Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Fri, 2011-07-15 14:22.
Did you just prove something by not answering to a single one of my arguments? Is that how it works in your world?
Is this a scientist or someone from Fox News attempting to write as if they are a scientist? 'Bilious prose'?
Point out my 'contradiction, conjecture and fabrication', since you speak for science.
____________________
At this moment we need scientific leaders (as well as other technically experienced personnel), to come forward, speak truth and do the right thing for people's health. Some have been doing that, but we need everyone now. It's time to set matters straight about some important issues regarding pubic health. Thank you.
Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."
I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.
Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?
Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."
Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________
Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.
Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)
Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?
I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-14 11:00.
Are you really certain that the Airplane Analogy PR Campaign is finished?
Have I promoted myself?
Isn't it 'Nuclear Industry Routine' to follow these procedures?
1) Deny the health consequences of Radiation Fallout.
2) Deceive the public about the true nature of Fukushima Fallout Consequences through marketing and PR.
3) Damage the credibility of industry opponents. (haven't seen any of that with arnie Gundersen on this forum have we?)
4) Defeat attempts to regulate the Nuclear Industry
5) Delay legislation if it can’t be defeated.
6) Destroy legislation once it passes, either by trying to overturn the law in court, by disobeying the law, or by exploiting loopholes.
7) Defend lawsuits filed against the industry. (that's where the Airplane and Banana come in isn't it?
8) Develop new markets around the world.
Here- have some education from people who have humanity:
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-07-15 15:20.
:(
While I remain a tepid supporter of continued nuclear power, LEO raises most of the right questions in this post.
The concerns are not going away. Berating LEO, for his non-tecnical background will not win anybody over.
I might even add one other tactic to the list. Virtually the entire electrical manufacturing industry has worked overtime to prevent viable alternatives and efficient product designs from ever seeing the light of day. The tactic is to prevent the public from having any choices, but 'buy our nasty technologies'.
General Electric has been the global leader in this long-standing, and evil practice. The other players have adopted the same tactics and for the same reasons.
Submitted by Bill Duff (not verified) on Fri, 2011-07-15 15:45.
:(
The nuclear power industry refuses to acknowledge containment failure as a design criteria for reactors or for disaster response plans. This, despite LOTS of containment failures.
The nuclear power industry and their government stooges prevent availability of radiation decontamination equipment and radiation treatment drugs.
Frankly, those devising such plans, making such decisions and taking such actions, deserve the death penalty or at the very least, stacked life-sentences at hard labor in a terrorist or pauper prison. (ie not a country-club prison)
As with all analogies, you may only push them so far before the details become divergent. However, the intent of the airplane analogy is to give some context to the exposure one would receive. We have spent a great deal of time explaining the concept of Total Effective Dose Equivalent which attempts to equalize health risks of different types of exposures, both internal and external. In general, an airplane dose is approximately 5 microsieverts per 2 hours of flight time. This health risk is cancer occurrence which is 5% per sievert exposure. So, per hour of plane flight one increases their risk of cancer by 1 in 4 million. The risk associated with the extra exposure from the Fukushima fallout is on this order and this is why we decided on the plane flight analogy. In the end, all risk leads to an increase in cancer occurrence, the question is how much of an increase? Just for comparison, if you are a healthy non-smoker, the CDC places your risk of cancer at around 1 in 515 every year.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-07 19:09.
Dr. Chivers,
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion as regards the effectiveness of analogies when relating health risk. However, asking you to elaborate on that opinion was not my question sir.
Does BRAWM Still Defend The Airplane Analogy? A 'yes' or 'no' would be appropriate, I believe, in terms of an answer.
Well, maybe I was not clear. The airplane dose is not so much an analogy but a comparison using the Total Effective Dose Equivalent model. In so far as TEDE represents the risk of cancer occurrence (5% per Sievert) from any exposure to radiation to a reference man, then the comparison is correct and we completely defend it. However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.
Scientists do not deal with black and white (yes or no). We develop detailed models that tend to explain observation within proscribed limits. Very often a model will not be sufficient to explain observations, which calls for corrections to the model or even a different theory altogether. In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.
Submitted by Bill Duff (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 18:19.
I concur that: "the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently."
I am intimately familiar with the challenges of mathematical modeling and peer reviewed publication. So it is routine to probe and challenge model deficiencies. So for example, the factoid, "CDC places your risk of cancer at around 1 in 515 every year" downplays the lifetime risk of about 15%, for a nominal 75 year lifespan.
The processes of 'teaching science' and 'explaining science' are far from that cutting edge of discovery. So, some simple 1st order approximations and analogies can serve a purpose. The Banana Equivalent Dose (BED), Radiated Airplane Ride (RAR) and Annual Risk of Cancer (AROC), better serve the the Nuclear Renassance than the public health.
I remain a tepid supporter of continued nuclear power. The misguided tactics of the industry cause more difficulties for me than simple failure analysis. So for example, some anonymous 'simple tool' down the page is badgering LEO. Of course, in my estimation, LEO is badgering Dr. Chivers, who appears to deny the 'Philosophy' in Ph.D.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 18:06.
I'm excited to have you back on the forum, Dr. Chivers.
Perhaps we should establish some ‘common perspective’ Dr. Chivers.
I understand that you probably will not be very comfortable with my tone. It will be respectful but ‘firm as regards the science’. I believe that to be fair. I have identified myself, taken a ‘character narrative’ from the perspective of the ‘uncontrolled variable’ and presented it in a comedic and ‘uncontrolled format’.
Since that has appeared to ruffle feathers, from this point forward on this forum, I will attempt to speak as if I am ‘speaking to a child I love’, which, if you will go back to my very first post, is how I began. (I was quickly pounced upon and found it necessary to develop a character which would ‘set matters straight’. Thus, my character of the ‘uncontrolled variable’ was born.)
I believe that what I am doing is in the interest of public health concerns and in the interest of the scientific and overall reputation of UC Berkeley. I have also given BRAWM ample time to ‘discontinue defense’ of the ‘Airplane Analogy’.
I can’t help but combobulate the ‘Airplane Analogy’. It’s like looking at a sink full of ‘dirty dishes’. I have come here alone, with no cheering squad or helpers, to accomplish that task. I’ve encouraged others to politely and respectfully ask questions, but most are frightened or timid to do so.
______________________
Now since in this 'new character' we will have so much ground to cover, I’ll try to ‘suzuki method’ it along. Please help me by ‘helping me achieve common perspective’ from which we can work. Already, I don’t understand some of your definitions. (???) I grabbed the definition of science- they are all relatively the same definition, aren’t they?:
Science
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Yet Dr. Chivers, you state: “In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.”
Isn’t that a complete misrepresentation of the accepted meaning and definition of science Dr. Chivers? I agree that the slivers of science to which you refer to as ‘the boundaries’ exists, and are encapsulated within the realm of science overall, (as defined within the definition provided), but the ‘opposite’ is not true. Science exists 'throughout' established science, not just at the fringes. The bedrock of 'mathematical science' makes the boundaries of mathematical science possible, not vice versa. 'Addition' was discovered prior to 'division', yes?
You aren’t operating under the illusion that your definition supercedes that of what has been delivered to posterity ‘by’ science- are you Dr. Chivers?
Do we currently agree on the definition of science as I have presented with the generally accepted definition? I would be surprised to find you in disagreement with the dictionary.
'Common perspective' is a powerful scientific tool, wouldn't you agree?
_______________________
Let us also establish some ‘common perspective’ as regards ‘possibility’, ‘probability’ and ‘established reality’. I understand completely your concern for my need to know that:
“Scientists do not deal with black and white (yes or no). We develop detailed models that tend to explain observation within proscribed limits.“
Actually, scientists deal with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ all the time Dr. Chivers. They use the ATM just like I do and I’ve yet to encounter the scientist who withdraws $60 from checking and walks away with ‘ABOUT’ $60.
It’s typically 3 twenty’s and that’s all there is to it. Not a ton of debate or discussion about possibility or probability exists. 'Yes' you get $60 or for whatever reason (uncontrolled variables), 'no' you don't.
(Those ATM machines were created by engineers and scientists by the way. The fact that those machines consistently deliver accurate sums consistently, really builds credibility with their manufacturers and designers.)
__________________
I understand ‘possibility’, ‘probability’ and ‘established reality’ and I can ‘evidence’ that ‘understanding’ for you so that we may establish some ‘common perspective’ which relates to my understanding of these concepts:
I understand that it is ‘possible’ that the same ‘source of science’ which gave us ‘Boiled Water Reactors’, ‘Tsunami Generators in the basement’ and which acknowledges that it ‘cannot detect all the varied forms of radiation released through Fukushima Fallout’, could ‘possibly’, come up with a theory ‘as grandiose’ as what ‘Effective Dose’ and ‘TEDE’ lay claim to.
I just happen to ‘also’ understand that such a premise is not very ‘probable’ due to what the established data and situation reveals.
There is a big difference between ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ isn’t there Dr. Chivers? Infinite differences in fact, yes? (You don’t have to answer all of these questions, I just want you to feel comfortable that I understand these concepts.)
For instance, consider that as a ‘given’, the Nuclear Industry has ‘dirtied it’s diaper’ and was caught ‘unprepared to do anything about it’. At that point what the Nuclear Industry REALLY needed was the ‘Grand Unification Theory’ of ‘Nobody’s Seeing Nuthin’.
And wouldn’t you know it, that‘s my 'subject of inquiry' in terms of what ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ claim to provide in terms of a ‘solution’.
‘Nobody’s Seeing Nuthin’ doesn’t seem very ‘probable’ to me. What do you think ‘probability-wise’? I feel that ‘probably’ it’s such ‘low hanging fruit’ that I don’t need to pluck it…I can ‘kick’ it.
______________________
“Very often a model will not be sufficient to explain observations, which calls for corrections to the model or even a different theory altogether. In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.”
Well…this is why I’m here isn’t it Dr. Chivers? If your ‘scientific theory’ were an automobile, it would ‘break down’ every time you tried to take it out for a drive, wouldn’t it?
_______________________
“However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.”
I believe what you are trying to say, is that your model breaks down whenever one attempts to utilize it to ‘describe’ or ‘gauge’ or ‘compare’ it to ‘the reality of the situation at hand’. Allow me to illustrate why that is. (I believe you to be very, very smart- so I think you already know. I believe you are so smart that you already know all of this, in fact.)
Not one man, woman, child, fetus, zygote or blastocyst, will encounter the ‘radioactive equivalents’ described within your ‘imaginary creation’. All radioactive isotopes encountered in any myriad of ways will be encountered on an individual basis, in their natural form, isotope by isotope, through a broad variety of means such as ingestion, inhalation and other forms of exposure.
That is why your equations will never have practical value for anyone save the Nuclear Industry, which only needs your methods in order to ‘fight off accountability’.
I hope this eases your mind in terms of feeling comfortable that I grasp these concepts and issues.
If so, would you please go back and read all of my points in my posts as regards the many, many, MANY ways in which I’ve evidenced flaws within ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ and give me your scientific, objective view as to how it can possibly still be defended?
____________________
Also, where in your TEDE formulas do you account for ‘uncontrolled variables’?
It seems to me that your model is composed primarily if not completely of ‘controlled variables’, which have been quite ‘effectively’ partitioned in your favor, as you have engineered a method to deal with only a ‘fraction of realistic exposure at a time’.
Your method of TEDE does not account for ‘uncontrolled variables’, however.
True, it’s creation involved due diligence in ‘providing the illusion that all variables are controlled’, but that seems to be the only scientific ‘due diligence’ which was performed.
It seems to me that the way you deal with ‘uncontrolled variables’ is by creating ‘weighting factors’ ad infinitum. That seems very prone to misuse.
That fact in and of itself is enough to send your ‘method’ into the back of ‘Fred Sanford’s truck’, IMHO.
We are not where we are with Fukushima because ‘uncontrolled variables’ were 'taken into account'. It’s clear that even ‘controlled variables’ were not considered and addressed.
Analysis-wise, It’s a ‘fractal reflection’ of the inadequate equation known as ‘Effective Dose’ all the way down the ‘pipe’, isn’t it? That sincerely 'blows me away', sir. It's difficult to comprehend the perfect storm of failure which is the 'Fukushima Nuclear Fiasco' or 'FNF'.
Is there any possible way ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ can survive the scrutiny of reality based science in that light?
I keep looking for ways…but I only come away having found additional flaws.
Please help me understand why such a distinguished scientist such as yourself would defend such a scientific method?
_________________
Also Dr. Chivers, I’d like to know if you think ‘snow days’ or ‘inclement weather days’ are good ideas, in terms of seeking to protect the lives of children? I researched such issues and learned that we adopted such public health policy as ‘inclement weather days’ from the empirical evidence we have that it ‘saves lives’.
I’ll no longer ask you to be succinct as I’d hate to be censored from the forum at this point, so you don’t have to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to that, but most people do, fyi.
I really respect ‘that type of science’ and am looking for any signs of it on this forum. Can you please provide me with a link to what you would consider to be your ‘most prized possession’ in terms of ‘cautionary prudence’ in the wake of the enriched release into 2 separate ‘natural weather related outlets’ (the atmosphere and the sea), of Fukushima born MOX fuel?
If you agree that ‘inclement weather’ and ‘snow days’ are good ideas as regards the preservation of public health, would you agree specifically with a proposal to adopt ‘Nuclear Fallout‘ or ‘Nuclear Weather’ days for the same reasons during such emergencies as what we experienced in mid March? (We know we could potentially decrease thyroid cancer in children for instance, if we kept them indoors for the heaviest/most concentrated weeks of ‘Nuclear Fallout’ distribution and rain, don’t we?)
Again, I'm excited to have you back on the forum, Dr. Chivers.
Obviously you have taken a few courses in "how to argue with a scientist". I learned quite some time ago that entering into a philosophical argument tends to result in a black hole of time and effort. Since I run many other projects other than the BRAWM, and my time is precious, I will leave you with, "I give up, you win."
I stand by my words and the work of BRAWM. Interpret them as you will, and question us if you like. I, along with many of the BRAWM team have written quite a lot on this forum and we hope these words have given many some inside perspective on how these measurements are made and the risks of exposure to radionuclides. We have been honest and forthcoming. That is all I ask of myself and our team. However, responding to philosophical differences is just not the purpose of this forum.
Bottom line, TEDE is the standard for evaluation of health risk from varying sources of radiological exposure. If you wish to enter that argument, please feel free and publish findings to the contrary, present at a conference in front of an audience of well-respected peers, or submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. I can tell you none of these are easy tasks. If your observations warrant a reevaluation of the TEDE model, in time, this model will be updated to reflect the most current knowledge.
As far as my statement: "In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.” I will clarify. What I mean is that the primary task of scientists is to seek new knowledge. Models that are well established and tested require less research than models that have limited domains. Scientists work to either solidify a model (or set of models) by extending the domain in which the model accurately predicts observations, or, work to develop new or updated theory to include regions of the domain where observations are not well understood. Therefore, the whole of science (i.e. scientists) work at the boundaries where theory and observation are not well correlated.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 21:13.
Don't you dare run. You know what's at hand.
If you don't want to discuss philosophy then don't bring it up.
Answer the point to uncontrolled variables.
Answer the point to factioned samples of exposure.
Answer the point to abuse of weighting factors.
Answer all of the the points or legitimately give it up.
I've gone easy on you because I feel kind of sorry for you.Fukushima isn't your fault, but unless it was someone else who developed the 'Airplane Analogy' and you want to get them on the line, fess up.
Now are you going to 'defend' or 'give it up' Dr. Chivers? That means withdrawing your defense and calling press conferences with full catering to make certain everyone shows up.
-Uncontrolled variables:
If what you mean here is that there are "hidden" variables within the system (in this case biological system) that may have an effect on the output that is not taken into account within the model,..., I would say that this is always assumed. The question one must pose is if these variables (yet unknown) provide effects in regions of the input domain that show up in observation? If this is the case, science must tease out these variables by carefully controlled experiments. This is the normal state of science as I see it. Or am I missing your point?
- Factioned samples of exposure:
I'm really not sure what you mean. If you mean that we only have data from a small sample of the population (a faction?) to extrapolate from, and that the model could be uncertain when applied to other population samples or different exposure amplitudes, etc,..., then I would say that this is a valid point. Extrapolation and interpolation are always problematic and "fits" to the data can be tricky and subject to a good deal of arbitrariness if data is sparse. Since the medical field does not experiment with radiation exposures other than cancer treatments, we are limited to the number of accidental exposures that have been recorded over time to provide hard data.
- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur. I have to admit that an amount of arbitrariness occurs in many fields that use "evaluated" data to provide a basis for models and simulations. The only solace I can give someone is that the ICRP committee is transparent and filled with scientists from a diverse set of backgrounds. Their work is widely scrutinized by the scientific community and it would be quite hard to abuse weighting factors.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 18:31.
The question is NOT which is worse small radiation from flying on a plane for 8 hours or eating/drinking "slightly" cesium contaminated food for years which irradiates our DNA for the rest of our life?
You do not have to be a "scientist" to figure that one out. Which would you choose Dr? For your two year old child? For pregnant mothers?
The real question EVERYONE continues to ask EPA & UCB (people who breath the same air as we do, but have the equipement to test)
HOW much cesium and other is in our drinking water, soil, food, milk?
Is that too much to ask?
How about the EPA "scientists" researching and informing people steps they can take to eliminate the cesium in the topsoil and drinking water.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-07-13 09:15.
:(
HOT Bowel Movements
It is perhaps, overdramatic to suggest that dietary ingestion of radioactive cesium stays in the body for life. The human gut, particularly the large intestine and the kidneys gradually remove the ingested cesium from the body. There are some re-uptake mechanisms, such as through the bile pathways and the daughter radionuclides are a different mechanism. However, there is a metabolic reduction of cesium. This can be mathematically MODELED as a metabolic half-life.
The metabolic half-life is separate and distinct from the radioactive isotope half-life. The untreated mean whole-body effective half-life of cesium-137 is 80 days in adults, 62 days in adolescents, and 42 days in children. http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03d-0023-nad00001.pdf
The more murderous segments of the Nuclear Industry delay patient testing for C-137, in an attempt to reduce liability damages to sick, weak and doomed victims, such as the children of Honshu and Hokkaido islands.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-14 22:24.
Even 42 days of half life of cesium-137 in my 41 lb child's digestive system is too much. Especially with cesium being incorporated into a growing child's bones.
Since the Environmental "Protection" Agency has chosen to not test our CA farmland soil, food, water & now air, we have been left on our own in un-charted territory.
I've been making sure all my daughters take their vit-c, calcium, & tums. Hopefully, they will absorb the calcium and excrete any cesium.
There is nothing I can do about the air nor all the rain on my "organic" vegetable garden.
We won't know the health effects of the detonation of nuclear reactor #3 and spewing radioactive material into atmosphere and in CA for years. The results will be lost in the immune disease and cancer statistics.
We will see the tragic effects in Japan soon and it can't be as easily hidden. I wish there was something that I could do to help all their children.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 23:51.
Thanks for not running.
I can be succinct and non-philosophical if you can.
If you filibuster I will filibuster more effectively.
If you are going to defend it will be a long and thorough defense.
Please ask the moderators to remove my comments and ensuing ugly comments starting with 'My immediate family' and ending with 'I'm so stupid' along with the ugly comment after that.
There is no need to sully this forum with those statements and it was truly an honest moment of being upset. It was NOT stageplay.
The clarification you seek will be provided and I'll be happy to explain my points. You completely miss my point regarding uncontrolled variables. Completely.
I'm going to bed and we will pick this up later. This comment can also be deleted.
It is not our policy to delete comments with the possible exception of the use of vulgar language since we know young readers may be visiting the site. We trust the forum users to make judgements of posters based on ALL of their posts. We do not require posters to become verified within our system since we did not want to create a two-tiered community of verified and unverified posters. Posters who hide behind "characters" and change their submission names tend to short-circuit the natural organic process of gaining trust through a history of thoughtful posts and comments. This is a weakness of this forum as I see it, but we are not internet junkies here and we are learning everyday through these interactions about the most effective way to communicate with the public. We take all feedback seriously with respect to the forum and presentation of our data.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 10:13.
I know and I have sincerely done the best I can to respect that.
One must adjust one's methods with integrity when one encounters 'warm poison rats curling through the wide fence cracks', which is why I have not only identified myself, but also explained the necessity of my methods.
I agree that it is a weakness of the forum. Best of luck with finding the solutions. I mean that.
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 12:33.
Wow, Anonymous. Leo is probably smarter than most of you combined. I would say that calling an obviously intelligent person stupid and attempting to change the conversation to personal attacks is pathetic. Go away troll!
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 12:07.
Congratulations. You got my attention with this. I want everyone to know what it is.
This is known as the strategy of 'utilizing someone's humanity against them'. This strategy is very prevalent within the industry as well as the 'talking head' circuit. It's used to shut people up or draw an emotional response which 'breaks their heart' and gives one an 'edge'.
1) I forgive this act and separate it from you- I hope that whatever ails your mind is healed
2) Perhaps you know more about scientists than I do. I figure I can talk about culture all day without revealing trade secrets. People should really understand the 'culture' in terms of 'science within industry'. Maybe you know more about scientists and science within the industry than I do. Let's find out.
Question:
What kind of 'scientific noise' does a scientist make when he/she is not allowed to bring his/her preferred vendors to a 'scientific conference'?
I remember it as a 'whining squeal'. Why don't you tell me what you remember it as? I'm interested in learning from your experience.
Keep it coming. Push buttons.
You push a button and a little slip of paper comes out of my mouth with a 'gem' like that.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 09:19.
Half his family having incurable cancers is not related to Fukushima. Period. And if Leo has time to troll a forum with inane discussions about The Plane Analogy, which he seems to consider so crucial for some reason, the care taking of his dying family members is not so time consuming.
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 11:55.
I am glad someone like leo is here telling the hard truth about the nuclear industry. I don't think Leo is a troll at all. I believe you are the troll Anonymous.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 10:05.
[If you care about your family so much 'don't bother us by pointing out this PR campaign'.]
That's a brilliant example of your methodology. Tell me- does that statement apply to the entire population of the country and world...or just me?
Since the 'low-grade jackals' are here now, (another uncontrolled variable) I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll restrain my posts to 'non anonymous staff members of BRAWM'.
You are weak when you are not in control and that is expressed very well in your scientific methods.
Congratulations- in a way- from your perspective, you've won a bit of silence. Of course from my perspective, my volume just went up.
Keep it coming. I want you to feel that you are doing well.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 17:51.
OK, let's ignore the fact that you assume anyone questioning your position is directly related to the nuclear industry. I'm not, but there is no way to prove that, so assume what you want.
Let me ask you again, how are the cancer cases in your family related to the Airplane Analogy? Moreover, BRAWM provides the public with the raw data, the data on Becquerel per liter or Kg in water, food and soil. What is preventing you from making your own estimations of the risks based on that data?
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 19:52.
The airplane analogy gives a false sense of security to people who may otherwise, with better information, be able to better protect themselves. This is what is very wrong with the airplane analogy.
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 20:28.
I would not have been drinking any milk, or any dairy products for that matter, if I knew the truth about the fallout, especially being pregnant! I would stay away from certain large leaf vegetables. I would try and minimize the amount of internal radionuclides I consume and my children consume, these particulates accumulate in you. Also hepa air filters in your home can help reduce particulates that may be in the dust. Also, staying out of the rain when the fall out was at its worst. Thank you.
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 20:57.
No, I would use supplements and other foods to replace the nutrients lost. You can find out where vegetables are grown and look for the ones that would likely have the least contamination, such as those grown is a green house and watered with filtered water. Anyways, with good information you can make better decisions. The airplane analogy is confusing and misleading people into thinking that radiation fallout is safe. It is ridiculous.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 21:10.
It is not showing it is safe. It demonstrates risk assessment, which people fail to take into account when they go out into the world. People fear flying because of the risk of plane crashes even though death by a car accident is far more likely. The same can be said for radiation. People's fear of it does not match the risk associated. I am not saying there is no risk, but the risk is no where near the level people make it out to be.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 17:56.
But have you ever been to Germany or Sweden, have you seen the 25 year olds from those countries? They were born and raised through the worst of the fallout in Western Europe, thousands or tens of thousands times worse than anything we have seen here in the US. Still, life expectancies and child mortality indicators way beyond what the US can achieve.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Wed, 2011-07-13 12:51.
It's foolish to utilize Germany as an example for your argument. Germany would condemn you for that act. We haven't conducted the proper testing- so we don't know what we face from Fukshima. Lies do not 'become' science any more than lies 'become' men or women.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-14 09:33.
Germany has 24 hour real time monitoring now, 25 years after they were hit by levels of fallout that dwarf anything seen in the US after Fukushima. By Dwarf I mean 40,000 Bq/m2 of Cesium 137 average for South Germany, for example.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 19:37.
Show me some area of science that deals with yes or no. You can never prove definitively yes or no. Science is always in the middle. Now I understand you do not like TEDE because it does not account for all variables. But I ask you, what scientific theory accounts for all variables. None of them do. models are created to best describe situations. When new variables are discovered, they are either added to the model, or if the model cannot provide accurate results with the new variables, the model is scraped for a better one. Now you argue that the only way to truly know the dose and damage from the radionuclides now in our bodies, you need to specifically study the people and effects they have, Well TEDE is the only way to gauge the effects, because if you try to embark on a study to show damage from these small doses, you will fail. The statistical noise of other diseases and other cancer rates will overwhelm the data. There has never been a study showing any ill effects on humans from low doses of radiation. I have yet to understand why you hate TEDE so much. Since you seem to want to argue about the philosophy of science, I recommend reading some Kuhn and Popper to understand how science is done.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 21:03.
Is it really NOT OBVIOUS that this was created for purposes of the industry? Check, please!
You want to know why students like TEDE? Because it cuts down on the hard work necessary to deal with the reality of the science. What student wouldn't like that? Oh yeah...a real 'scientist' who doesn't compromise method.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 20:42.
Everyone is always questioning my understanding of science and never addressing any of my points. Why is that I wonder? It's like character assassination in the face of truth. Is that really the best you have to offer?
1) I understand and agree that all variables cannot be accounted for all of the time
2) My point is that this equation PRIMARILY CONSISTS of uncontrolled variables, 'distribution of isotopes by the means of natural weather' for instance. So in such a situation your point is moot.
3) Show me some area of science that is yes or no? 2+2= 4. Yes or no? Have you never heard of the science of mathematics?
"Well TEDE is the only way to gauge the effects, because if you try to embark on a study to show damage from these small doses, you will fail."
Really? Did the scientists and their families who lived through Chernobyl utilize TEDE?
You have a brain. Use it. I would encourage you to read some Frank Tipler if you want to ponder probabilities. Your mind needs stretching. Stop whining and exercise.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 21:35.
First, mathematics is not science. I do not want to get into a philosophical argument about mathematics. 2+2=4 is a statement that is true, but mathematics is ripe with oddities. For example, I can create a vector space where 1=0. Does that mean all mathematics is wrong? Also, if mathematics is a science, how come it has nonphysical results? At best mathematics a language of the universe. The weather is not an uncontrolled variable since it is not set to be random. It is known and the effects are included to the best of our models. Now those models are limited by chaos, but they do have a reasonable accuracy. The people who study Chernobyl have a difficult time judging effects do to the fact that exact doses are not known. For example, there is no way to account for how long people were outside and breathing the air since that data was not collected.
One last point, don't use Tipler. He believes in Intelligent design, which is not a science. It fails to make any testable predictions and therefore is untestable. He also mixes science with religion in ways that are as crazy as Aquinas's five proofs of god.
??? Revelation? To anybody reading, nothing has changed.
Did you just prove something by not answering to a single one of my arguments? Is that how it works in your world?
Is this a scientist or someone from Fox News attempting to write as if they are a scientist? 'Bilious prose'?
Point out my 'contradiction, conjecture and fabrication', since you speak for science.
____________________
At this moment we need scientific leaders (as well as other technically experienced personnel), to come forward, speak truth and do the right thing for people's health. Some have been doing that, but we need everyone now. It's time to set matters straight about some important issues regarding pubic health. Thank you.
Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."
I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.
Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?
Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."
Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________
Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.
Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)
Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?
I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.
guess I am a minded fool
guess I am a minded fool then
Yep. You are.
Yep. You are.
Wow Leo, you got them
Wow Leo, you got them exposing their true nasty sides
Ready for your next PR Campaign?
Are you really certain that the Airplane Analogy PR Campaign is finished?
Have I promoted myself?
Isn't it 'Nuclear Industry Routine' to follow these procedures?
1) Deny the health consequences of Radiation Fallout.
2) Deceive the public about the true nature of Fukushima Fallout Consequences through marketing and PR.
3) Damage the credibility of industry opponents. (haven't seen any of that with arnie Gundersen on this forum have we?)
4) Defeat attempts to regulate the Nuclear Industry
5) Delay legislation if it can’t be defeated.
6) Destroy legislation once it passes, either by trying to overturn the law in court, by disobeying the law, or by exploiting loopholes.
7) Defend lawsuits filed against the industry. (that's where the Airplane and Banana come in isn't it?
8) Develop new markets around the world.
Here- have some education from people who have humanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3JuSAg0b6A
:( While I remain a tepid
:(
While I remain a tepid supporter of continued nuclear power, LEO raises most of the right questions in this post.
The concerns are not going away. Berating LEO, for his non-tecnical background will not win anybody over.
I might even add one other tactic to the list. Virtually the entire electrical manufacturing industry has worked overtime to prevent viable alternatives and efficient product designs from ever seeing the light of day. The tactic is to prevent the public from having any choices, but 'buy our nasty technologies'.
General Electric has been the global leader in this long-standing, and evil practice. The other players have adopted the same tactics and for the same reasons.
:(
POWER Tactics
:(
The nuclear power industry refuses to acknowledge containment failure as a design criteria for reactors or for disaster response plans. This, despite LOTS of containment failures.
The nuclear power industry and their government stooges prevent availability of radiation decontamination equipment and radiation treatment drugs.
Frankly, those devising such plans, making such decisions and taking such actions, deserve the death penalty or at the very least, stacked life-sentences at hard labor in a terrorist or pauper prison. (ie not a country-club prison)
As with all analogies, you
As with all analogies, you may only push them so far before the details become divergent. However, the intent of the airplane analogy is to give some context to the exposure one would receive. We have spent a great deal of time explaining the concept of Total Effective Dose Equivalent which attempts to equalize health risks of different types of exposures, both internal and external. In general, an airplane dose is approximately 5 microsieverts per 2 hours of flight time. This health risk is cancer occurrence which is 5% per sievert exposure. So, per hour of plane flight one increases their risk of cancer by 1 in 4 million. The risk associated with the extra exposure from the Fukushima fallout is on this order and this is why we decided on the plane flight analogy. In the end, all risk leads to an increase in cancer occurrence, the question is how much of an increase? Just for comparison, if you are a healthy non-smoker, the CDC places your risk of cancer at around 1 in 515 every year.
Dr. Chivers, Does BRAWM Still Defend The airplane Analogy?
Dr. Chivers,
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion as regards the effectiveness of analogies when relating health risk. However, asking you to elaborate on that opinion was not my question sir.
Does BRAWM Still Defend The Airplane Analogy? A 'yes' or 'no' would be appropriate, I believe, in terms of an answer.
Well, maybe I was not clear.
Well, maybe I was not clear. The airplane dose is not so much an analogy but a comparison using the Total Effective Dose Equivalent model. In so far as TEDE represents the risk of cancer occurrence (5% per Sievert) from any exposure to radiation to a reference man, then the comparison is correct and we completely defend it. However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.
Scientists do not deal with black and white (yes or no). We develop detailed models that tend to explain observation within proscribed limits. Very often a model will not be sufficient to explain observations, which calls for corrections to the model or even a different theory altogether. In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.
The Cutting Edge
I concur that: "the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently."
I am intimately familiar with the challenges of mathematical modeling and peer reviewed publication. So it is routine to probe and challenge model deficiencies. So for example, the factoid, "CDC places your risk of cancer at around 1 in 515 every year" downplays the lifetime risk of about 15%, for a nominal 75 year lifespan.
The processes of 'teaching science' and 'explaining science' are far from that cutting edge of discovery. So, some simple 1st order approximations and analogies can serve a purpose. The Banana Equivalent Dose (BED), Radiated Airplane Ride (RAR) and Annual Risk of Cancer (AROC), better serve the the Nuclear Renassance than the public health.
I remain a tepid supporter of continued nuclear power. The misguided tactics of the industry cause more difficulties for me than simple failure analysis. So for example, some anonymous 'simple tool' down the page is badgering LEO. Of course, in my estimation, LEO is badgering Dr. Chivers, who appears to deny the 'Philosophy' in Ph.D.
I'm excited to have you back on the forum, Dr. Chivers.
I'm excited to have you back on the forum, Dr. Chivers.
Perhaps we should establish some ‘common perspective’ Dr. Chivers.
I understand that you probably will not be very comfortable with my tone. It will be respectful but ‘firm as regards the science’. I believe that to be fair. I have identified myself, taken a ‘character narrative’ from the perspective of the ‘uncontrolled variable’ and presented it in a comedic and ‘uncontrolled format’.
Since that has appeared to ruffle feathers, from this point forward on this forum, I will attempt to speak as if I am ‘speaking to a child I love’, which, if you will go back to my very first post, is how I began. (I was quickly pounced upon and found it necessary to develop a character which would ‘set matters straight’. Thus, my character of the ‘uncontrolled variable’ was born.)
I believe that what I am doing is in the interest of public health concerns and in the interest of the scientific and overall reputation of UC Berkeley. I have also given BRAWM ample time to ‘discontinue defense’ of the ‘Airplane Analogy’.
I can’t help but combobulate the ‘Airplane Analogy’. It’s like looking at a sink full of ‘dirty dishes’. I have come here alone, with no cheering squad or helpers, to accomplish that task. I’ve encouraged others to politely and respectfully ask questions, but most are frightened or timid to do so.
______________________
Now since in this 'new character' we will have so much ground to cover, I’ll try to ‘suzuki method’ it along. Please help me by ‘helping me achieve common perspective’ from which we can work. Already, I don’t understand some of your definitions. (???) I grabbed the definition of science- they are all relatively the same definition, aren’t they?:
Science
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Yet Dr. Chivers, you state: “In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.”
Isn’t that a complete misrepresentation of the accepted meaning and definition of science Dr. Chivers? I agree that the slivers of science to which you refer to as ‘the boundaries’ exists, and are encapsulated within the realm of science overall, (as defined within the definition provided), but the ‘opposite’ is not true. Science exists 'throughout' established science, not just at the fringes. The bedrock of 'mathematical science' makes the boundaries of mathematical science possible, not vice versa. 'Addition' was discovered prior to 'division', yes?
You aren’t operating under the illusion that your definition supercedes that of what has been delivered to posterity ‘by’ science- are you Dr. Chivers?
Do we currently agree on the definition of science as I have presented with the generally accepted definition? I would be surprised to find you in disagreement with the dictionary.
'Common perspective' is a powerful scientific tool, wouldn't you agree?
_______________________
Let us also establish some ‘common perspective’ as regards ‘possibility’, ‘probability’ and ‘established reality’. I understand completely your concern for my need to know that:
“Scientists do not deal with black and white (yes or no). We develop detailed models that tend to explain observation within proscribed limits.“
Actually, scientists deal with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ all the time Dr. Chivers. They use the ATM just like I do and I’ve yet to encounter the scientist who withdraws $60 from checking and walks away with ‘ABOUT’ $60.
It’s typically 3 twenty’s and that’s all there is to it. Not a ton of debate or discussion about possibility or probability exists. 'Yes' you get $60 or for whatever reason (uncontrolled variables), 'no' you don't.
(Those ATM machines were created by engineers and scientists by the way. The fact that those machines consistently deliver accurate sums consistently, really builds credibility with their manufacturers and designers.)
__________________
I understand ‘possibility’, ‘probability’ and ‘established reality’ and I can ‘evidence’ that ‘understanding’ for you so that we may establish some ‘common perspective’ which relates to my understanding of these concepts:
I understand that it is ‘possible’ that the same ‘source of science’ which gave us ‘Boiled Water Reactors’, ‘Tsunami Generators in the basement’ and which acknowledges that it ‘cannot detect all the varied forms of radiation released through Fukushima Fallout’, could ‘possibly’, come up with a theory ‘as grandiose’ as what ‘Effective Dose’ and ‘TEDE’ lay claim to.
I just happen to ‘also’ understand that such a premise is not very ‘probable’ due to what the established data and situation reveals.
There is a big difference between ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ isn’t there Dr. Chivers? Infinite differences in fact, yes? (You don’t have to answer all of these questions, I just want you to feel comfortable that I understand these concepts.)
For instance, consider that as a ‘given’, the Nuclear Industry has ‘dirtied it’s diaper’ and was caught ‘unprepared to do anything about it’. At that point what the Nuclear Industry REALLY needed was the ‘Grand Unification Theory’ of ‘Nobody’s Seeing Nuthin’.
And wouldn’t you know it, that‘s my 'subject of inquiry' in terms of what ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ claim to provide in terms of a ‘solution’.
‘Nobody’s Seeing Nuthin’ doesn’t seem very ‘probable’ to me. What do you think ‘probability-wise’? I feel that ‘probably’ it’s such ‘low hanging fruit’ that I don’t need to pluck it…I can ‘kick’ it.
______________________
“Very often a model will not be sufficient to explain observations, which calls for corrections to the model or even a different theory altogether. In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.”
Well…this is why I’m here isn’t it Dr. Chivers? If your ‘scientific theory’ were an automobile, it would ‘break down’ every time you tried to take it out for a drive, wouldn’t it?
_______________________
“However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.”
I believe what you are trying to say, is that your model breaks down whenever one attempts to utilize it to ‘describe’ or ‘gauge’ or ‘compare’ it to ‘the reality of the situation at hand’. Allow me to illustrate why that is. (I believe you to be very, very smart- so I think you already know. I believe you are so smart that you already know all of this, in fact.)
Not one man, woman, child, fetus, zygote or blastocyst, will encounter the ‘radioactive equivalents’ described within your ‘imaginary creation’. All radioactive isotopes encountered in any myriad of ways will be encountered on an individual basis, in their natural form, isotope by isotope, through a broad variety of means such as ingestion, inhalation and other forms of exposure.
That is why your equations will never have practical value for anyone save the Nuclear Industry, which only needs your methods in order to ‘fight off accountability’.
I hope this eases your mind in terms of feeling comfortable that I grasp these concepts and issues.
If so, would you please go back and read all of my points in my posts as regards the many, many, MANY ways in which I’ve evidenced flaws within ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ and give me your scientific, objective view as to how it can possibly still be defended?
____________________
Also, where in your TEDE formulas do you account for ‘uncontrolled variables’?
It seems to me that your model is composed primarily if not completely of ‘controlled variables’, which have been quite ‘effectively’ partitioned in your favor, as you have engineered a method to deal with only a ‘fraction of realistic exposure at a time’.
Your method of TEDE does not account for ‘uncontrolled variables’, however.
True, it’s creation involved due diligence in ‘providing the illusion that all variables are controlled’, but that seems to be the only scientific ‘due diligence’ which was performed.
It seems to me that the way you deal with ‘uncontrolled variables’ is by creating ‘weighting factors’ ad infinitum. That seems very prone to misuse.
That fact in and of itself is enough to send your ‘method’ into the back of ‘Fred Sanford’s truck’, IMHO.
We are not where we are with Fukushima because ‘uncontrolled variables’ were 'taken into account'. It’s clear that even ‘controlled variables’ were not considered and addressed.
Analysis-wise, It’s a ‘fractal reflection’ of the inadequate equation known as ‘Effective Dose’ all the way down the ‘pipe’, isn’t it? That sincerely 'blows me away', sir. It's difficult to comprehend the perfect storm of failure which is the 'Fukushima Nuclear Fiasco' or 'FNF'.
Is there any possible way ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ can survive the scrutiny of reality based science in that light?
I keep looking for ways…but I only come away having found additional flaws.
Please help me understand why such a distinguished scientist such as yourself would defend such a scientific method?
_________________
Also Dr. Chivers, I’d like to know if you think ‘snow days’ or ‘inclement weather days’ are good ideas, in terms of seeking to protect the lives of children? I researched such issues and learned that we adopted such public health policy as ‘inclement weather days’ from the empirical evidence we have that it ‘saves lives’.
I’ll no longer ask you to be succinct as I’d hate to be censored from the forum at this point, so you don’t have to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to that, but most people do, fyi.
I really respect ‘that type of science’ and am looking for any signs of it on this forum. Can you please provide me with a link to what you would consider to be your ‘most prized possession’ in terms of ‘cautionary prudence’ in the wake of the enriched release into 2 separate ‘natural weather related outlets’ (the atmosphere and the sea), of Fukushima born MOX fuel?
If you agree that ‘inclement weather’ and ‘snow days’ are good ideas as regards the preservation of public health, would you agree specifically with a proposal to adopt ‘Nuclear Fallout‘ or ‘Nuclear Weather’ days for the same reasons during such emergencies as what we experienced in mid March? (We know we could potentially decrease thyroid cancer in children for instance, if we kept them indoors for the heaviest/most concentrated weeks of ‘Nuclear Fallout’ distribution and rain, don’t we?)
Again, I'm excited to have you back on the forum, Dr. Chivers.
very good post leo, thank
very good post leo, thank you.
Obviously you have taken a
Obviously you have taken a few courses in "how to argue with a scientist". I learned quite some time ago that entering into a philosophical argument tends to result in a black hole of time and effort. Since I run many other projects other than the BRAWM, and my time is precious, I will leave you with, "I give up, you win."
I stand by my words and the work of BRAWM. Interpret them as you will, and question us if you like. I, along with many of the BRAWM team have written quite a lot on this forum and we hope these words have given many some inside perspective on how these measurements are made and the risks of exposure to radionuclides. We have been honest and forthcoming. That is all I ask of myself and our team. However, responding to philosophical differences is just not the purpose of this forum.
Bottom line, TEDE is the standard for evaluation of health risk from varying sources of radiological exposure. If you wish to enter that argument, please feel free and publish findings to the contrary, present at a conference in front of an audience of well-respected peers, or submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. I can tell you none of these are easy tasks. If your observations warrant a reevaluation of the TEDE model, in time, this model will be updated to reflect the most current knowledge.
As far as my statement: "In fact, the whole of science basically lives at the boundaries where models begin to break down or have not been tested sufficiently.” I will clarify. What I mean is that the primary task of scientists is to seek new knowledge. Models that are well established and tested require less research than models that have limited domains. Scientists work to either solidify a model (or set of models) by extending the domain in which the model accurately predicts observations, or, work to develop new or updated theory to include regions of the domain where observations are not well understood. Therefore, the whole of science (i.e. scientists) work at the boundaries where theory and observation are not well correlated.
I would give up with that
I would give up with that argument too, drshivers. It is very misleading.
Ignore the philosophy and answer the points
Don't you dare run. You know what's at hand.
If you don't want to discuss philosophy then don't bring it up.
Answer the point to uncontrolled variables.
Answer the point to factioned samples of exposure.
Answer the point to abuse of weighting factors.
Answer all of the the points or legitimately give it up.
I've gone easy on you because I feel kind of sorry for you.Fukushima isn't your fault, but unless it was someone else who developed the 'Airplane Analogy' and you want to get them on the line, fess up.
Now are you going to 'defend' or 'give it up' Dr. Chivers? That means withdrawing your defense and calling press conferences with full catering to make certain everyone shows up.
-Uncontrolled variables: If
-Uncontrolled variables:
If what you mean here is that there are "hidden" variables within the system (in this case biological system) that may have an effect on the output that is not taken into account within the model,..., I would say that this is always assumed. The question one must pose is if these variables (yet unknown) provide effects in regions of the input domain that show up in observation? If this is the case, science must tease out these variables by carefully controlled experiments. This is the normal state of science as I see it. Or am I missing your point?
- Factioned samples of exposure:
I'm really not sure what you mean. If you mean that we only have data from a small sample of the population (a faction?) to extrapolate from, and that the model could be uncertain when applied to other population samples or different exposure amplitudes, etc,..., then I would say that this is a valid point. Extrapolation and interpolation are always problematic and "fits" to the data can be tricky and subject to a good deal of arbitrariness if data is sparse. Since the medical field does not experiment with radiation exposures other than cancer treatments, we are limited to the number of accidental exposures that have been recorded over time to provide hard data.
- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur. I have to admit that an amount of arbitrariness occurs in many fields that use "evaluated" data to provide a basis for models and simulations. The only solace I can give someone is that the ICRP committee is transparent and filled with scientists from a diverse set of backgrounds. Their work is widely scrutinized by the scientific community and it would be quite hard to abuse weighting factors.
Hiding the facts in your analysis paralysis
The question is NOT which is worse small radiation from flying on a plane for 8 hours or eating/drinking "slightly" cesium contaminated food for years which irradiates our DNA for the rest of our life?
You do not have to be a "scientist" to figure that one out. Which would you choose Dr? For your two year old child? For pregnant mothers?
The real question EVERYONE continues to ask EPA & UCB (people who breath the same air as we do, but have the equipement to test)
HOW much cesium and other is in our drinking water, soil, food, milk?
Is that too much to ask?
How about the EPA "scientists" researching and informing people steps they can take to eliminate the cesium in the topsoil and drinking water.
HOT BM
:(
HOT Bowel Movements
It is perhaps, overdramatic to suggest that dietary ingestion of radioactive cesium stays in the body for life. The human gut, particularly the large intestine and the kidneys gradually remove the ingested cesium from the body. There are some re-uptake mechanisms, such as through the bile pathways and the daughter radionuclides are a different mechanism. However, there is a metabolic reduction of cesium. This can be mathematically MODELED as a metabolic half-life.
The metabolic half-life is separate and distinct from the radioactive isotope half-life. The untreated mean whole-body effective half-life of cesium-137 is 80 days in adults, 62 days in adolescents, and 42 days in children. http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03d-0023-nad00001.pdf
The more murderous segments of the Nuclear Industry delay patient testing for C-137, in an attempt to reduce liability damages to sick, weak and doomed victims, such as the children of Honshu and Hokkaido islands.
84 days of cesium-137 in a 41lb child's digestive system 2 much
Even 42 days of half life of cesium-137 in my 41 lb child's digestive system is too much. Especially with cesium being incorporated into a growing child's bones.
Since the Environmental "Protection" Agency has chosen to not test our CA farmland soil, food, water & now air, we have been left on our own in un-charted territory.
I've been making sure all my daughters take their vit-c, calcium, & tums. Hopefully, they will absorb the calcium and excrete any cesium.
There is nothing I can do about the air nor all the rain on my "organic" vegetable garden.
We won't know the health effects of the detonation of nuclear reactor #3 and spewing radioactive material into atmosphere and in CA for years. The results will be lost in the immune disease and cancer statistics.
We will see the tragic effects in Japan soon and it can't be as easily hidden. I wish there was something that I could do to help all their children.
Let's continue this tomorrow or Monday.
Thanks for not running.
I can be succinct and non-philosophical if you can.
If you filibuster I will filibuster more effectively.
If you are going to defend it will be a long and thorough defense.
Please ask the moderators to remove my comments and ensuing ugly comments starting with 'My immediate family' and ending with 'I'm so stupid' along with the ugly comment after that.
There is no need to sully this forum with those statements and it was truly an honest moment of being upset. It was NOT stageplay.
The clarification you seek will be provided and I'll be happy to explain my points. You completely miss my point regarding uncontrolled variables. Completely.
I'm going to bed and we will pick this up later. This comment can also be deleted.
It is not our policy to
It is not our policy to delete comments with the possible exception of the use of vulgar language since we know young readers may be visiting the site. We trust the forum users to make judgements of posters based on ALL of their posts. We do not require posters to become verified within our system since we did not want to create a two-tiered community of verified and unverified posters. Posters who hide behind "characters" and change their submission names tend to short-circuit the natural organic process of gaining trust through a history of thoughtful posts and comments. This is a weakness of this forum as I see it, but we are not internet junkies here and we are learning everyday through these interactions about the most effective way to communicate with the public. We take all feedback seriously with respect to the forum and presentation of our data.
I know.
I know and I have sincerely done the best I can to respect that.
One must adjust one's methods with integrity when one encounters 'warm poison rats curling through the wide fence cracks', which is why I have not only identified myself, but also explained the necessity of my methods.
I agree that it is a weakness of the forum. Best of luck with finding the solutions. I mean that.
My immediate family is fighting cancer on several fronts.
You think my time is not precious?
That's cute.
That's cute.
Actually it's called truth
Actually it's called truth
You think this is a game to me?
What the hell is wrong with people?
You know what the root cause is of this problem? People need to get back to respecting each others lives.
Cancer is not an 'Airplane Ride'- are you actually SURPRISED I am here saying that?
Unbelievable.
Why am I even shocked anymore?
Man I'm stupid.
You are?stupid bringing up
You are?stupid bringing up your cancer suffering family in the middle of an unrelated discussion, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Using your family as an excuse when you are getting told.
Pathetic.
Wow, Anonymous. Leo is
Wow, Anonymous. Leo is probably smarter than most of you combined. I would say that calling an obviously intelligent person stupid and attempting to change the conversation to personal attacks is pathetic. Go away troll!
This strategy always leaves me looking for humanity.
Congratulations. You got my attention with this. I want everyone to know what it is.
This is known as the strategy of 'utilizing someone's humanity against them'. This strategy is very prevalent within the industry as well as the 'talking head' circuit. It's used to shut people up or draw an emotional response which 'breaks their heart' and gives one an 'edge'.
1) I forgive this act and separate it from you- I hope that whatever ails your mind is healed
2) Perhaps you know more about scientists than I do. I figure I can talk about culture all day without revealing trade secrets. People should really understand the 'culture' in terms of 'science within industry'. Maybe you know more about scientists and science within the industry than I do. Let's find out.
Question:
What kind of 'scientific noise' does a scientist make when he/she is not allowed to bring his/her preferred vendors to a 'scientific conference'?
I remember it as a 'whining squeal'. Why don't you tell me what you remember it as? I'm interested in learning from your experience.
Keep it coming. Push buttons.
You push a button and a little slip of paper comes out of my mouth with a 'gem' like that.
It's working out very well for you isn't it?
Retained
:(
Whilest LEO graciously forgives this deliberate, rude, personal (ad hominem) attack.
I do not.
The poster (Anonymous-999), in my estimation, is a liar, coward and pocket of pus. The offense is retained.
i believe Leo is saying that
i believe Leo is saying that the nuclear industry is what is causing the cancer. i believe it is related.
Half his family having
Half his family having incurable cancers is not related to Fukushima. Period. And if Leo has time to troll a forum with inane discussions about The Plane Analogy, which he seems to consider so crucial for some reason, the care taking of his dying family members is not so time consuming.
I am glad someone like leo
I am glad someone like leo is here telling the hard truth about the nuclear industry. I don't think Leo is a troll at all. I believe you are the troll Anonymous.
That's a great point you make.
[If you care about your family so much 'don't bother us by pointing out this PR campaign'.]
That's a brilliant example of your methodology. Tell me- does that statement apply to the entire population of the country and world...or just me?
Since the 'low-grade jackals' are here now, (another uncontrolled variable) I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll restrain my posts to 'non anonymous staff members of BRAWM'.
You are weak when you are not in control and that is expressed very well in your scientific methods.
Congratulations- in a way- from your perspective, you've won a bit of silence. Of course from my perspective, my volume just went up.
Keep it coming. I want you to feel that you are doing well.
OK, let's ignore the fact
OK, let's ignore the fact that you assume anyone questioning your position is directly related to the nuclear industry. I'm not, but there is no way to prove that, so assume what you want.
Let me ask you again, how are the cancer cases in your family related to the Airplane Analogy? Moreover, BRAWM provides the public with the raw data, the data on Becquerel per liter or Kg in water, food and soil. What is preventing you from making your own estimations of the risks based on that data?
The airplane analogy gives a
The airplane analogy gives a false sense of security to people who may otherwise, with better information, be able to better protect themselves. This is what is very wrong with the airplane analogy.
Better protect themselves
Better protect themselves how?
I would not have been
I would not have been drinking any milk, or any dairy products for that matter, if I knew the truth about the fallout, especially being pregnant! I would stay away from certain large leaf vegetables. I would try and minimize the amount of internal radionuclides I consume and my children consume, these particulates accumulate in you. Also hepa air filters in your home can help reduce particulates that may be in the dust. Also, staying out of the rain when the fall out was at its worst. Thank you.
Then you would have had to
Then you would have had to consider the effects of the lack of calcium and of fresh vegetables in your diet to the development of your fetus.
No, I would use supplements
No, I would use supplements and other foods to replace the nutrients lost. You can find out where vegetables are grown and look for the ones that would likely have the least contamination, such as those grown is a green house and watered with filtered water. Anyways, with good information you can make better decisions. The airplane analogy is confusing and misleading people into thinking that radiation fallout is safe. It is ridiculous.
It is not showing it is
It is not showing it is safe. It demonstrates risk assessment, which people fail to take into account when they go out into the world. People fear flying because of the risk of plane crashes even though death by a car accident is far more likely. The same can be said for radiation. People's fear of it does not match the risk associated. I am not saying there is no risk, but the risk is no where near the level people make it out to be.
What kind of risk? Life is
What kind of risk? Life is more than life and death and the genes you hand off to your offspring matter as well.
But have you ever been to
But have you ever been to Germany or Sweden, have you seen the 25 year olds from those countries? They were born and raised through the worst of the fallout in Western Europe, thousands or tens of thousands times worse than anything we have seen here in the US. Still, life expectancies and child mortality indicators way beyond what the US can achieve.
Germany has 24 hour real time monitoring of Radiation
It's foolish to utilize Germany as an example for your argument. Germany would condemn you for that act. We haven't conducted the proper testing- so we don't know what we face from Fukshima. Lies do not 'become' science any more than lies 'become' men or women.
Germany has 24 hour real
Germany has 24 hour real time monitoring now, 25 years after they were hit by levels of fallout that dwarf anything seen in the US after Fukushima. By Dwarf I mean 40,000 Bq/m2 of Cesium 137 average for South Germany, for example.
Show me some area of science
Show me some area of science that deals with yes or no. You can never prove definitively yes or no. Science is always in the middle. Now I understand you do not like TEDE because it does not account for all variables. But I ask you, what scientific theory accounts for all variables. None of them do. models are created to best describe situations. When new variables are discovered, they are either added to the model, or if the model cannot provide accurate results with the new variables, the model is scraped for a better one. Now you argue that the only way to truly know the dose and damage from the radionuclides now in our bodies, you need to specifically study the people and effects they have, Well TEDE is the only way to gauge the effects, because if you try to embark on a study to show damage from these small doses, you will fail. The statistical noise of other diseases and other cancer rates will overwhelm the data. There has never been a study showing any ill effects on humans from low doses of radiation. I have yet to understand why you hate TEDE so much. Since you seem to want to argue about the philosophy of science, I recommend reading some Kuhn and Popper to understand how science is done.
Is it really NOT OBVIOUS?
Is it really NOT OBVIOUS that this was created for purposes of the industry? Check, please!
You want to know why students like TEDE? Because it cuts down on the hard work necessary to deal with the reality of the science. What student wouldn't like that? Oh yeah...a real 'scientist' who doesn't compromise method.
In this particular case you fail to understand the base scenario
Everyone is always questioning my understanding of science and never addressing any of my points. Why is that I wonder? It's like character assassination in the face of truth. Is that really the best you have to offer?
1) I understand and agree that all variables cannot be accounted for all of the time
2) My point is that this equation PRIMARILY CONSISTS of uncontrolled variables, 'distribution of isotopes by the means of natural weather' for instance. So in such a situation your point is moot.
3) Show me some area of science that is yes or no? 2+2= 4. Yes or no? Have you never heard of the science of mathematics?
"Well TEDE is the only way to gauge the effects, because if you try to embark on a study to show damage from these small doses, you will fail."
Really? Did the scientists and their families who lived through Chernobyl utilize TEDE?
You have a brain. Use it. I would encourage you to read some Frank Tipler if you want to ponder probabilities. Your mind needs stretching. Stop whining and exercise.
First, mathematics is not
First, mathematics is not science. I do not want to get into a philosophical argument about mathematics. 2+2=4 is a statement that is true, but mathematics is ripe with oddities. For example, I can create a vector space where 1=0. Does that mean all mathematics is wrong? Also, if mathematics is a science, how come it has nonphysical results? At best mathematics a language of the universe. The weather is not an uncontrolled variable since it is not set to be random. It is known and the effects are included to the best of our models. Now those models are limited by chaos, but they do have a reasonable accuracy. The people who study Chernobyl have a difficult time judging effects do to the fact that exact doses are not known. For example, there is no way to account for how long people were outside and breathing the air since that data was not collected.
One last point, don't use Tipler. He believes in Intelligent design, which is not a science. It fails to make any testable predictions and therefore is untestable. He also mixes science with religion in ways that are as crazy as Aquinas's five proofs of god.