Why are people so afraid of radiation?
I have been reading this forum since the begining and I have seen the fear here. It has caused me to question: Why we are so afraid of radiation?
In life we take many risks every day in almost everything we do. When we drive a car or fly on a plane there is risk. When we eat there is risk from pesticides, cancer causing agents like aflitoxin, ecoli and food poisoning, etc. etc. etc. Many people are obese, smoke or have a sedentary lifestyle. These are all material risks. In many cases we don't care to know about the risk or we don't even pay attention to it. Radiation is different. It really scares many people.
What is different about radiation than all of the other risks? Why does it scare people so much?
The air dose in Futaba
The air dose in Futaba county Namie town Kawabusa (19k? North/West of Fukushima Daichi)
was measured recently by the Japanese government on 2011/10/18 to be
30.9 uSv/h compared to a typical background radiation of say 0.2 uSv/h.
So instead of say 2 mSv a year of Nature's background radiation, in the town of Namie now you would receive,
courtesy of the Fukushima Diachi Nuclear Power disaster,
an astonishing 270 mSv a year external dose.
The background radiation in Namie, 19km from the failed Reactors,
is now over 130 times what it was previous to the Fukushima Daichi disaster.
These are Japanese Government numbers.
Japanese Government Ministry report, page 1, measurement point number 19:
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1100/2011/11/1100_102001.pdf
geography
By 'reactor site' you mean within a hundred miles of fukudai, right ?
NOPE
The "reactor site" means the area around the plant owned by TEPCO.
why?
i think the main reason in not only becasue of the history of the radiation it is because of how new it is. yes we have know of nuclear radiation since Birquel but that doesn't change the fact that it has only been commercialized for nearly 15 years. well that is at least what scares me in the fact that it has only been researched in a wide scale and hasn't been around long enough to be researched down to the smallest of factors.
>Birquel Who? >it has only
>Birquel
Who?
>it has only been commercialized for nearly 15 years
What?
The simple answer is:
The simple answer is: Because we can not see it, taste it, smell it, feel it (until it is too late), hear it or otherwise sense its presence.
Bad milk you can detect. It smells and tastes awful. This is common with most food. MOST chemicals we can smell and they are usually easy to avoid.
The fact that as humans we can not detect radiation biologically until it is too late and we have NO CONTROL over it, this is very similar to death. Radiation is not something we give ourselves willingly. It is pushed on us by some outside, unseen and usually uncontrollable force.
These are the MAIN reasons people FEAR radiation. It is part of our geneticly programmed will to survive. If our mind did not rationally tell us that we can "arrogantly" control it, I think we would never build a reactor. We have seen what radiation can do to people with Chernobyl as the best example. Innocent people died of radiation poisoning. The government of Russia lied to them until it was too late for many people in Prypiat.
ALL of these things lend us to a healthy distrust of the technology, government, etc. Selfless actions are not usually a characteristic of politicians and business people.
In a perfect world we would all care equally for each other as family. unfortuantly we don't live in that perfect world and some people are assigned a value that is lower than others.
Radiation can change the dna forever for all generations
If certain dna is altered, even minutely, it can change the dna of all your descedants -- if your ovaries or sperm or fetus is exposed, your genetic code can be altered forever and for all future generations.
Also, since the danger of this remains for hundreds and thousands of years in the nucleaer by-products and since NO ONE Has figured out a way to keep the spent fuel safe for 10,000 plus years (and it must be guarded, monitored and protected for millenia which makes the costs astronomical) so that it does not alter human dna in the future.
Mutations, Cancer, Permanent altering of all human beings and animals gene pools. THAT is the risk.
Yeah, getting run over by a truck will kill you. But it will not alter the gene pool of every living thing on the planet.
And yeah - the sun does that too. It is just much more gradual and we have evolved and adapted to that. I do NOT want radiation mutating my progeny. Not now and not a thousand years from now so I say over and over again. SHUT 'EM DOWN NOW! ALL of them. They will NEVER be safe as a cross country flight when they melt down or release radionuclides.
Not if we reprocess / recycle
Also, since the danger of this remains for hundreds and thousands of years in the nucleaer by-products and since NO ONE Has figured out a way to keep the spent fuel safe for 10,000 plus years
=============================
The USA has the multi-thousand year nuclear waste problem ONLY because the anti-nukes got Congress to outlaw reprocessing / recycling in the '70s. The long lived actinides in spent fuel should not be stored for thousands of years; they should be used as fuel.
Then we would only have to contend with short-lived fission products.
Courtesy of PBS Frontline, nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
Because radiation has a higher risk of causing cancer
Well, let me tell you, because radiation is very powerful to cause cancer. No one wants to get cancer. you can probably be exposed to many other toxins and never get cancer, radiation however is much more aggressive in causing damage on a cellular level, whether you are religious, do meditation or think positive, that is why some people die of brain tumors and leukemia, no matter how hard they fight.
You should work in a hospital to give you an idea of what kind of nasty cancers there are. (Disclosure: I am an MD)
But I think one important thing is: RADIATION CAN BE AVOIDED. It might help if you do voluntary work in a hospital and listen to people's stories. No one gets a brain tumor from being sedentary.
It scares me because I am
It scares me because I am pregnant. From what I can tell most of the people on here appear to be concerned for their children or children-on-the-way.
All of the negative life style choices you highlight are exactly that - choices. I am sure the vast majority of pregnant women do not knowingly partake in any of these activities, nor would you encourage your children to. We however have little choice over the additional radiation we are being exposed to.
It is for that reason we are trying to understand the situation as fully as possible so we can reduce the risk to our children, who are the most vulnerable because of this disaster.
It is agreed that the level of radiation we are experiencing is extremely low. However, the studies of low level radiation on unborn babies and children is highly conflicting. Some believe that there are risks whilst others don't. I think this lack of clear scientific knowledge or evidence of the exact danger also adds to the worry.
If I was not pregnant and had no children I would not be concerned.
I agree with you. I am also
I agree with you. I am also pregnant. Not worried about myself but about my unborn baby. Birth defects such as malformation, mental retardation, growth retardation, etc. that can be caused by low level of radiation are serious to me. Especially, if I cannot change anything. I have to breathe and eat...
accumulation
Another problem with readiation is that you can't control it's accumuluation. So our background radiation increases for some time. Lower level amounts accumulate in ou produce. Then low levels are in the milk. At some point, we might be eating tuna, or other fish that have increased amounts of radiation.
We see the caution we are supposed to take with medical scans, concerns about airport scanners, the toxicity of radiation treatment for cancer (my neighbor was recently diagnosed with a special tumor caused by her radiation therapy for breast cancer 10 yrs earlier). It's cumulative, it's nasty, and you have no control over it.
Just because some folks have a realistic concern about increases in radiation, for children, for pets, and I am also concerned about regular ol' adults, it doesn't mean that other things aren't a concern, like toxic chemicals, etc.
Thanks for the answers to my
Thanks for the answers to my question. I am still not sure why we are so afraid of this issue vs the others that are out there. But from the answers here it looks like people have many different reasons.
Here are some that I can think of:
Fear of the unknown
Fear that the authorities and experts are not right or are biased.
Understanding the exact health risk of radiation is difficult.
Fear of a long term risk(Prehistoric man had more short term risk to worry about. Maybe we were not designed to live with uncertain long term risk)
But I still am not sure why radiation causes so much fear over other forms of pollution.
Fear...
Fear seems to be the common thread in your analysis.
What is the remedy to fear? EDUCATION
That's why this website has been so valuable.
I see lots of people discovering that radiation has always been in their lives. Sure, there is now a new source due to Fukushima that is insignificant compared to what is natural. So many didn't know about all the radiation that they have been getting normally due to natural background. Now they can put Fukushima in perspective, instead of going off the deep end.
safety dance
I hear the deep end of the pool is the safest place to be when the radiation comes blowing in....
Water is an amazing shield
I hear the deep end of the pool is the safest place to be when the radiation comes blowing in....
===========================
Have you ever visited a "swimming pool reactor" at a University?
http://www.mne.ksu.edu/research/centers/reactor
You can look down into the swimming pool and see the core of the operating reactor glowing a beautiful shade of blue, called "Cherenkov radiation".
http://www.google.com/search?q=cherenkov+radiation&hl=en&safe=off&biw=12...
The operating core is typically about 20 feet down in the pool. That 20 foot depth of water protects you from the radiation from the operating core.
However, the light, another form of radiation; the water allows through so you can see the core.
Amazing stuff; water.
Also, because the potential
Also, because the potential harm that can be caused from disasters involving radiation....such as we have seen in Japan. I don't think a chemical plant damaged by an earthquake and tsunami would have been this big of a disaster or health risk. And there are many nuke plants, that are old, on fault lines and in earthquake zones. And as we have seen at Fukushima, it has the potential to become out of control quickly if a serious of events take place...and nobody can get near it to fix the situation. Thus ocean dumping and air releases that render the land and sea around it uninhabitable. If this is not a reason to have a healthy fear of it than I don't know what is. ???? In addition to all the other reasons stated above...If this disaster is not an eye-opener to the dangers and risks of this technology then you are choosing to close your eyes.
SURE IT COULD!!
I don't think a chemical plant damaged by an earthquake and tsunami would have been this big of a disaster or health risk.
===============================================
Image that an earthquake or tsunami damages a big chemical plant that manufactures pesticides and you get a big leak. A big leak in a chemical plant has happened at Bhopal, India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
The Bhopal disaster actually killed far more people than Fukushima ever will.
Did we outlaw and shutdown our chemical plants? No - we still have chemical plants making pesticides. They have more scrutiny, which is good.
I think Fukushima will not be the death of nuclear power. I'm joined in that sentiment by Professor Richard Lester of MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/nse/lester/media/Lester_Fukushima.pdf
LOL
WRONG WRONG and maybe :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Keep the public confused
on nuclear fission and fusion.”
President Eisenhower
Really is that a job you've taken on ?
Chemical spills at an immediately toxic or acute level are 99.9 % detectable without ANY equipment. You'd run like hell and da gubermint could not so easily pull off a lie that kills and cripples on the level of a fukudai which will also create 10 to 500 thousand square kilometers (depending on how picky you are) of uninhabitable territory with high levels of actinides in the land and water pretty much FOREVER. That is a lot of suddenly and permanently low rent real estate. Kan was right. This maybe the end of Japan as they might need the 'protection' of or from an immediate neighbor as they lose viability as a cohesive socioeconomic entity.
Tepco and their financiers to the devil; 'How would you like that Japan sir ?'. The devil's reply; 'sunny side up and toasted on one side with an order of colossal devastation to the Pacific'
As Japan loses its best and brightest the worldwide economic effects will be off-scale in the next decade. Of course after Bhopal Dow did have to re brand and shed some stock value for a time as I recall...
Bhopal vs Fukudai:
Bhopal: A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.
Chernobyl cum Fukudai, Chernobyl being little brother and quite instructive:
(from the publication "Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 years after the reactor catastrophe" http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/chernob_repo... Read it, the Germans don't piss around.)
ONGOING...
Premature aging process as a result of radiation exposure
Cancer and leukemia
Damage to the nervous system
Psychological disorders
Heart and circulatory diseases
Other illnesses
Liquidators (Tepco has them, they just keep them until they can 'retire' them)
Children of liquidators (Because of Tepco's 'retirement' program far fewer)
Infant mortality
Miscarriages and pregnancy terminations
Genetic and teratogenic damage (malformations)
Chernobyl effects on animals in Europe and other countries
with the most creditable estimates running at killing and injuring a rough million or more in just the first fifty years after the event.
The West Coast of the US, based on a highly regarded Swedish study and increases in Cs 137 in our soil from fukudai, will experience 49,000 additional cancer cases. A good-sized statistical blip but maybe not enough to invest in the florist industry.
Oh and Richard Lester may be right. I think we are due for a few more HUGE AND catastrophic releases which will galvanize the global public.
Party like its 1999......
Do your homework, DUMMY!!
Of course after Bhopal Dow did have to re brand and shed some stock value for a time as
Do your homework DUMMY!! It wasn't a Dow Chemical plant that had the accident at Bhopal. It was a Union Carbide plant.
name change and MAGIC ! no more liability !
You are right. Me dummy. You so smart.
Hey, maybe TEPCO can hire the company that buried away the name Union Carbide so effectively in my memory.
Go Dow chemical.
More like go away before you are sent away like Shell Chemical.... And leave behind enough lose change to pay for the Bhopal disaster.
BALONEY
Chemical spills at an immediately toxic or acute level are 99.9 % detectable without ANY equipment. You'd run like hell...
=================================================
REALLY??? Can you "smell" or detect nerve gas or other other toxins like pesticides?
Under your fuzzy logic, the people of Bhopal should have smelled the toxin and "run like hell.." to escape it.
For your information; that's NOT what happened. People died as a result.
There are lots of toxic / dangerous chemicals that you can't detect. For example, natural gas. Natural gas in and of itself is odorless The natural gas that gets pump into your home has a special odor chemical added to the gas so you can smell it.
Why do you think we have carbon monoxide detectors and the suggestions that people use them? Precisely because you can't detect carbon monoxide.
The above post demonstrates the level of fantasy that the anti-nukes will stoop to. They will fabricate the most moronic logic to push their cause.
Farce
Attack of the angry shills, run for your life !!!!
LOL !
Is just an accident that the entire response is a calculation to both change the subject (fear of radiation) to a discussion of chemical disasters and attack those with a different viewpoint or facts contradictory to the pro nukers....
Of course the interjection and comparison thing with chemical disasters was the seed of a 'obscure and redirect' ploy. Clever. I bit. You smarty you.
Are you really that angry ? Me a simple dumb moronic evoking such anger from someone so knowledgeable and well-spoken ??? It is hard to believe as I do think your smarter than that.
I deeply and humbly apologize for using the rhetorical '99.9%' when 'the vast majority' would have been better though more verbose.
Interesting interjection of fantasy....
Fantasy is healthy right up to the point someone's fantasy inflicts harm. I'd say that pretty well defines the over-riding problem of the projected state mind coming from the ardent glow boys. That's OK you are allowed to disagree... with most of the technical people on this planet.....LOL
Ah, you down-trodden underdog you.
Note:
Unlike radiation the vast majority of industrial poisons are detectable in sufficient concentrations with our senses save the few and the engineered to be weapons. Even someone with impaired olfactory will eventually get the burning eyes from organophosphates. I guess we should include the nerve gases and other chemical weapons (the source of many of our early and current pesticides) with 'chemical spills' in light of your probable connection to the Military Industrial Complex.
Really you should relax. Eventually we will retire the filthy reactors. I just hope we do it intentionally and correctly, while we still have sufficient resources. The focus, (y)our focus, should be on cleaning up the mess we have created and moving on to higher level technologies. Can you engage there ?
As a side note and interestingly enough we can even detect with our senses some of the effluents from reactors....but we would have no idea that they are radioactive if did not already know the source.
I await your kind (guffaw) response.
Not anger - disappointment, maybe
Are you really that angry ? Me a simple dumb moronic evoking such anger from someone so knowledgeable and well-spoken ???
======================================
Why would I get angry? There's nothing here to waste anger on.
I am disappointed that there is so much ignorance of science.
As a scientist, I think science is important. I'm disappointed that there is so much made up and fabricated hysteria instead of good perspective based in science.
Of course, I think many here don't like science because they don't understand it.
They only want knowledge that gives them the "warm fuzzies".
Science, Vision, Responsibility
So much of humanity treats the technical as magic. I think it is a culture that results from minimal investment in education and reinforcement from the commercial / consumer society we have created.
I believe that had the technology and the inherent risks of reactor generated electricity been widely understood the public would have much to say, demanding much in terms of safety precautions. While a few assorted reactors might have been built I doubt the government nurtured industry would look anything like it does to day.
I think the nuke biz is a old worn shoe. Had a technical, well-informed public engaged early on we would have public utilities with amazing energy production facilities, a few of which might still be very secure fission reactors.
While well understood fission tech is old and dirty compared to what we can now do.
Let's clean up the current liabilities and move on to technologies that do not create attractive targets for those intent on destruction, hot housekeeping chores forever, nor catastrophe when Murphy's law catches up.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
I guess we should include the nerve gases and other chemical weapons (the source of many of our early and current pesticides) with 'chemical spills' in light of your probable connection to the Military Industrial Complex.
================================
Why do the anti-nukes always assume that those from the pro-nuclear side are part of the military industrial complex.
I'm an academic. For your information, the vast majority of academics in the sciences are in favor of nuclear power. Last I looked, it was 98-99% pro-nuclear for academic physicists.
wrong ? really?
Hi Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-10-25 14:26
I believe you believe you are not part of the military industrial complex. That would be lovely. Nuclear energy, like so much of our modern world is almost entirely a product, a creation, and in the case of nuclear power generation, a foil for the military and weapons industry. From its inception, through its nurture, around the world, to the present day, the nuclear power industry and the military are interwoven. Really there is very little sinister aspect to this, it just is for many reasons. Of course you know all of that.
That is why I made the categorization.
And about public opinion.... very fluid and rolling away from continued investment in nuclear power generation. Even among the technical class. Hey even I am in favor of nuclear power....once the bugs are worked out to my satisfaction. Of course in some circles it is said that the bugs are features......
NOPE - I don't know that.
From its inception, through its nurture, around the world, to the present day, the nuclear power industry and the military are interwoven. Really there is very little sinister aspect to this, it just is for many reasons. Of course you know all of that.
=====================================
This is the oft-told propaganda of the anti-nukes; that nuclear power is a wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear weapons complex.
It is true that the nuclear weapons complex built nuclear reactors to make nuclear material for nuclear weapons. However, that was not the genesis of the power reactors of today. Weapons production reactors were a dead end.
The modern commercial power reactors are descendents of the naval propulsion reactors of the US Navy. The US Navy and Admiral Rickover funded two laboratories to design and develop reactors for naval propulsion, Knolls Atomic Power Lab in Schenectady, NY and Bettis Atomic Power Lab in Pittsburgh, PA. The contractors that ran those labs were General Electric ( Knolls ) and Westinghouse (Bettis).
General Electric and Westinghouse then took the experience they developed in designing and building small power reactors for submarines and used that experience to design and build larger reactors. While Westinghouse basically scaled up the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) design used in naval propulsion; General Electric developed a whole new class of reactor independent of the PWRs that KAPL designed. General Electric, at its facilities in California, developed the first prototype "Boiling Water Reactor" or BWR. Courtesy of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):
http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5654.pdf
After Westinghouse and General Electric built the very first nuclear power reactors, they were joined by firms that had traditionally made fossil-fueled boilers, namely Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox.
The cast of characters in the nuclear power field, Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox, along with the construction firms of Bechtel, Stone & Webster, Brown & Root... is totally separate from the cast of characters in the nuclear weapons field.
Every single nuclear weapon in the US stockpile of nuclear weapons was designed by someone who drew his / her paycheck from a common entity. That entity was not even a corporation. It was a University. In fact, it is the University of California. The USA has two nuclear weapons design labs, Los Alamos National Lab, and Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and during the years those two labs were designing weapons that are now in the US stockpile, the operating contractor for both of those labs was the University of California.
The two nuclear labs were aided in the non-nuclear component design by Sandia National Lab which at the time was run by AT&T. The original contractor for the weapons material production sites of Hanford and Savannah River was DuPont & Co. The Kansas City production plant was run by Bendix.
It's always amusing to think of the typical Berkeley idiot peacenik that won't buy a toaster oven because they want to boycott General Electric on nuclear weapons, when GE had nothing to do with it. The same Berkeley idiots would get their telephone service from AT&T, the brakes for their car from Bendix, and all the while getting their education from the University of California that ran the actual nuclear weapons design enterprise.
See what happens when you don't do your homework?
More..
Just to complete the pantheon of nuclear weapons complex companies, there were a number that didn't sell products to the general public.
Nuclear fuel for production reactors was produced by Kerr-McGee
The Rocky Flats production plant was operated by Rockwell International, and its successor, North American-Rockwell. These should be familiar to you as top contractors to NASA.
The Pantex Assembly Plant was operated by Mason & Hanger, Silas, Mason.
Much of the nuclear testing operation was overseen by EG&G. The "E" stands for Edgerton, as in the famous late "Doc" Edgerton, a Professor at MIT.
History
Nice summary. Thanks very much.
It seems altogether like nice corporate communities, a nuclear industry ecosystem even.
I especially enjoyed the detail of the naval nukes providing the starting point for power nukes. We should all explore that to fully understand how we arrived at this place in history, in the present.
it permanantly mutates and alters humanity"s dna
for all future generations.
it is also causing a pandemic of cancer and other illnesses.
sure other chemicals alter dna, but nuke plant emissions of radionuclides are ubiquitous. no one is safe.
WRONG! LIAR!!!
it is also causing a pandemic of cancer and other illnesses.
==================================
Nuclear power is not causing a pandemic of cancer. Read what the medical experts at the National Cancer Institute say:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities
No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities
The amount of radiation one receives due to the use of nuclear power is 3000X less ( <0.03% ) than the typical background radiation exposure that we are all exposed to. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The amount of radiation due to the use of nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in table ) is less than 0.03%
Mother Nature is by far your major source of radiation exposure.
You nave never heard of RECA?
http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca.html
"
The United States conducted nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests from 1945 t0 1962. Essential to the nation’s nuclear weapons development was uranium mining and processing, which was carried out by tens of thousands of workers. Following the tests’ cessation in 1962 many of these workers filed class action lawsuits alleging exposure to known radiation hazards. These suits were dismissed by the appellate courts. Congress responded by devising a program allowing partial restitution to individuals who developed serious illnesses after exposure to radiation released during the atmospheric nuclear tests or after employment in the uranium industry: the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA, or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note (2006), was passed on October 5, 1990. The Act’s scope of coverage was broadened in 2000.
The Act presents an apology and monetary compensation to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases:
following their exposure to radiation released during the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, or
following their occupational exposure to radiation while employed in the uranium industry during the Cold War arsenal buildup."
T
Average people
We are talking about the exposure to the average person; not people who were standing in the desert next to the nuclear test.
Mother Nature by FAR
The United States conducted nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests from 1945 t0 1962.
============================
Yes - and the background radiation table from NCRP as hosted by the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan shows the results:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Look at the table under "Fallout" - that's the radiation exposure due to the nuclear tests and it amounts to all of <0.03%
The passage of an Act in Congress is not scientific proof of anything. It just means that people lobbied our Congress enough to get them to pass some act.
Scientific truth is NOT determined by Congress; you MORON
MORMON
RECA is for downwinders as well as workers. Our distinguished Senator, Orrin Hatch, wrote the legislation in 1990 before comprehensive maps were available. Using the current information available now, the compensation would be for many more areas across America. I personalty know the Hatch family and I doubt the legislation was bought.
So many friends and family here in Utah have thyroid problems, autoimmune issues and soft tissue cancers from ingesting I-131 and Cs-137 in the milk. The link you cite is meaningless for ingested radiation, and an insult to many good people suffering from radiation related diseases.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4891
Obsolete
While some may have suffered some ill effects of atmospheric testing; the USA hasn't conducted atmospheric test for nearly 50 years.
We are discussing the present and the future.
Is it logical to give up or oppose nuclear power plants which don't put large amounts of radioisotopes into the environment, because nuclear testing 50 years ago did?
Can you not separate the nuclear power plants of today from nuclear weapons tests of 50 years ago? The only thing they have in common is the word "nuclear".
four fingers pointing back....
idiot, moron....
Do you get extra points for depositing fecal mental matter here ?
Either clean it up, which I now doubt you can, or take it elsewhere.
Mark please research and ban Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-10-24 16:29.
I would guess this poster of sad and limited vocabulary is associated (whois) with Berman and Company or the like.
Thank you.
Really ? LOL !
Gosh mr anon,
I have an idea, before you post check for the latest data.....
About 'The Health Physics Society', isn't that just a group of often lightly trained (except at UCB NSE), creatives working for the for profit nukers and glow boys, so often going dim at the first glimmer of REAL science?
Oh and I bet the funding the National Cancer Institute gets has 'no strings attached' with an impeccable reputation, right ?
LOL
NCI is an absolutely corrupt, inept, incompetent organization..."
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lnci.htm
A book has been written on the subject:
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)—Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-corruption-in-the-can...
Corrupt is as corrupt does. Please give it more effort.
So really in the interest of education let me suggest that you.....
Look here for the latest and greatest info on the subject, of course it is QUITE damming:
Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants
Background and a short radiobiological evaluation of the data situation
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=706
Ah that Teutonic lot.....
So what is your plan when everyone learns enough of the truth ? Nature (mother ! lol !!!) abhors a vacuum and even between the ears of the most ardent TV watcher reality eventually shrivels lies and half truths drawing in more of a complete picture.
I strike this tone to point out the simple single side you present in your posts and the resulting tone of propaganda (not effective) that it creates. I am sure you can be more persuasive if you added some dimensionality to your entries.
What happens when the dept of war masters automated propaganda?
They aren't the source...
About 'The Health Physics Society', isn't that just a group o
=========================================================
The source of those numbers is not the Health Physics Society; they are just hosting the information on the web.
The actual source of those numbers was a study group under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course, the idiot anti-nuke will now treat us to a rant as to why the National Academy of Sciences is corrupt...
questions idiot tool thing and stuff
Ever meet a non pro nuke that you did not deem an idiot ?
Read the guidelines for this forum ?
Just in case you missed it (pinned to the top of the topics page BTW) I'll paste it here just for you:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forum etiquette reminder (3 weeks 5 days ago by bandstra)
All are welcome here on this forum. I just want to remind people of some general guidelines to keep the forum welcoming, appropriate, and organized:
Please DO NOT:
Call other people names
Use obscene language (your post will be blocked or deleted)
Post the exact same content multiple times (this may also get blocked anyway)
Please DO:
Be polite, civil, and respectful of different views
Provide links and references for facts you are using in your arguments
Stay on the topic of the thread, or start a new thread if your comment is off-topic
Thanks,
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
-----------------------------------------------------------
All seems reasonable enough....
NOPE
Ever meet a non pro nuke that you did not deem an idiot ?
===================================================
If I ever meet an anti-nuke that is not an idiot, I'll let you know.
But it's not looking too good....
Truth hurts?
Evidently, I struck a nerve. I guess the truth hurts.
link please
Could you please direct me to the relevant page ?
Thanks
Request granted
Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The following was developed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP 93)....
If you look up the NCRP:
http://www.ncrponline.org/
Specifically:
http://www.ncrponline.org/AboutNCRP/About_NCRP.html
NCRP was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1964 as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.....
Why are people so afraid of radiation?
Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants
Background and a short radiobiological evaluation of the data situation
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=706
It starts for some as intuition, and now it is common sense for all.
The truth continues to seep out, evading the biggest and baddest agit prop machine in existence.
DEBUNKED as reported in Nature
The scientific community took a look at that report and debunked it:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110506/full/news.2011.275.html
COMARE's latest report includes a critique of the KiKK study, pointing out that it did not fully assess confounding factors other than radiation, which may have been partly responsible for the association. In leukaemia, Elliott notes, there are known to be correlations between the disease and socioeconomic status and population density, for example. COMARE attempted to compensate for these and other issues, but the KiKK study did not. "If there was an effect like the KiKK study [in the UK] we would have found it and we didn't," says Elliott. Nature was unable to obtain comment from the KiKK team.
As stated above, the German team FAILED to fully assess factors other than radiation. Evidently, they had their mind made up as to the causes before they did the study. That's pretty BAD science.
Debunked ? more like comments trying to cast a glimmer of doubt
:) Sigh
The critique is valid, however the German study looked at a number of pathologies beyond leukemia. I did not see the critique as applicable to the rest of the study.
HOWEVER...
There is ample evidence of the unique fission-generated radioisotope bioaccumulators building up around nuclear facilities and nuclear power plants in particular. Strontium-90 (a biological Calcium analog) in particular. Strontium is tightly linked to leukemia. Of course linking any given case of leukemia to Strontium would be like revisiting the tobacco litigation theater.
I read the article anyway and it seems the thoughtful editors, in striving to do complete and balanced work, perhaps, have left themselves an escape hatch .....
a paragraph from the article...
""Not everyone is convinced that the COMARE report settles the issue. Steve Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that studies to date have not been properly designed to detect any effect from the very low radiation doses that people living near nuclear plants may be exposed to. But a US team is now preparing to update a 1990 study on the link between nuclear power stations and cancer cases at the request of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see 'US radiation study sparks debate'). Wing suggests that the US study could provide a more effective analysis by assessing the radiation doses that are received in utero and in early childhood by those living close to nuclear plants2. ""
Those smart folks at Nature Magazine. They have been around the block.
Correct.
The above poster is correct. As the University of Michigan web page states, the source of the numbers in those tables is the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement and is chartered by Congress. It's not an industry group.
That's certainly right.
That's certainly right. Mother Nature is the enemy, not science, not technology, not mankind. We are doing what we can to make this planet for friendly to humans, CONQUERING the deadly forces of MN in the process. It will take time, but we are getting there. Things are improving. Living standards are going up. Human culture is advancing.