnews@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact
details


Shall we open discussion on Chernobyl effects using recognised facts
instead of blaming the Belarus government with no proof???
Best regards
Aleksei Smirnov

----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.
 
  • #71
Depleted Uranium Genetic Deformities

FYI

The DU-caused deformities is not a matter of controversy
anyway, be it for kids of G.I.'s who were exposed to it...
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html
or even less so for the kids whose mothers were living near
contaminated areas..
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
and this is the most "viewable" web page, another one (exhibitpicturs.html)
shows that deformities are similar to the ones near Chernobyl
after the (in)famous plant blew up, pour mémoire sampled here:
http://lille.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11 [Broken] (mirror)
http://membres.lycos.fr/mat66/special_tcherno.html





* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,392
3
What is the number of cosmic ray-caused deformities, theroyprocess? Of those caused by 14C? 40K? Natrually occuring 235U and 238U? Thorium? Radium? Radon? Why aren't you concerned about these (they're just as preventable)?
 
  • #73
russ_watters
Mentor
21,014
7,698


Originally posted by theroyprocess
...DU...
What does DU have to do with this thread? As we discussed in another thread, the problems with DU are chemical, not radiological.
 
  • #74
God vs. Man

Russ and Nereid,

If "God" kills you with natural source radiation...it's called death by natural causes.
If man kills you with radiation....it's called MURDER !

Explain it to the parents and the limbless babies when they are old enough
to understand...why it was OK for you to cause and profit from YOUR
radioactive products:

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Scientific Evidence

Russ,

You don't want real evidence...when some brave researcher has REAL
evidence....he is trashed by the status quo i.e.

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.
 

Related Threads on Radiation Health Effects URLS

Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top