Fukushima Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

[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.

 

[Dmytry]

http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha+particle+microbeam+cell+study
first 5 results should do fine. You go read and educate yourself. Can't force education down your throat. Biology is complicated science.

 

[JaredJames]

http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha+particle+microbeam+cell+study
first 5 results should do fine. You go read and educate yourself.

Wasn't so hard was it, now let's get some from Joe regarding all his claims (including those that support the conspiracy style ones) and everyone is happy.

 

[Dmytry]

ahh, and for acceptance of the LNT: see
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/risk.html
really, guys, you only show your ignorance here by demanding sources for common knowledge. It's as if in one of the scientific forums here someone demanded sourcing on the derivative of sine or cosine.

 

[NUCENG]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

 

[GJBRKS]

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.

 

[Dmytry]

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.

 

[Dmytry]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

...

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.