Probably not. I would avoid political activist groups. These people are on a "campaign"; it's part of their name. Their minds are made up.
For accurate information, you want scientists, not political activists making the scientific measurements. Scientists are objective, and have the knowledge to do these measurements accurately. Political activists don't have the scientific expertise, and their minds are already made up.
Look at the fraudulent paper that two activists Mangano and Sherman wrote.
Your best bet for accurate, objective information is BRAWM.
What does "the fraudulent paper that two activists Mangano and Sherman wrote" have to do with EPA test results? Correlation is not causation. Just a personal attack on researchers totally unrelated to the post topic, with the intent to slander and sully the reputation thereof. Shameful.
Anti-nukes can't see the difference between a scientist who makes up his mind based on the evidence and holds true to those beliefs; and the anti-nuke that makes up his mind in spite of the evidence and holds true to those beliefs.
I never falsified information or presented fabrications as if they were true.
However, the anti-nukes Mangano and Sherman should did.
There's a world of difference between a scientist and an anti-nuke; but I don't expect the anti-nuke to discern it.
I appreciate all the attention of late; it means the anti-nukes realize they are LOSING the argument, so they have to attack the messenger.
"I appreciate all the attention of late; it means the anti-nukes realize they are LOSING the argument, so they have to attack the messenger."
Now c'mon guys, this is pretty funny! Talk about a textbook Psych 101 case of projection! 'Attacking the messenger" is HIS primary modus operandi. I love it!
Ah, it's so true about bullies. They dish it out like madmen, but sure can't take it.
Hey bud, check out the study posted here a day or 2 ago re: most Americans are now anti nuke. I don't think the people who support the prevention of another disaster, which WILL happen eventually, are losing the argument.
Uranium is natural. Detection is not a smoking gun.
Even if you detect Plutonium; there's plenty of Plutonium due to nuclear tests.
If they copy the EPA, and then say "This is from Fukushima"; then it's LYING!!!
Again, stick with good scientists like BRAWM for this information. They can give you good analysis and not just raw data. Raw data needs to be interpreted.
and here lies the problem. People argue the interpretation. Too much money and too many agendas to trust anyone. I continue to sit the fence, sift through the arguments and trace the money trail as best as possible.
I would suggest that whoever is the handler for this forum's shill should back 'em off. They do not further the pro nuke side. Too insulting and hostile.
If you are not smart enough to interpret the results yourself, than you should not make any comments. It is pretty easy to do with very little scientific knowledge. People who comment make vague generalizations without evidence and then cite websites witih veruy little credibility. I have no problem with a debate, but it seems like one side is lacking evidence.
Wow. What an arrogant ignoramus. By your standards, then, no one should make comments, because 99% of the people who read/comment here are not industry people and are here to learn, not to to be bullied and insulted. Many post websites asking for verification and/or debate.
My particular comment was meant to convey that there are too many agendas afoot on both sides of the debate, but primarily on the pro nuclear side. One must carefully examine the bigger picture of each position postured, as in where the money is coming from/going. It is an approach I take to all matters political.
I'm sorry for you that objectivity and healthy suspicion is a fail in your idea of "smart".
If you have something to say; then say it. If you don't agree with something, then refute it.
But please spare us all this childish crying and whining about being "bullied".
If you think you are being "bullied" by what people say on a website; then you are not grown-up enough to play on the computer. Turn off the computer and go watch some pablum like "Sesame Street" or some other "bully free" zone. Come back when you've grown up and you don't bore us with your need to cry and whine about being "bullied".
LOL!!! I'm sorry bud, I can't get riled or even remotely worked up to address such a childish comment. Do you read then before posting? And how odd and dysfunctional - and in this case, immature - they make you appear?
I especially like your overly dramatic BOLDING of words in most of your posts to emphasize the oddity.
Interesting that the crying and whining primarily comes from the stalker when confronted.
When the US Congress wanted the answer to that question, they sent for the eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice. Here is his testimony to Congress:
"Although we know much about the health effects of high levels of radiation when
received briefly, as was the case for atomic bomb survivors, the risk following exposures
experienced gradually over time is uncertain and remains the major unanswered question in
radiation epidemiology.
One untapped opportunity is to study our own U.S. radiation workers and veterans. The
Low Dose Radiation Program within the Department of Energy had the foresight to initiate pilot
investigations of over one million such workers and this comprehensive work should continue.
Cooperating agencies include the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others. The study
populations include early DOE and Manhattan Project workers, atomic veterans who
participated in nuclear weapons testing in the 1940s and 1950s, nuclear utility workers, medical
workers and others involved in the development of radiation technologies, as well as nuclear
navy personnel.
Such a large study in the United States is critically important to understand scientifically
the health consequences of low-dose radiation experienced over time and is directly relevant to
the setting of protection standards for workers and the public; the assessment of possible risks
from enhanced medical technologies such as CT and nuclear medicine imaging; the expansion
of nuclear power; the handling of nuclear waste; the compensation of workers with prior
exposures to radiation; and even the possible consequences of the radiation released from
reactor accidents such as at Fukushima. To date, no direct study of these issues has been 8
large enough to provide convincing answers and extrapolations from the atomic bomb
exposures in 1945 have to be relied upon."
These comments were made on May 13, 2011. About a month later this report was released:
Which not only refutes the claim " The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent" but also gives us an unfortunate chance to study the long term effects on Coffey County, Kansas, as was the case in 1962 in Utah.
The results of that 1962 study would indicate that the children of Kansas could have taken a 10,000 to 20,000 microsevert thyroid dose. It is generally accepted that a 100,000 microsevert dose will likely cause adult thyroid problems to children exposed of about 1 in 285.
Which not only refutes the claim " The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent" but also gives us an unfortunate chance to study the long term effects on Coffey County, Kansas,
----------------------------------
I see absolutely NOTHING in the Kansas report that refutes the conclusions that Dr. Boice gave Congress. Yes, the radiation from Fukushima was detectable; as was the radiation that BRAWM detected in California.
However, read what Mark Bandstra of BRAWM had to say to a psychiatrist with a patient obsessing about Fukushima:
Risk from Fukushima extremely small
Hi, I am a member of the Berkeley team that has made measurements in the Bay Area of the fallout from Fukushima. Only trace amounts of radioactivity arrived on the West Coast due to releases from the Fukushima reactors. We were able to see these traces, but it required the use of very sensitive and expensive detectors to detect them — the problem is being able to see the tiny increases above the naturally occurring radioactive background that we are constantly exposed to.
The radiation doses someone could have gotten from the tiny amounts of radioactivity from Fukushima are very small. For example, even when Iodine-131 was seen in milk back in early April, it would have required drinking 2,400 liters of the milk to get the same dose as a 10 hour airplane flight. At the present time we still see very tiny levels of Cesium-134 and 137 in milk, but there we're talking about having to drink 20,000 liters or more to reach the dose from a 10 hour airplane flight.
Evidently, Dr. Boice, BRAWM's Mark Bandstra, and the Kansas radiation monitoring authorities are ALL saying the same thing. Fukushima was detectable because we have the technology to detect exquisitely small amounts of radiation; but that the health effects from this small amount of radiation is nill.
We have an anti-nuke that evidently "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that any amount of radiation, no matter how small is a catastrophe, and if one can detect it, then cancers and death are the sure results. Based on this, our anti-nuke makes the ill-considered and unjustified claim that the eminent Dr. Boice was somehow "refuted". Only in the smallness of the minds of the anti-nukes.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 13:22.
As was discussed in the Strontium thread yesterday, no detection has been made because the EPA samples failed to clear the statistical hurdle of combined uncertainty in the testing by 2x or greater.
But, when I looked at the EPA data myself I was curious about the levels with respect to proximity to the source even if the measurements might not be 95% conclusive if they weren't measuring something that would be greater the closer you got to Japan, and by logic meaning that some percentage was reaching the west coast.
It looks like llrc.org thought of this too and made a nice graph of that assumption.
But, to make it more complicated, China is having unseasonably bad dust storms this year that may be lofting old heavy particle fallout from their desert weapons tests, making it more of background noise when trying to detect Fukushima fallout.
However, in any event even if there are heavy elements reaching us, it's still below historic values for other bucket events. If you believe llrc.org, then you might be worried, but I'm not going to worry to much about it.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 13:34.
I should clarify the the no detection was for Strontium, Fissile Uranium, and Plutonium.
llrc.org is talking about U-234 and U-238, which could be coming from Chinese coal plants or dust storms, or Fukushima, and all would show the same pattern of increase the closer to Asia one checked.
But, U-235 would be the smoking gun for Fukushima, and there was one reading in Saipan, I believe, of U-235 that came close to the 2x CSU.
U235 would not necessarily be a smoking gun since this is a naturally occurring isotope (0.7% of natural uranium ore). One would have to see a statistically significant difference in the ratio of U235 to U238 in the sample above the natural ratio. I would say the smoking gun is plutonium. If we see plutonium which is not naturally occurring in the environment (other than the Oklo anomaly), then we would have to assume that this came from Fukushima.
Actually even Plutonium occurs naturally in trace quantities. You get Plutonium when Uranium-238 absorbs a neutron. Uranium is everywhere; it's one of the most uniformly distributed elements in the Earth's crust. Cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere and give us showers of sub-atomic particles including high energy neutrons. When those naturally occuring neutrons hit naturally occuring Uranium-238 in the environment; it gives you Plutonium, just like it does in a reactor. Such Plutonium is only in trace amounts; so the mere detection of Plutonium isn't the smoking gun. It depends on the amount. It has to be a large amount.
Even then; there's about 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment from the decades of atmospheric nuclear testing. So you have to look at other isotopes to help discriminate between Fukushima Plutonium and weapons testing Plutonium. The detection of Plutonium, in and of itself; is not a smoking gun.
Probably not.
Probably not. I would avoid political activist groups. These people are on a "campaign"; it's part of their name. Their minds are made up.
For accurate information, you want scientists, not political activists making the scientific measurements. Scientists are objective, and have the knowledge to do these measurements accurately. Political activists don't have the scientific expertise, and their minds are already made up.
Look at the fraudulent paper that two activists Mangano and Sherman wrote.
Your best bet for accurate, objective information is BRAWM.
The detection of uranium in
The detection of uranium in California air sampling monitors was reported by the EPA RadNet site in March/April of 2011.
Looks to me like LLRC simply copied the EPA data onto their site, and then provided a commentary.
Do you classify the EPA as non-objective "political activists" without scientific expertise, as well?
Who's the fraud?
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukuepauran.pdf
Correlation is not causation
What does "the fraudulent paper that two activists Mangano and Sherman wrote" have to do with EPA test results? Correlation is not causation. Just a personal attack on researchers totally unrelated to the post topic, with the intent to slander and sully the reputation thereof. Shameful.
It shows what activist do.
It shows what activists do.
It shows that 2 activists wrote a fraudulent paper masquerading as legitimate science in order to further their cause.
If anything is shameful or despicable; it's the actions of these two activists in attempting to defraud the public via "fear mongering".
BUT..
Hey shill, YOU'RE an activist. And just as dogmatic as the people YOU hate.
Anti-nukes can't see the difference
Anti-nukes can't see the difference between a scientist who makes up his mind based on the evidence and holds true to those beliefs; and the anti-nuke that makes up his mind in spite of the evidence and holds true to those beliefs.
I never falsified information or presented fabrications as if they were true.
However, the anti-nukes Mangano and Sherman should did.
There's a world of difference between a scientist and an anti-nuke; but I don't expect the anti-nuke to discern it.
I appreciate all the attention of late; it means the anti-nukes realize they are LOSING the argument, so they have to attack the messenger.
"I appreciate all the
"I appreciate all the attention of late; it means the anti-nukes realize they are LOSING the argument, so they have to attack the messenger."
Now c'mon guys, this is pretty funny! Talk about a textbook Psych 101 case of projection! 'Attacking the messenger" is HIS primary modus operandi. I love it!
Ah, it's so true about bullies. They dish it out like madmen, but sure can't take it.
Hey bud, check out the study posted here a day or 2 ago re: most Americans are now anti nuke. I don't think the people who support the prevention of another disaster, which WILL happen eventually, are losing the argument.
.
Uranium is natural.
Uranium is natural. Detection is not a smoking gun.
Even if you detect Plutonium; there's plenty of Plutonium due to nuclear tests.
If they copy the EPA, and then say "This is from Fukushima"; then it's LYING!!!
Again, stick with good scientists like BRAWM for this information. They can give you good analysis and not just raw data. Raw data needs to be interpreted.
Raw data needs to be interpreted.
and here lies the problem. People argue the interpretation. Too much money and too many agendas to trust anyone. I continue to sit the fence, sift through the arguments and trace the money trail as best as possible.
I would suggest that whoever is the handler for this forum's shill should back 'em off. They do not further the pro nuke side. Too insulting and hostile.
If you are not smart enough
If you are not smart enough to interpret the results yourself, than you should not make any comments. It is pretty easy to do with very little scientific knowledge. People who comment make vague generalizations without evidence and then cite websites witih veruy little credibility. I have no problem with a debate, but it seems like one side is lacking evidence.
Wow. What an arrogant
Wow. What an arrogant ignoramus. By your standards, then, no one should make comments, because 99% of the people who read/comment here are not industry people and are here to learn, not to to be bullied and insulted. Many post websites asking for verification and/or debate.
My particular comment was meant to convey that there are too many agendas afoot on both sides of the debate, but primarily on the pro nuclear side. One must carefully examine the bigger picture of each position postured, as in where the money is coming from/going. It is an approach I take to all matters political.
I'm sorry for you that objectivity and healthy suspicion is a fail in your idea of "smart".
If you have something to say...
If you have something to say; then say it. If you don't agree with something, then refute it.
But please spare us all this childish crying and whining about being "bullied".
If you think you are being "bullied" by what people say on a website; then you are not grown-up enough to play on the computer. Turn off the computer and go watch some pablum like "Sesame Street" or some other "bully free" zone. Come back when you've grown up and you don't bore us with your need to cry and whine about being "bullied".
LOL!!! I'm sorry bud, I
LOL!!! I'm sorry bud, I can't get riled or even remotely worked up to address such a childish comment. Do you read then before posting? And how odd and dysfunctional - and in this case, immature - they make you appear?
I especially like your overly dramatic BOLDING of words in most of your posts to emphasize the oddity.
Interesting that the crying and whining primarily comes from the stalker when confronted.
Do you see me whining?
Do you see me whining???
I'm not whining at all. I'd love a good knock down drag out verbal fight; especially with people who are so ill equipped for same.
In my day, when we had typewriters without HTML tags; we capitalized for emphasis and old habits die hard.
I'm not whining at all.
I'd love a good online fight; especially with the IGNORANT BLOWHARD above.
We need a debate
I hope that does not happen again. We really need organize a real debate on nuclear. As in Germany
Chris
Is there really a danger in
Is there really a danger in USA about nuclear Japan ?
Regards,
Indra
NO.
When the US Congress wanted the answer to that question, they sent for the eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice. Here is his testimony to Congress:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
Eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice
Eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice:
"Although we know much about the health effects of high levels of radiation when
received briefly, as was the case for atomic bomb survivors, the risk following exposures
experienced gradually over time is uncertain and remains the major unanswered question in
radiation epidemiology.
One untapped opportunity is to study our own U.S. radiation workers and veterans. The
Low Dose Radiation Program within the Department of Energy had the foresight to initiate pilot
investigations of over one million such workers and this comprehensive work should continue.
Cooperating agencies include the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others. The study
populations include early DOE and Manhattan Project workers, atomic veterans who
participated in nuclear weapons testing in the 1940s and 1950s, nuclear utility workers, medical
workers and others involved in the development of radiation technologies, as well as nuclear
navy personnel.
Such a large study in the United States is critically important to understand scientifically
the health consequences of low-dose radiation experienced over time and is directly relevant to
the setting of protection standards for workers and the public; the assessment of possible risks
from enhanced medical technologies such as CT and nuclear medicine imaging; the expansion
of nuclear power; the handling of nuclear waste; the compensation of workers with prior
exposures to radiation; and even the possible consequences of the radiation released from
reactor accidents such as at Fukushima. To date, no direct study of these issues has been 8
large enough to provide convincing answers and extrapolations from the atomic bomb
exposures in 1945 have to be relied upon."
These comments were made on May 13, 2011. About a month later this report was released:
http://www.kdheks.gov/radiation/download/2011_ERS_Report.pdf
Which not only refutes the claim " The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent" but also gives us an unfortunate chance to study the long term effects on Coffey County, Kansas, as was the case in 1962 in Utah.
The results of that 1962 study would indicate that the children of Kansas could have taken a 10,000 to 20,000 microsevert thyroid dose. It is generally accepted that a 100,000 microsevert dose will likely cause adult thyroid problems to children exposed of about 1 in 285.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EAgAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=sedan+...
Dr. Boice NOT refuted..
Which not only refutes the claim " The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent" but also gives us an unfortunate chance to study the long term effects on Coffey County, Kansas,
----------------------------------
I see absolutely NOTHING in the Kansas report that refutes the conclusions that Dr. Boice gave Congress. Yes, the radiation from Fukushima was detectable; as was the radiation that BRAWM detected in California.
However, read what Mark Bandstra of BRAWM had to say to a psychiatrist with a patient obsessing about Fukushima:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/help-please.2012-02-11#comment-23832
Risk from Fukushima extremely small
Hi, I am a member of the Berkeley team that has made measurements in the Bay Area of the fallout from Fukushima. Only trace amounts of radioactivity arrived on the West Coast due to releases from the Fukushima reactors. We were able to see these traces, but it required the use of very sensitive and expensive detectors to detect them — the problem is being able to see the tiny increases above the naturally occurring radioactive background that we are constantly exposed to.
The radiation doses someone could have gotten from the tiny amounts of radioactivity from Fukushima are very small. For example, even when Iodine-131 was seen in milk back in early April, it would have required drinking 2,400 liters of the milk to get the same dose as a 10 hour airplane flight. At the present time we still see very tiny levels of Cesium-134 and 137 in milk, but there we're talking about having to drink 20,000 liters or more to reach the dose from a 10 hour airplane flight.
Evidently, Dr. Boice, BRAWM's Mark Bandstra, and the Kansas radiation monitoring authorities are ALL saying the same thing. Fukushima was detectable because we have the technology to detect exquisitely small amounts of radiation; but that the health effects from this small amount of radiation is nill.
We have an anti-nuke that evidently "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that any amount of radiation, no matter how small is a catastrophe, and if one can detect it, then cancers and death are the sure results. Based on this, our anti-nuke makes the ill-considered and unjustified claim that the eminent Dr. Boice was somehow "refuted". Only in the smallness of the minds of the anti-nukes.
As was discussed in the
As was discussed in the Strontium thread yesterday, no detection has been made because the EPA samples failed to clear the statistical hurdle of combined uncertainty in the testing by 2x or greater.
But, when I looked at the EPA data myself I was curious about the levels with respect to proximity to the source even if the measurements might not be 95% conclusive if they weren't measuring something that would be greater the closer you got to Japan, and by logic meaning that some percentage was reaching the west coast.
It looks like llrc.org thought of this too and made a nice graph of that assumption.
But, to make it more complicated, China is having unseasonably bad dust storms this year that may be lofting old heavy particle fallout from their desert weapons tests, making it more of background noise when trying to detect Fukushima fallout.
However, in any event even if there are heavy elements reaching us, it's still below historic values for other bucket events. If you believe llrc.org, then you might be worried, but I'm not going to worry to much about it.
I should clarify the the no
I should clarify the the no detection was for Strontium, Fissile Uranium, and Plutonium.
llrc.org is talking about U-234 and U-238, which could be coming from Chinese coal plants or dust storms, or Fukushima, and all would show the same pattern of increase the closer to Asia one checked.
But, U-235 would be the smoking gun for Fukushima, and there was one reading in Saipan, I believe, of U-235 that came close to the 2x CSU.
Either way, values here are still very, very low.
U235 would not necessarily
U235 would not necessarily be a smoking gun since this is a naturally occurring isotope (0.7% of natural uranium ore). One would have to see a statistically significant difference in the ratio of U235 to U238 in the sample above the natural ratio. I would say the smoking gun is plutonium. If we see plutonium which is not naturally occurring in the environment (other than the Oklo anomaly), then we would have to assume that this came from Fukushima.
Actually
Actually even Plutonium occurs naturally in trace quantities. You get Plutonium when Uranium-238 absorbs a neutron. Uranium is everywhere; it's one of the most uniformly distributed elements in the Earth's crust. Cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere and give us showers of sub-atomic particles including high energy neutrons. When those naturally occuring neutrons hit naturally occuring Uranium-238 in the environment; it gives you Plutonium, just like it does in a reactor. Such Plutonium is only in trace amounts; so the mere detection of Plutonium isn't the smoking gun. It depends on the amount. It has to be a large amount.
Even then; there's about 10 metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment from the decades of atmospheric nuclear testing. So you have to look at other isotopes to help discriminate between Fukushima Plutonium and weapons testing Plutonium. The detection of Plutonium, in and of itself; is not a smoking gun.
thanks
thanks for the replies.
thanks for the replies too
thanks for the replies too :)
Samantha
nuclear, not bucket. lol,
nuclear, not bucket. lol, iPhone.