Visiting Tokyo Japan in 2013 - Radiation Concerns
My brother and I are planning to travel to Tokyo Japan in May 2013 for 2 weeks of vacation.
Given the 2011 earthquake in Japan that led to the nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Plant, we’ve been doing some research and had a few concerns about the radiation from the fallout. A coworker of mine recently decided to cancel his trip to Japan, so we’ve been concerned even more. I understand that it has been almost 2 years since the incident, and that Fukushima is 160 miles away from Tokyo, but we just wanted to make sure it is safe to visit given that we are not sure what impact has been left behind.
Here are some of our concerns given the research we’ve done on the internet:
1. Cesium and Strontium
A. What is the likelihood of cesium being inahled or ingested. If inhaled or ingested over a 2 week period what are the Long term effects?
B. I’ve read that cesium has a half life of 70 days in the body for adults up to 30 years of age, is this true?
From Japans Consumer Affairs Agency:
The biological half-life for iodine-131 is approximately 11 days in infants, 23 days in five-year-olds and 80 days in adults. For cesium-137, it is approximately 9 days for one-year-olds, 38 days for children up to nine years of age, 70 days for adults up to 30 years of age, and 90 days for adults up to 50 years of age. Therefore, when cesium-137, which has a long physical half-life of 30 years, is taken into the body, the amount remaining in the body is reduced by half in three months (in the case of 50-year-olds).
Source: http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/documents/2011/__icsFiles/afieldf...
C. Does Cesium affect the heart negatively? Do we have reason to be concerned long term if we are only staying for 2 weeks?
D. I notice cesium observations and readings are very common, but I don’t see very much coverage around strontium 90. Is there a reason why the Japanese Government hasn’t given more attention to strontium 90 monitoring in soil, air, and food than cesium monitoring? I’ve read through sites such as wikipedia that strontium can cause lukemia in the long run and would have the most severe effect of all the fallout materials. Is there any reason why the government held off till this year to report these numbers? Please see articles below
Source:
Asahi article on strontium
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207250060
Fukushima diary
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=6942
A Fukushima Blog
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2012/07/now-they-tell-us-ministry-of-educatio...
Ministry of Education, Sports, Science, Technoloy – Japan
Strontium Results (Japansese)
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/contents/6000/5808/24/194_Sr_0724.pdf
Strontium Results (Translated In English):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=...
E. What is the likelihood of strontium being inhaled or ingested? If inhaled or ingested over a 2 week period what are the long term effects? Can you get lukemia from breathing strontium over a 2 week period? Do we have reason to be concerned or paniced?
F. Does strontium stay in the body long run?
G. I’ve also gone to a few other websites to see if there are other concerns around radiation in Tokyo and have attached them below. Are these credible, and should these be reason for concern? The Dr. Chris Busby article especially concerns me, as it implies that maybe indoor areas maybe high with radiation?
1.) Dr. Chris Busby
I watched an online video on You Tube from Dr. Chris Busby. In the video he claims an air condition filter from Tokyo has high levels of radiation. 183,000 BQ Is this credible? Should we be concerned/paniced with hotel rooms and indoor area air quality?
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9pk42kdL4k
Article from a Canadian Website:
http://www.straight.com/node/742851
About Chris Busby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby
2.) Video on train
I watched an online video of a passenger taking a train ride to Tokyo Narita Airport and he found high levels of radiation on the train using a radiation meter. Is this credible and should I be concerned?
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QXYyqdP2o
3.) Radiation Defense Project
This website reported high levels of radiation (cesium) in hotspots around tokyo. Is this credible and should I be concerned?
Source:
http://www.radiationdefense.jp/investigation/metropolitan/?lang=en
About Radiation Defense:
http://www.radiationdefense.jp/about_us/?lang=en
H. Given all these concerns, should we be concerned about visiting Tokyo and Japan? Will these concerns above give us long term issues? Are there any other particles from the fall out that we should be concerned about (ie. plutonium)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my email
Yes
Exactly Farns,
The American Tobacco Institute is still spending Millions for research, to find out why those faulty DNA types are drawn to smoking. The company insists it is against policy to sell cigarrettes to these genetically inferior types.
Roll another one
Everybody else should be allowed to smoke in peace.
SIMPLISTIC analysis
In addition to the Coulters and the Busbys defined above; there is a 3rd group that I will call the "Scientists".
As defined above, the Coulters believe that any radiation that doesn't kill you makes you stronger, which is the typical Hormesis theory.
The scientists believe that radiation causes damage, but that living beings have a radiation damage repair mechanism which has been observed. If the radiation damage is low enough, the damage repair mechanism may completely repair the damage. This puts the nail in the coffin of the LNT - linear no threshold theory. If the damage is repaired; then there is a threshold.
That doesn't mean that the radiation was "good" for you as the Hormesis theory states; it means the damage was repaired.
However, it has also been observed that the radiation damage repair mechanism exhibits an "adaptive response" and that a low radiation exposure "preps" the damage repair mechanism for a larger dose, similar to the way a vaccine "preps" the immune system for the onslaught of the real pathogen.
No positive hormetic effects
No positive hormetic effects
None, Never, Zilch, Nada .... ZERO
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/leukemias-among-chornobyl-cleanup-...
No positive hormetic effects
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-11-24 06:55.
There are NO beneficial exposures to ionizing radiation.
Abstract Excerpts
"inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x/abst...
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms
Anders P. Møller1,*, Timothy A. Mousseau2
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012
© 2012The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society
A total of 46 studies with 373 effect size estimates revealed a small, but highly significant ...
Second, different mean effect sizes on broad categories
Third, these negative effects of radiation on mutations, immunology and life history are inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms.
Hormesis is utter Hogwash
Hormesis is Hogwash
Pitimouse (sic) Chaff in the wind.
The 'Yellow-Mouse' hormesis hogwash are pitiful (pitimouse sic) and spurious non-starters. The conclusions are overly broad and NOT supported by the > 50 years of accumulated evidence.
Radionuclide uptake is bad for plant, animal, bacterial life as well as viral and prion sub-life biology.
There is NO beneficial radionuclide dosage level for terrestrial life forms. There is no beneficial Alpha, Beta, Gamma or Neutron irradiation level for foetal, infant, adolescent, adult and/or elderly hominids.
A dying, discredited nuclear power industry, continues to grasp @ straws, like a drowning man. Their 'Business Model' calls for defective-designed, MOX-fueled, superannuated, embrittled reactors. Nothing matters beside their 'Business Model'. All other concerns, (such as life and health), are trivial, from their delusional, warped, and sociopathic viewpoint.
All the 'Hormesis HOS' sound as stupid, IMHO, as scrawny-stringy-haired, 'Homesis HO-1 Ann Coulter. This is especially true for the Yellow Mouse Brigade.
What's the name of the club made for ewe and me? M-I-C-_ K-E-Y--M-o-u-s-e, ...
da-ta-da Tra-la-la
Pitimouse (sic) Chaff
Hormesis is Hogwash
WRONG - experiments show us otherwise
The above poster states:
No positive hormetic effects
None, Never, Zilch, Nada .... ZERO
However, rather than the unsubstantiated dogma from the above poster, scientists have actually observed that the human response to radiation is more complex than unsubstantiated dogmatic pronouncements by those with no credentials in the field would indicate.
For example, consider the following:
Cells Respond Uniquely to Low Dose Radiation
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Low-Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about 6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to 50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the priming dose.
So scientists have discovered that a low-dose of radiation can "prep" the human radiation response for a much larger dose so that less damage will occur if the damaging dose were not preceded by the low dose. The effect seems to be analogous to the way a vaccine works. An exposure to a weakened or killed variant of a pathogen helps "prep" the body to withstand the onslaught of a more virulent version of the same pathogen.
Now that doesn't mean that we should all get exposure to radiation for no reason. However, it does mean that the dogmatic pronouncements of the non-scientists are just plain WRONG.
The other problem we have is that there are people who are anti-nukes first and scientists second. When science contradicts anti-nuke dogma, they side with the anti-nuke dogma. For example, there is a physicist that works with a well known anti-nuclear group that denounces a test done by scientists at Sandia National Labs with regard to aircraft impacts on reactor containment buildings. The criticism by the anti-nukes of this experiment can be dispelled with a simple calculation that any high school physics student should be able to do. The anti-nukes scientist should be able to do it too; yet he persists in toeing the anti-nuke party line when he should know better.
A single paper that expounds on other published work does not a scientific consensus make. A single paper is just the opinion of the author. However, a single experiment is Mother Nature talking; and a single experiment does carry the day.
Hormesis is Hogwash
Hormesis is Dangerous Hogwash
Pitimouse (sic) Chaff in the wind.
The 'Yellow-Mouse' hormesis hogwash are pitiful (pitimouse sic) and spurious. The conclusions are overly broad and NOT supported by the > 50 years of accumulated evidence. Radionuclide uptake is bad for plant, animal, bacterial life as well as viral and prion sub-life biology.
There is NO beneficial radionuclide dosage level for terrestrial life forms.
A dying, discredited nuclear power industry, continues to grasp @ straws, like a drowning man. Their 'Business Model' calls for defective-designed, MOX-fueled, superannuated, embrittled reactors. Nothing matters beside their 'Business Model'. All other concerns, (such as life and health), are trivial, from their delusional, warped, and sociopathic viewpoint.
Pitimouse (sic) Chaff
Date Check
The LANL paper is dated
The publication date for the LANL paper is July/August 2003
A SCIENTIFIC Meta_Analysis paper represents a good deal more than, as you so inelegantly put it, "just the opinion of the author".
Nice Try, for a Lie
The above poster is no scientist...
The above poster is no scientist. The above poster states
The LANL (sic) is dated
The referenced experiment from LLNL was published in 2003, less than a decade ago. However, the above poster is under the mistaken impression that the results of experiments "go bad" in a few years.
If someone asks a scientist if the universe is expanding, contracting, or saying the same; the scientist will state that the universe is expanding. Pressed for how do we know that; the scientist will cite the breakthrough research of astronomer Edwin Hubble and his assistant Milton Humason. These researchers detected the now famous "red shift" of the spectra of the stars which shows that they are receding from us, and hence the universe is expanding. Those measurements were made in 1929.
Only a fool would say "..those measurements were made in 1929 and are dated. Who knows what the Universe is doing today..."
Experimental results don't "go bad" with the passage of time, like the souring of milk.
The above poster sounds very much like some religious zealot who is desperately attempting to discredit the Hubble / Humason results because they indicate the Universe is a lot older than the few thousand years the religious zealot thinks it is from reading his Bible.
It's a showing of the feebleness of an argument by attempting to say that experimental results are dated.
A scientist doing a meta-analysis can affect the outcome of the analysis by his / her selection of what data to include and what data to exclude.
However, if one does an experiment and reports the results, one is, in effect, asking Mother Nature what the answer is. Mother Nature always gives the same answer, whether the experiment is done yesterday, last week, last year, in July 2003, or in 1929.
Once again the above poster discredits his own feeble arguments.
LLNL not LANL; and Mother Nature doesn't change.
It's LLNL not LANL.
An experiment is an experiment is an experiment.
Has LLNL retracted this publication. Did they say "something went wrong, and we got an erroneous result". Is that what you are claiming.
NO - LLNL did the experiment a decade ago; but if you do the same experiment today, you will get the same results.
You see Mother Nature doesn't changer here ways just because we do. We alter our opinions, but Mother Nature doesn't change.
If an experiment had an error, that a more recent experiment demonstrates; then an experiment can be dated. If an experiment has been shown to be in error , then an institution like LLNL will retract the paper and not display it as an example of their good work.
There has been no retraction of the LLNL paper; so the experiment is as good today as it was back then.
WRONG, your argument is with ...
The BLOGGER listed a source, therefore the comment is, for the present, SUBSTANTIATED, and NOT DOGMA. Your argument is with the SOURCE, not the BLOGGER who cited the Source. Item 3rd indicates the opposite of your presumption.
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms
Anders P. Møller1,*, Timothy A. Mousseau2
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012
© 2012The Authors. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society
A total of 46 studies with 373 effect size estimates revealed a small, but highly significant ...
"Third, these negative effects of radiation on mutations, immunology and life history are inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms."
Stakeholders Not Scientists
The available evidence suggests that this group are the ProNuclear Power Industry STAKEHOLDERS, rather than objective scientific inquirers.
STAKEHOLDERS NOT Scientists
IMHO
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
The scientists I'm speaking of are the Professors and Research Scientists at Universities such as UC-Berkeley. They don't necessarily have any stake in the nuclear power industry. They may have some investment in utilities in their retirement funds; but they aren't beholding to the nuclear power industry any more than any average person. The students aren't all going to work in the nuclear power industry. Physics professors teach physics students that work in all areas of the scientific enterprise.
The scientists also include those that work at the national laboratories. These scientists aren't beholding to the nuclear power industry. They are funded by the US Government, i.e. by Congress. They don't have to please the nuclear power industry in order to get their paychecks.
Additionally, there are scientists that work in industry, not associated with nuclear power. These are the people that design / build X-ray machines for diagnosis and treatment of disease. They aren't beholding to the nuclear power industry in any way.
The anti-nukes have this tendency to portray themselves as the only disinterested parties to the debate. There are plenty of disinterested parties that are not only disinterested, but have a lot more to offer in terms of technical competence and knowledge.
Your KEY Statement
Your Hormesis Premise follows, and I quote ...
(Begin BS Quote) "However, it has also been observed that the radiation damage repair mechanism exhibits an "adaptive response" and that a low radiation exposure "preps" the damage repair mechanism for a larger dose, similar to the way a vaccine "preps" the immune system for the onslaught of the real pathogen." (End BS Quote)
---------------
Pro-Nuke, putting an insignificant distance between ProNuke Lawyer Coulter ...
More of Same ... discredited Hormesis Garbage.
Just as ignorant and dangerous. Little or no nuance.
Same pack of lies!
BRAINLESS anti-nuke omitted the "rest of the story"
The BRAINLESS IDIOT in the above post quotes a statement I made.
However this mindless fool presents the quote with out context, as if I'm the one making the claim out of whole cloth with no substantiation.
What the UNTRUTHFUL MORON is hiding from the forum is that I posted that quote along with a citation to a report and experiment that was done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Cells Respond Uniquely to Low Dose Radiation
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Low-Dose Exposure Can Protect
The team also discovered that the human lymphoblastoid cells exhibit what is called an adaptive response to ionizing radiation. An extremely low dose (also called a priming dose) appears to offer protection to the cell from a subsequent high dose (2 grays) of ionizing radiation. The degree of protection was measured by the amount of reduced chromosomal damage. A priming dose of 0.05 gray, administered about 6 hours before the high dose, can reduce chromosomal damage by 20 to 50 percent, compared with damage to cells that were not exposed to the priming dose.
The IDIOT must not be a scientist, and so doesn't understand that in science we must be prepared to dispense with our preconceived prejudices when we get experimental evidence to the contrary.
Many people didn't like the idea of lengths and rate of passage of time changing in response to velocity, but that is what Einstein showed us and what subsequent experiments have shown.
Likewise here; it matters not a whit as to the preconceived prejudices of little moronic anti-nukes that want to believe a simplistic theory that radiation is just plain bad in all forms and in all amounts. The scientist at LLNL showed us that isn't true. An experiment, which is Mother Nature talking, showed that less damage occurred in living human cells if the damaging radiation was preceded by a low-dose of radiation.
I know that doesn't fit with the anti-nuke dogma, so the little brainless anti-nuke lemmings simply discard the experiment and its implications. I'm a scientist, and scientists don't discard data when it suits us like the IDIOTS do.
Damaged Cells
The bottom line is ... damaged cells, for plants & animals
High doses burn the through immune response capability.
Lower doses allow some response to be mounted to the radioactivity INSULT.
Still, the operant concept is Radioactive Tissue Damage at every dose
WRONG!!
You haven't read the conclusions of the Low-Dose Studies conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At sufficiently low dose, the repair mechanism has the capability to completely repair the damage, and hence there is a low dosage threshold.
Read the conclusions of the study voiced by LBNL researcher Mina Bissell:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/
Berkeley Lab Researchers Find Evidence Suggesting Risk May Not Be Proportional to Dose at Low Dose Levels
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
Ann Coulter is a demonstrated LIAR, IMHO
Ann Coulter and the other PRONUKE Trolls (AC & PNT)are proven liars, and deliberate liars at that, IMHO.
AC & PNT are desparately attempting to raise the FALSE dichotomy that their counter-weights in this discussion are similarly Crazy-Liars. AC & PNT have NOT MADE that case, to date ... again IMHO. They are attempting the Tu Quoque logical FALLACY, but are nowhere near demonstrating ANY credibility in that regard.
Continuous, but unsubstantiated, attacks upon Gundersen, Christopher Busby, Helen Caldicott have failed to convince, that they are in ANY FASHION irresponsible. Quite the contrary.
The Truth may be best represented by their position or to this side or the other, of their present assertions. That detail is still under review. The reality may beeven worse than THEY presently suggest. They may be giddy optomists, but I certainly hope not.
Many, IMHO, honest attempts to fathom this answer are underway; as are a number of BOGUS frauds.
We shall see.
So who is basing their opinion on Ann Coulter
I don't see anyone here basing their opinions on what Ann Coulter says. I see anti-nukes attempting to attribute the opinions of the pro-nukes to Ann Coulter so that they can discredit them.
However, the pro-nukes here are not citing Ann Coulter as the source of their opinions. They are citing scientists that work at national labs such as Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and who have published their results in prestigious scientific journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
In referring to Ann Coulter, the anti-nukes are employing the standard "straw man fallacy"; which is to recast, i.e. LIE, about your opponents position in order to create something that is easy to knock down.
Bill, Seatbelts and helmets
Bill,
Seatbelts and helmets do not cause cancer. If there were no carcinogens and you always wore your seatbelt or helmet you would not get cancer. Living longer does not cause cancer either. Rather it is cancer that stops you from living longer. That distinction is important. The two things are related but you have got the cause backwards. Cancer is the cause of not living longer.
Cancer IS
Cancer can be viewed as:
Cause
Effect
Sign
Symptom
Hard-Wired
Depending upon the context and purpose.
Cancer incidence increases (exponentially) with age; that is an observable FACT.
The causes relate to: intrinsic genetic coding, random replication error, sustained DNA/chromosomal damage and the like. Short shrift for a large subject. However accurate within the limits.
Yes. Everyone will get cancer
Yes.
Everyone will get cancer if they live long enough.
The only way to ensure that you will never die of cancer is to die of something else, first.
Diemos
Dementia
Lots of other hard-wired and/or terminal conditions. Most everyone will get dementia, cancer and various organ/system failures with age. Cancer is not really the absolute KILL-ALL. Aging limits are multifaceted. Some population groups or individuals might NOT be susceptable to cancer for a LONG time. This is the case with certain (other) animals.
Some have been rumored/recorded to have lived a LOOONNNGG time such as Buddha and Methuselah and the Giants of Pakistan.
Perhaps these are verifiable or myth; however widely venerated. Certainly, medical science is presently pushing the age limits well past 100 years for Sturdy Stock folk.
120 -150 may be doable, desirable in some individuals and/or population with an acceptable quality of life. Nuclear reactor meltdowns and atomic explosions are NOT conducive to this potential option.
No exposure levels are safe
Even low-level radioactivity is damaging
Broad analysis of many radiation studies finds no exposure threshold that precludes harm to life
http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5214#.UK0uo5G9KK3
NOT!
The nuclear power industry presents a great number of unique concerns.
First, in my estimation, is the long-term pattern of lying, trickery & deceit; regarding the hazards.
Second, the complete disruption of the scientific process and scientific integrity regarding nuclear hazards.
Third, the continual 'pushing the limits' of material science, with uprating and license extensions.
Fourth, the total loss of citizen-political control, at the state & local level, to shut these beasts down. The subsumed, silent, collaborative MEDIA figures into this concern.
Fifth, the objective level of ACTUAL and likely health hazards to me and mine (kith & kin). This concern then is extended in concentric circles to friends, regions, ecosystems, nations and so forth.
IMHO
You must be reading too much propaganda...
You must be reading too much propaganda. Your first three points are completely without merit.
I've found that the claimed pattern by the anti-nukes of lying on behalf of the nuclear power industry to be nothing more than intellectual ineptness on behalf of the anti-nukes.
I've yet to see any disruption of scientific integrity by the nuclear power industry or the scientific establishment that supports them.
There has been no "pushing of limits" of material science with upratings and license extensions. This has also been mostly misunderstandings by the anti-nukes that "thought" ( term used loosely ) that nuclear power plants had a design life equal to the term of the license. That is completely their lack of comprehension.
Speaking of lack of comprehension and mental ineptitude; the fourth point is a clear example of that. Did you even think about this before you posted or, more probably, did you just mindlessly / brainlessly parrot this from some anti-nuclear website?
Nuclear power is hardly unique in having the federal government pre-emption of State and local controls.
Can the State of Colorado decertify the airworthiness of the Boeing 767 when said plane overflies the State of Colorado? Of course NOT!! It would be ridiculous and a nightmare for air traffic control to have a single aircraft type excluded from overflying a given State. In the interest of uniformity, the Congress vested sole authority for the determination of airworthiness of a given aircraft type in the FAA.
Can the City of Berkeley ban SUVs from the highways and by-ways within the City ( as much as they would like to )? Of course not. The determination of what cars are safe and not safe; or how much they pollute the air is another field in which Congress has given sole authority to federal agencies.
There are many cases from aviation to automotive to prescription drugs to product safety where Congress has invested sole regulatory powers in a given federal agency.
Only those with the most feeble of mental powers would "think" (term used loosely) that somehow nuclear power was unique in that matter.
I would bet most US citizens of even average intellect could name a number of areas the regulation of which is the sole province of the federal government.
Another that readily comes to mind is the meat processing industry; which recently won a unanimous decision before the US Supreme Court against the State of California in a decision penned by Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan. As Vermont Law School professor Cheryl Hanna points out; this latest ruling strengthens the case of the Vermont Yankee owners over the State of Vermont:
http://vtyankeelawsuit.vermontlaw.edu/january-24-2012-chery-hanna-nation...
As Professor Hanna points out, in this latest unanimous US Supreme Court ruling, the US Supreme Court strengthens the hand of the NRC versus that of the State of Vermont. In striking down the California law, the US Supreme Court states that the legislative motives of the State need not be addressed by the Courts.
The US Supreme Court set new precedent in that if the net outcome of the State's regulation is a trespass on Federal authority, then the State's power is preempted regardless of the motives of the State. The State can't trespass into Federal jurisdiction "by the back door". The motive of the State of California was animal welfare and not a desire to regulated the meat industry. Nevertheless, the noble intentions of the State of California do not let it intrude in a regulatory arena Congress has garnered for Federal jurisdiction.
In the Vermont Yankee case, Judge Murtha's decision need not have addressed the motives of the State of Vermont, an issue that is under appeal. This new US Supreme Court case will make it very easy for the Appeals Court to uphold Judge Murtha's decision against the State of Vermont. Vermont clearly would have zero chance should the case ever reach the US Supreme Court.
SCOTUS Insurrection
Decisions of corrupt federal courts are hardly probative. Virtually every decision and policy you cite is in violation of Amendment IX and/or Amendment X. Actions by the executive, judiciary and/or legislative branch in violation of the constitution, constitute the additional act of insurrection under Amendment XIV.
However, even given that, California DOES more tightly regulate vehicle emissions than the feds. Several states enforce appliance efficiency standards more stringent than the federal standard. MANY models are effectively banned from California, that are allowed elsewhere.
It is also impudent for you to suggest that a 15% thermal generation rate, in the same reactor does not dimenish the safety margin. Similarly, the MOX fuel is HOTTER, than UOX; else there would be no increased thermal output. This is after all, an ENGINEERING blog, you LYING dolt.
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
The above poster again displays a sorry lack of intellect in misuderstanding Amendment X of the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Evidently the above poster doesn't understand the implication of the first phrase in the amendment quoted above. The powers that are reserved to the States or to the people are only those that are not delegated to the Federal Government.
Each of the examples of federal powers listed above are powers that the Federal Government has been given by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).
Because the those powers have been given to Congress; then the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution ( Article VI, Clause 2 ) states that federal law trumps state and / or local laws.
California can ONLY regulate vehicle emission more than the federal standards with the permission of the federal government. Read the following and learn something:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20epa.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.
The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.
Although the above pertains to CO2 emissions; the principle applies to all. California emission limits are subject to approval by the Federal EPA, which can deny approval as stated in the first sentence of the article. Before you continue to make a fool of yourself; why don't you get the law and facts straight?
The IDIOT that posted the above may know some trifflings of heat transfer, but is evidently totally devoid of any understanding of reactor physics and the Boltzmann Transport Equation. Because the Boltzmann equation is homogeneous and linear; the solution is indeterminant to a multiplicative constant. That means that the reactor can operate at any power.
The above poster evidently doesn't understand that reactor safety and technical spec margins are NOT based on fuel temperature, but on cladding temperature, which is after all the interface to the coolant. The reason why you can increase the power 15% is that the increased thermal conductivity allows you to do so without violating the technical specs limit on cladding temperature and heat flux. I used to teach this stuff; you aren't going to trip me up on something like this.
The stupid anti-nukes are always doing this. They harp on some meaningless difference, and claim that the difference of substance, when it is not.
I've looked at all the stupid claims on the anti-nuke websites; so I know just where you are parroting your insipid nonsense.
Amendments Limit Commerce Clause
Amendments IX and X, came later and thus, in reality, LIMITED the commerce clause.
Perhaps jackasses in bathrobes is a more accurate description of SCOTUS and the even more inferior federal courts and the generally counter-productive PLUGS sitting on the benches.
There are FEW phrases within the body of the constitution which are indelible. One such phrase, in Article V, follows:
"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a5
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/unamendable.html
The Commerce Clause enjoys no such protection and favor. Federal Court decisions on the commerce clause are generally horse-hockey; penned by jackasses in bathrobes.
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
How does Amendment X limit the Commerce Clause?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The first clause of Amendment X is actually a limit on the Amendment itself.
The only powers that the Amendment reserves to the States and people are those that are not delegated to the Federal Government.
The Commerce Clause is one such Constitutional clause that is delegating powers. Other clauses delegate national defense to the Federal Government. National defense is NOT an eligible power for distribution to the States and people by the 10th Amendment. It is a power that is reserved to Congress.
Likewise, with the Commerce clause. Certain economic activity that is inter-state in nature is clearly given to Congress. Would you argue that Congress doesn't have the power to regulate air travel?
It's easy to parse the 10th Amendment for meaning. That first clause EXEMPTS any power that the Constitution gives to the Federal government from being given to the States and people. If the Federal Government gets the power, then it is INELIGIBLE by the 10th Amendment itself from being distributed to the States and people.
The Commerce Clause is just one of the clauses in the Constitution that gives Congress a power that is ineligible to be given to the States because it was reserved to the Federal Government.
Interstate Commerce
Interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.
Congress was NEVER granted power to regulate commerce; only a small subset of commerce.
The rest of the federal code is forCRAP.
Over-Reaching, as far as the eye can see!
And, provably as well as utterly corrupt!
Congress regulates INTERSTATE commerce
So lets look at the two fields that I have claimed that Congress has control over; aviation and nuclear power.
Congress has control over aviation for at least two Constitutional reasons, defense and inter-state commerce. It was less than two decades after the Wright Brothers demonstrated heavier than air flight, that the technology was employed in World War I ( "curse you Red Baron" ). Some of the first uses of aviation were military.
Someone needs to pass a law that tells Boeing and Lockheed that they can't sell aircraft that can drop bombs and fire projectiles to nations that we don't like and who don't like us. We don't want our own companies arming our enemies. So who is going to pass that law? The State of California? NO - that law is in the interest of the USA as a whole; so Congress has a duty to regulate aviation as part of its Constitutionally given, sole responsibility for the USA's defense.
Additionally, aircraft carry both passengers and goods from State to State. So is there any argument that aviation is a federal regulatory responsibility under the Commerce Clause? I don't think so.
So can we agree that aviation is a field that Congress has at least two good Constitutional bases for regulating??
Now lets look at the field of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is similar to aviation in that it also has defense applications. Therefore, the US Supreme Court has upheld the regulatory function of Congress over nuclear energy due to Congress' defense powers.
Additionally, our electric grid is inter-connected among the States. We ship electrons from State to State just as we ship people and goods State to State in the aviation industry. Just as aviation is interstate commerce, and qualifies for regulation by Congress; so does nuclear energy.
Lets take a case in point; the largest nuclear power plant in USA is the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant 45 miles west of Phoenix. It's a large multi-gigawatt electric power plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Palo Verde doesn't have just one owner; there are multiple owners. The largest stake is owned by Arizona Public Service ( 29.1% ) and the plant serves customers in Arizona including Phoenix. However, Palo Verde is also partially owned by California power companies, like Southern California Edison and Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power; and the plant serves California too.
So should the people of Phoenix be the only ones to determine whether Palo Verde operates or not? Palo Verde has more stakeholders than just the people of Phoenix.
Suppose the people of Phoenix did have sole control of whether Palo Verde operated or not, and Phoenix decided to shut Palo Verde down. How could one replace the multi-gigawatts of continuous 24/7 power provided by Palo Verde. Solar can't do that. Wind can't do that. The only thing that could really replace Palo Verde would be a nice big coal power plant. If Phoenix decided to replace Palo Verde with a big coal plant, the effluent gas from the plant isn't going to stay in Phoenix; it's going to drift west into New Mexico...
So the stakeholders in the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant stretch from California to Arizona to New Mexico...
This is EXACTLY the circumstances the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the Commerce Clause; multiple stakeholders in multiple States. Who better than the Federal Government to regulate an activity that has such wide reaching consequences.
So there should be no question that nuclear power is and should be regulated by the Federal Government.
That doesn't sit well with the anti-nukes. The Congress chartered originally the AEC in 1954 to regulate nuclear power, and later split that function off and formed the NRC in 1974. The NRC is staffed with scientists and engineers to advise the commissioners.
The problem for the anti-nukes is because of their self-righteousness and stupidity; they never get the science correct. They go to the NRC with all sorts of pronouncements of doom that don't hold water in the scientific sense. You want to read some of that; just read some of the posts in this forum.
The NRC has this cadre of intelligent scientists and engineers to tell them that the arguments of the anti-nukes are crap and not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, the NRC overrules the anti-nukes almost universally. Then the anti-nukes claim the NRC is biased.
It's as if we got a bunch of really smart people like Ken Jennings to play JEOPARDY! against a bunch of really stupid people. In a game of JEOPARDY!, the smart people would "clean the clocks", or "wipe the floor" with the stupid people. Then the stupid people would claim Alex Trebek and the staff of JEOPARDY! were biased.
JEOPARDY! isn't biased. It's just that smart people will triumph over stupid people at a game of JEOPARDY!. It's not bias. Likewise, the scientists and engineers at the NRC triumph over the anti-nukes, for the same, legitimate reason.
Correction
the effluent is going to drift EAST into New Mexico.
It ALL matters
Temperature MATTERS
Pressure MATTERS
Throughput MATTERS
VOLUME MATTERS
State Change MATTERS
Corrosion MATTERS
Embrittlement MATTERS
Thermal Cycling MATTERS
Delta T, P, V, ... et all MATTER, you semi-functional moron!
Certain nuclear reactors have demonstrated RESONANCE phenomena, subsequent to uprates.
RESONANCE for gawdamnsure MATTERS
You are one seriously STUPID liar.
Resonances in reactors means something different...
Coupled mechanical system display resonant properties and resonance.
However, in regard to nuclear reactors, the term has been borrowed to describe a quantum mechanical effect in the reaction cross-sections of various nuclei. Courtesy of Penn State University:
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/lec11.pdf
Since you are not conversant in the field of reactor physics and nuclear reactions; you were fooled by the co-opting of a common term ( resonance ) for something that you don't understand.
You naively say "everything matters". In the case of the use of MOX, then Plutonium atoms are merely displacing Uranium atoms in the fuel. There are some differences in the use of Plutonium vis-a-vis Uranium which you don't know about. However, for most effects, the Plutonium is a compatible replacement for Uranium, and since the system was designed to use Uranium, the use of Plutonium doesn't make a substantial change.
Evidently you don't realize, since you are not a nuclear physicist that even if you don't use MOX; nuclear reactors make Plutonium or MOX in situ ( that's where it comes from ) and that 40% of the energy that a nuclear reactor produces comes from burning Plutonium; even if you don't recycle MOX fuel back to the reactor.
Idiot anti-nukes, like the above, don't understand that nuclear reactors are designed to burn the Plutonium they create in situ without complication.
Just admit that you are fumbling with matters that are way over your head in terms of comprehension.
Our dear CLUELESS ENGINEER
Our dear CLUELESS ENGINEER reveals the depths of his technological incompetence with every post.
He should just stick to the endless chants of "you're lying ... you're lying ... you're lying"
Chanting lie
Endless chants of "you're lying" seem to be more YOUR specialty.
Rude Dog tells you that you are wrong; but you are the one that claims everyone else is lying.
oxymora
Again,
This is an ENGINEERING BLOG. We, engineers ... HAVE A CLUE, regarding PHYSICAL REALITY.
Oxymora, from the Greek, is a contradictory couplet, such as 'Jumbo Shrimp'.
Rude Dog, occasionally cluelessly uses the couplet, "Clueless Engineer", an oxymora, when used in a technical discussion of physical phenomena and technical machinery.
Some engineers might be clueless in certain social, religious and/or artistic milieu. We have our specialties and areas of experience and expertise; but clueless about realized physical devices ... never.
This lunatic Rude Dog, again admits in his repeated couplet, that his earlier claims to be an engineer and/or engineering professor; are false. Plus, he repeatedly demonstrates his idiocy, attempting to use such EARNED honors as engineer, physician, hero ... as perjorative, on an engineering blog.
Rude Dog is Stupid^3 or perhaps ...
Stupid^X
limit as X --->∞
I refer to you as CLUELESS
I refer to you as CLUELESS ENGINEER because you claim to be an engineer and you are demonstrably clueless.
If/when you choose a handle and sign your posts with it I will do you the courtesy of referring to you by your handle.
Diemos
Really???
Can you point to a post where Rude Dog uses "clueless engineer"?
That doesn't seem to be one of his sayings.
CLUELESS ENGINEER is a saying
CLUELESS ENGINEER
is a saying of poster Diemos. While our dear CLUELESS ENGINEER may know enough jargon to impress the rubes, anyone with actual technical knowledge can instantly see the problems with what he's saying.
Diemos is not Rude Dog. While Diemos is happy to discuss technical matters with people who want to understand he rarely wastes any time responding to ideologues whose answer to anyone that does not agree with them is, "you're lying ... you're lying ... you're lying".
Diemos
Quit LYING
Fine,
Quit Lying, Shut Up, and/or quit whining about your LIES being called out.
Liars LIE, accuse and then WHINE. We are used to it. Admit & correct your errors, and you are not a liar. This is NOT a characteristic EVER observed in ProNuke ideologues and zealots.
Name identified posts have not been an option for some time. Rude Dog has a habit of mischaracterizing himself; but his/her writing style and content are generally quite evident.
Keep Lying and you are considered a liar. It is a fairly simple concept, rendered to practice.
Whoever you are; you are a liar. We welcome your silences and laugh at your lies. You will not be missed. However, it is evident that you will return.
Typical CLUELESS ENGINEER
Typical CLUELESS ENGINEER post. Endless chants of lie, lie, lie without ever specifying what he is accusing me of lying about.
Did I say the sun rises in the west?
Did I say water was dry?
When you accuse someone of lying be specific about what you claim they are lying about. Then others can make a determination for themselves whether it is true or not.
Diemos
Quit Whining
Quit Whining and make your point
Whining, pissing and moaning is not convincing.
I remain convinced that Diemos is AKA Rude Dog
But a separate individual penning the same Trollish garbage is REMOTELY possible.
That is a distinction without a difference, IMHO.
Add something of value ... or not. Keep whining if you wish.
Rude Dog ... shoo!
The Rude Dog value is zero.
Rude Dog is not an engineer, attorney, scientist, retired-professor, bar-owner or astronaut.
Rude Dog is merely a NESCIENT Lying-Beech!
Go Away, Rude Dog ... shoo!
Res Judicata
Really???
If Rude Dog is not a scientist or engineer; then how did he / she know about the "resonant" cross-sections discussed beginning on page 10 of the lecture notes from Penn State University that Rude Dog linked to above?
I think you are out-matched.
Your Mom's Basement
It appears that Rude Dog surfs the web, with zero insight, from his mom's basement.
Certainly, the Rude Dog has no engineering background.
Oh, and NOT the resonance phenomenon that I mentioned.
You lying dog
Rude Dog must be a scientist
It may not have been the resonance phenomenon that you were talking about, but the Penn State lecture notes detail a scientific methodology or theory having to do with resonance cross-sections. This is not something that your everyday "man on the street", Joe Everyman, or whatever knows. It is something that a nuclear scientist would know. Therefore, I conclude that Rude Dog is a nuclear scientist because of a demonstrated knowledge of a scientific nature that is not common knowledge.
It is HOWEVER
Rude Dog
Resonance is NOT a new term for 'usens' Engineers. It is a routine concern that we ALL first encountered in FRESHMAN level engineering classes, so I'll not elaborate.
You on the other hand, first hear the term and then scour the internet with some search engine. If you get the spelling and question close enough ... up pops some reference, somewhere. It is NEWS to you, it is OLD NEWS to us.
Your comment again proves that you have been lying about ANY engineering background what-the-'F'-soever. It is difficult for a MORON to fake a legitimate professional education. Every word that I blog, reflects an engineering worldview. Every word that you type reflects the absence thereof.
TTFN
Resonace isn't new!
Resonance isn't new. Lots of engineers know about resonances.
However, the term "resonance" was "co-opted" by the scientists in the nuclear field to describe a particular quantum mechanical effect, namely "resonance cross-sections". That is the term that Rude Dog responded on.
If you Google "resonance", you are going to be swamped with all the references to resonance in the normal mechanical sense. A reference to "resonance cross sections" is NOT a high profile or high on the list of the Google response to "resonance".
NO - it is clear that someone who knows about "resonance cross-sections" had to know about that before using Google. If you Google "resonance", Google doesn't show "resonance cross sections". You have to Google the term, "resonance cross sections" if you want Google to find the quantum mechanical version.
So Rude Dog had to know "resonance cross sections" before his Google search. He didn't learn about "resonance cross sections" from Google as you are attempting to claim with your erroneous, feeble logic.
It's evident that you didn't know about "resonance cross sections" before this thread. However, remember this forum is hosted by the UC-Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Dept, and the faculty and students of that Department who follow this forum and this thread certainly know about "resonance cross sections". So you aren't fooling anyone ( with the possible exception of yourself. But that's no mean feat. )
bath-robed JERKS
Au contraire, mon amie; or should I say mon enemy?
As stated above, BOGUS decisions by corrupt courts are NOT probative.
The federal courts are engaged in OPEN Insurrection, under Amendment XIV.
The bath-robed JERKS on the federal bench, and their nut-ball 'decisions' are writ on toilet paper. They should be brought to justice!
IMHO