Please read:
This post is a bit more metaphysics than physics, and overdue.
I have been reading the posts on this forum for the last week and it has turned from scientific discussion to a hangout for paranoid delusionals. I think everyone who is posting anxiety-dripping topics and replies needs to make a re-evalution.
The situation in Japan is pressing and important, but it has already been shown that unless you live in Japan, it's not anywhere near life-threatening or deserving of the hysterical rhetoric posted here.
How are the Japanese people dealing with this issue that is on their doorstep? They are scared, but are composed and functional. When you look across the board here, you see people that are driving themselves crazy with molehills being turned into mountains.
It's not good that we, as a society, screwed up and had this level of accident, but the world has seen worse, and yet we are still alive as a race.
I'm not going to downplay the risks, or say this will or won't cause people to get cancer or any other outcome; the control over that aspect is minimal.
However, in each of our lives, there are situations we can't control even though we can make adjustments. And, when your number is up, it's time.
What this boils down to, is that America had become the land of adult children, not adults. We are too sheltered and soft. No strength or constitution. Have some dignity, and if it's your time to go or face your fate, face it with courage and don't hide under the rug.
Do what you love, and don't let this stop you from living your lives. I would also recommend reading "On the Beach" if you already haven't.
Please bring on the science and leave the drama at the door.
Agreed
That the risk is marginal and that people in Japan should be worried. Glad we were able to find some common ground and I have been less concerned as more information is released by the UC Berkeley team.
Disagree that background radiation in CO is equivalent to inhaling/ingesting low level radionuclides for everyone in the population. My guess is the health outcomes of babies exposed to I-131 in utero versus those carried to term at a higher elevation but without the I-131 exposure would be worse off. The problem is scientists don't really know the effects of ionizing radiation at this level other than the general consensus is that no radiation is good - not sure how expressing concern and trying to get information is blowing things out of proportion, but sorry you feel that way.
Please try to keep
Please try to keep everything in perspective. People 50 years ago wore radium watches. Radium is a gamma emitter. They would wear them, sleep with them and which the risk of cancer is elevated is was not an epidemic.
Radium watches were discontinued because we acknowledge that less radiation is better. And that's all that really can be said; ask a doctor.
Anyone who would cite a
Anyone who would cite a radium watch as an example is a professional shill.
Irrelevant, and disingenuous
Irrelevant, and disingenuous to boot. People SLEPT with radium watches -- they didn't eat, or inhale, them.
Just saying. Nobody knows nothing about this, not really. It's ALL guesswork, conjecture and (wishful or otherwise) thinking... The only thing EVERYBODY seems to agree on is, breathing in and consuming radioactive particles is BAD. (Well, except Ann Coulter, anyway.)
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
It's not disingenuous at
It's not disingenuous at all. A rather large radioactive source, far larger than a few atoms inside you, irradiating blood bone and other organs (depending on where your arm lay at night). No, it was probably worse.
Let's try this:
OK, let's try this: I'll be more than happy to meet you halfway and admit that I have NO idea what I'm talking about, that I can offer NO proof that inhalation of, ingestion of AND exposure to radionuclides in the immediate environment, without protection between us and them, of ANY kind, is necessarily "WORSE" for your health than wearing a radium watch on your wrist. But -- it sure sounds bad, and I'd certainly rather not, if I have a choice (and, you know, I DON'T, and neither do any of us). If I can admit that, will YOU admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, either, and are ASSUMING that wearing a radium watch on your wrist is more dangerous than what I just outlined above? ...And we'll agree to disagree, and hope that NEITHER of us ever comes into possession of objective, personal evidence to prove either ONE of us right, or wrong.
Deal?
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
http://www.pmwf.com/Phorum/re
http://www.pmwf.com/Phorum/read.php?24,30630,30630
Umm, no. Do you know how
Umm, no. Do you know how much a radium watch gives off?
http://www.pmwf.com/Phorum/read.php?24,30630,30630&ved=0CCEQFjAEOAo&usg=...
The women who painted these
The women who painted these watches often became gravely ill. It is assumed they would lick the paint brushes.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No, I have to admit, I didn't. Just a rhetorical question, here: What do you think would be worse -- wearing that radium, or eating it? (Nevermind.)
...You know, you're just absolutely right, and I'm just absolutely wrong. It must be nice to know the UNknowns even very learned, experienced, and dedicated people freely admit to being less-than-certain about.
Thanks for clearing that up, and sorry to waste your time.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
I could not agree more!
I could not agree more!
We've been lied to all along.
I could probably take comfort in your words if we hadn't been lied to all along. You see, so many so-called nuclear "experts" went out shilling for money. They appeared on news programs and wrote articles saying that there would be "no dangerous radiation" leaked from Fukushima.
I am sure everyone remembers that. "There is nothing for anyone to worry about." "This will be under control." "Once we hook up the power, we'll have pumps circulating." "It won't be a meltdown." "It's only partially melting down." "It's not as bad as Chernobyl." "It's not the same as Chernobyl." Pfffft.
It seems that either they didn't know what they were talking about, or they were flatly lying. Dangerous radiation has leaked and the evacuation zone was too small. So now we're supposed to take the word of these same experts that we won't have problems in the US? If you would lie to the Japanese, why would you tell us the truth?
And really, how can you make those assurances when over half the EPA monitoring stations are down. . . conveniently.
Frankly, I will only listen to those experts who will stand up and give their analysis of the situation while simultaneously disclosing their funding sources. It seems the nuclear industry has some deep pockets and can buy off plenty of experts to shill for them.
So let's start with you. Just post a disclaimer that you do not receive any sort of "benefit" or remuneration for posting this types of messages.
I'm betting you won't.
Your post is very troubling.
Your post is very troubling. I quite think you would benefit from taking a larger view that it's blind trust in organizations and appendages of governement that led you into this mess in the first place.
Be objective and learn and think for yourself. You will lead a richer life for it.
You didn't answer the question
Were you paid to write that article? Are you affiliated with the nuclear lobby?
No, I am not paid to write
No, I am not paid to write this. How can you accuse someone of trying to deceive you when you are already deluding yourself.
Oh you are good! But not
Oh you are good! But not that good. You are government no doubt in my mind. I have heard nobody trying to sell the position you are except govt. Well why don't you make yourself useful and tell them to test for all the isotopes and types of rads instead of one. And meanwhile check out our drinking water supply which is not treated or radiation. Idiot
Where were you?
When all these so-called experts were lying on mainstream media saying there would be no dangerous radiation problems in Japan, where were the nuclear experts who stood up and said, "No this is wrong, people in Japan will have problems."
Where were they? If they can predict what will happen NOW, surely they should have been able to predict it weeks ago when the situation started to deteriorate.
I mean, if they were so CONFIDENT of their analysis was correct, why didn't they warn people in Japan not to drink the water? Why didn't they warn people beyond the evacuation zone to leave? The toed the line and regurgitated the same false information that the government gave.
So either the nuclear experts didn't know, or they were lying.
What has changed now? We're supposed to trust that this will not affect the US, when none of these experts have been right yet. In light of someone with integrity giving information to the contrary, I'm going to assume that we're still being lied to. You may choose to believe it's rainbows and kittens, but I do not believe that government or universities have our best interests at heart.
There is a stunning lack of integrity these days.
I AM objective. I am assessing the situation based on past experience. Experts lie. Japan has lied. TEPCO has lied. The nuclear industry has been spamming bad information all over the internet. People are being paid to sway the public opinion.
I'll be happy to believe it's all good and safe when a nuclear expert stands up, proclaims they or their institution is not receiving any funds from the nuclear industry lobby.
Surprisingly, the only person giving us an accurate picture is Gundersen. And I note he's from a non-profit group.
Sheeple
Sheeple
Think beyond yourself for a bit
This is in response to OP.
The question I have for you is: Do you have children?
Your level-headed response to the direction this board has taken is quite logical...for an adult individual, who is able to make their own choices about drinking milk or eating the grass at the local park.
Unfortunately, it's the parents of small children who have much more at stake here. We are reasonably concerned, especially given that it does not appear the full scope of contamination from this event will ever be fully understood (or disclosed?)...at least until it's far too late to react.
I am the OP. If you are of
I am the OP.
If you are of the age to have children, you have already been exposed to greater levels of radiation than this event will produce. Yet, here you are trying to say that this time is somehow different.
Do what your parents did, and raise your children as best you can. You can't change the outcome of this event.
This time is indeed very
This time is indeed very much different. Look here:
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
The measurement may be
The measurement may be better, but those who are living in the west now have seen far worse. So, no, it is not different this time.
guess it's good then. Yes
guess it's good then. Yes you convinced me. I'm off to stick me head in the microwave. After all, I've been exposed to fallout my whole life.
Thanks for your response
I do agree with OP for the most part. I'm 40, luckily still cancer free and certainly I've had more than my share of exposure already.
Where I disagree is in regard to caring for children. Parents are able to make simple decisions with potentially important results. For example, my 9 month old will quickly put grass in her mouth if I allow her to crawl on a lawn. Am I overreacting by not allowing her to crawl on the grass, after the past rains were proven to be slightly contaminated?
Do you not agree that some useful precautionary advice could have been provided by our "officials" in response to this? Instead we just get the monotonous "poses no risk" response from those who we entrust (and pay) to protect us.
I encourage you to seek out
I encourage you to seek out your own answers and to find the truth yourself. Educate yourself and do not rely on others knowledge.
That being said, the data gathered here confirms what I already have discovered myself, which is that impact is minimal to the general population and questionable at the edges for infants.
If you feel as a parent that you must change for the sake of your child, I support that, but don't be led to this conclusion by fear.
No, perhaps not change the
No, perhaps not change the course of the event but as a parent there are literally hundreds of actions I can take to shield by toddler daughter from radiation contamination. Each of these steps comes with a cost and the effort to assess -- to the best of human capacity -- the extent of the cumulative contamination is all about assessing the risk-reward of various actions (dairy vs. no dairy, fresh produce vs frozen, rain walks...)
To this day, there are food restrictions in Europe due to Chernobyl contamination. We seem to be headed in the same direction here and yet we're in the dark at this moment.
You are letting yourself be
You are letting yourself be guided by fear and doubt.
Several member of the UCB team have already said this is not to be worrying.
You may prevent your child from drinking contaminated milk or eating contaminated food, but you can't stop them breathing the air.
We will not see food restrictions here from what has already occurred or what is likely to occurr.. Stop adding to the hysteria with misinformation that has not even been quantified yet.
OP: Perhaps you are dealing
OP: Perhaps you are dealing with your own fears of either low-level radiation, or fear of the fear of low-level radiation by seeking to control communications here.
Let's not do this. The situation's bad enough as it is.
Let's not do this. The situation's bad enough as it is.
Let these people work. it's the least we can do.
I am not affraid. Why should
I am not affraid. Why should I be when I am capable of interpreting the data and being rational about this event.
I have lived through atmospheric weapons testing, as well as the fallout from Chernobyl that arrived here.
This event is nowhere close to the output of either of them, nor even the two atomic weapons fallout from Japan in 1945.
I am at peace with myself and so is my family, I have no use for irrational fear and the sooner everyone gains control over their own fears and acts in accordance with the scale of the event, the better off we will all be.
ok thats it
"I have lived through atmospheric weapons testing, as well as the fallout from Chernobyl that arrived here.
This event is nowhere close to the output of either of them, nor even the two atomic weapons fallout from Japan in 1945."
Ok pal. thats it. you are horribly negligent and misinformed.
the amount of radioactive material in those atomic bombs you refer to is a minute fraction of the amount of radioactive fuel in a nuclear power plant, and their radiation is short lived. we are talking about tons of fuel - enough to keep those chain reactions going for 40 years straight - with half-lives in the thousands and millions of years. there are 6 reactors rather than 1, and they have far more fuel and far more decay heat than chernobyl. also unlike chernobyl, they have dry fuel pools with years and years of depleted fuel, as well as the new fuel for reactor 4 burning up in its own empty pool. there is evidence that some of the fuel on the site is experiencing episodes of uncontrolled recriticality (chain-reactions), and some of the fuel used in reactor 3 is an especially nasty plutonium hybrid called mox fuel.
Behind closed doors, industry insiders are calling this the greatest disaster of modern times.
While the russians deployed an army within days to fight chernobyl, it seems as though fukushima is so far beyond the worst case scenario that there is nothing an army could do to stop it if they tried.
if you are as old as you claim to be then you are lucky in that this probably will not affect your life. I feel sorry for the children of today who might never get the chance to be an old fool like you. Now, It's probably time for your nap, or maybe some bingo...
Chernobyl didn't expose you
Chernobyl didn't expose you to low doses for 3 weeks and counting now did it? Multiple reactors were not involved.
And mine is not fear. It is anger.
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that in Germany and other European countries most of the iodine 131 was taken in through food consumption not by breathing the air (and of course air can be filtered to some extent). You are free to interpret the numbers -- vague as they are to date --as you like, as am I.
See this is exactly what we
See this is exactly what we are talking about. All the media and government has pumped in to the gen pop is iodide 131. They have basically ignored the Cesium 137. Well let me tell you the facts about Cesium 137.
Ionizing radiation. Examples of ionizing particles are alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons, and cosmic rays. Not all types of radiation are as bad as others, some do more damage, some not so much.
If you take a moment to read the passages I have included below, you will see that the exact issues that our government has been telling us is "of no concern", is precisely what we should have been warned about. These citations are from a USA Gov websites own documents and links are included.
Caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30.17 years.
The below information comes from a United States government site, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c3.pdf
Limited human data are available regarding health effects that can be exclusively associated with exposure to radioactive cesium sources such as 137Cs and 134Cs.
Radioactive cesium is removed from the air by wet and dry deposition and can travel thousands of miles before settling to earth. Wet deposition is considered the most important pathway for the removal of radioactive cesium from the atmosphere. It is a complex process that depends upon meteorological conditions such as temperature, the microphysical structure of the clouds, and the rainfall rate, as well as the physical and chemical properties of the airborne cesium.
1000's of miles huh? So now what about all that rain we had after the initial explosions that carried it all right to the west coast???
Dose coefficients for inhalation, ingestion, and submersion in a cloud of cesium radionuclides can be found in U.S. EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 11 (EPA, 1993a). Dose coefficients for external exposure to radioisotopes of cesium in air, surface water, or soil contaminated to various depths
can be found in U.S. EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 12 (EPA, 1993b).
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c6.pdf
The below is off Wikipedia, section on Ionizing Radiation and includes citations from reputable sources for the information included.
The biological effects of radiation are thought of in terms of their effects on living cells. For low levels of radiation, the biological effects are so small they may not be detected in epidemiological studies. The body repairs many types of radiation and chemical damage. Biological effects of radiation on living cells may result in a variety of outcomes, including:
Cells experience DNA damage and are able to detect and repair the damage. Cells experience DNA damage and are unable to repair the damage. These cells may go through the process of programmed cell death, or apoptosis, thus eliminating the potential genetic damage from the larger tissue.
Cells experience a nonlethal DNA mutation that is passed on to subsequent cell divisions. This mutation may contribute to the formation of a cancer.
Cells experience "irreparable DNA damage." Low level ionizing radiation may induce irreparable DNA damage (leading to replicational and transcriptional errors needed for neoplasia or may trigger viral interactions) leading to pre-mature aging and cancer.[12][13][14]
Other observations at the tissue level are more complicated. These include:
In some cases, a small radiation dose reduces the impact of a subsequent, larger radiation dose. This has been termed an 'adaptive response'and is related to hypothetical mechanisms of hormesis.[15]
Be wise. Go educate yourself.
Not to mention the Strontium 90
which nobody even seems to be mentioning. Probably because there is so much here from nuke plant operations that testing for it would freak out everyone by the high levels.
I do not know if operating nuke plants routinely emit cesium but they normally store radioiodine until it is fully decayed. But they DO seem to release tons of strontium 90 in their daily releases of effluents and emissions based on research on baby teeth downwind of operating nuke plants by the Radiation and Public Health Project www.radiation.org (which I urge folks who care to support with donations and by friending them etc on FB. They have been one of the few organizations to do ongoing testing and epidemiological analysis and have many peer reviewed studies published.