Has The BRAWM Team Discovered That an Alpha Particle Can Pass Through The Hull Of An Airplane?
I am grateful that citizens have continually expressed their ‘better wisdom’ in challenging the ‘airplane analogy’. I encourage those who have voiced their dissent to continue to do so. It is my hope that UC Berkeley will distance the overall University from this tragic and unfortunate 'pseudo-science'.
Please have faith that 'true science', science which is verified through empirical evidence tied back to reality, will ultimately dismiss this egregious 'airplane analogy' and steer the public back to a more realistic approach to facing the issues presented to us in the form of Fukushima.
Currently, in light of Fukushima, the entire globe are victims of bad engineering and design, bad safety and integrity standards as well as bad science, all courtesy of the NRC and the rest of the 'Pro Nuclear Establishment/Lobby'.
To the 'airplane analogy':
It seems to me, to stand the test of reason, as well as the test of 'science which has not been influenced by outside political/economic forces', that there should be some rather simple ways to verify as to whether such theories as the shrewdly-crafted 'airplane analogy' fly in the face of reality or not.
That has led me to the question; Has the BRAWM Team discovered that an Alpha Particle can pass through the reinforced hull of a sealed and pressurized capsule, also known as a 'jet airplane'?
Plutonium 239 from Fukushima has been detected in California. Link Agreed?
Plutonium 239 emitters are alpha emitters, which are among the most harmful emitters if ingested or inhaled: Link Agreed?
The point is that with this plutonium detection, the ‘reality on the ground’ is that it is possible for (i.e.) a young child playing in a rain puddle or a pregnant woman walking in the rain, to ingest or inhale alpha particles by any number of natural methods.
However, as regards the ‘airplane analogy’…
Passengers on such a 'jet airplane' as presented in the analogy would never be exposed to alpha particles delivered into the atmosphere from Fukushima.
It is well established that alpha particles cannot pass through a sheet of paper, and therefore unless the BRAWM Team has discovered an alpha particle which can pass through the reinforced pressurized hull of a current jetliner, the ‘airplane analogy’ is proven a false comparison through ‘exposure to reality’.
The 'Formula' for 'Effective Dose' may be mathematically sound, (many 'false results' formulas are), however when tied back to reality the 'airplane analogy' is proven false.
There are several other ways to prove this analogy flawed , but this is the most succinct method IMHO.
I'd like to offer the BRAWM Team one last opportunity to retract their support and defense of the 'airplane analogy'. I highly encourage the BRAWM Team to take this opportunity and do the right thing.
Leo Seiler
Point Reyes Station, Ca
airplane analogy myth
BRAWM will not discontinue the use of the airplane analogy because the industry needs it to convince the public that 'a little won't hurt you' (see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4883#comment-15539).
Because of their continual releases we are now subjected to twice the amount of radiation than naturally occuring radiation.
They have begun to censure my comments, so I'd better leave it at that. I've enjoyed reading contributor's post and sharing. Good day to all the independent contributors.
We do not censor
David, we do not censor this forum unless there is obscenity. However I did find a forum topic that got picked up by our spam filter, and now I have cleared it. Is that what you are referring to? My apologies.
Also, I just commented on your other posting: the nuclear industry has *not* doubled our radiation exposure.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
What forum topics are BRAWM's spam filters set to pick up?
What forum topics are BRAWM's spam filters set to pick up?
Who made those decisions on such matters?
Just to be clear Mark, you and the BRAWM Team work for 'Homeland Security', Not 'Nuclear Industry Security', yes?
Also , can you explain to me Mark, the contrast of BRAWM's 'consistent and rigid assurances of public health safety' in the face of a '4 month time lag concerning accurate information coming out of Fukushima'?
It boggles me that we found out approximately 3-4 months into this event, that TEPCO knew of Core Breaches from the beginning and lied to the public and the world about it. Yet when BRAWM found out about such cover ups (you found out when the pubic found out, yes?), that damning information which changed the entire scope of the matter, somehow didn't make a single dent in BRAWM's safety assurances, did it?
BRAWM's lines of 'public health safety assurances' never changed in the face of that overwhelming evidence, did they? Isn't that interesting?
We filter out advertisements
The spam filter we use uses custom keywords, which I add to regularly. This list includes any keywords that are found in the spam advertisement that would not be found in a valid forum post. This has greatly reduced the spam on this forum since I started actively adding more keywords in the last month or so.
The filter also has some "smarter" functions, like learning to recognize spam from its content. For example, it will filter entries that are very similar to other posts. This part of the filter might cause the occasional filtering of a valid post, but this does not seem to happen very often.
Lastly, we have based our public assurances entirely on our measurements, not any other information about the situation. That is why we have not changed our stance. The "overwhelming evidence" is our data.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
"overwhelming evidence"?
Lastly, we have based our public assurances entirely on our measurements, not any other information about the situation. That is why we have not changed our stance. The "overwhelming evidence" is our data.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
_______________________________________________________
"overwhelming evidence"?
Do you 'giggle' or 'close your eyes and grimace' every time you type that?
It has been very well illustrated that your measurements and data are sparse at best.
BRAWM is not able to detect Alpha Particles per it's own admission, which means at best your 'overwhelming evidence' never had an opportunity to detect 'arguably' the most dangerous of radioactive emitters concerning human health.
Apparently the public and scientific community should look past anything 'not-detectable' by BRAWM as 'non-existent'. That's a curious scientific method.
(Autodidacts, on the other hand, have found several scientific methods to detect alpha particles. That has also been posted across this forum.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8GlzUjYazs&feature=related
For this particular event any Remediation Professional 'worth his or her salt' would unequivocally state that in order to determine radioactive isotopic accumulation for the state of California, we would have needed 24 hour statewide monitoring starting 48-72 hours once the Fukushima Reactor Explosions took place.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4962
Additionally, the ability to detect all classes and range of isotopes at different altitudes would have been necessary, given the natural weather distribution of the fallout. It could have been done and it should have been done.
This would have been effective for both the '1st Round' as well as ongoing emissions (which continue to enter the atmosphere and the sea)
This is the way the 'Firefighting Culture' of industry handles these events. The 'Firefighting Culture' of industry quickly glosses over and wraps the event in a balloon, ties it up and sends it floating away- never to be thought of again. That's what happened to Chernobyl for much of the globe and certainly for Nuclear Engineering.
It appears that Fukushima will not share that fate.
On a sidenote- I see G. E. is moving more jobs to China:
http://firstarkansasnews.net/2011/07/ge-tells-american-workers-to-go-to-...
Sounds like we need a new American economy doesn't it?
I believe solar is the way for now.
Thx Mark.
Not helping
Yes, in a perfect world, full of lots of extra taxes and fees to help pay for it all, there would have been planes flying at every altitude, over all of North America, 24/7, searching for every known isotope, with instantaneous detection and immediate Internet posting, for the last four months.
But guess what. Not possible. Not necessary.
The situation is very, very bad for a lot of land area, and a lot of people, in Japan. Based on all *available* evidence, it was not nearly the same issue here.
And we all ingested plutonium, courtesy of the US, England, China, India, France, Pakistan and the Soviet Union, well before March, 2011.
Actually, a perfect world would have prevented Fukushima.
It's not that a majority of common sense was needed- just 'some'.
Many average or 'imperfect' worlds could have prevented Fukushima.
What is required to 'make claims concerning public health' is required to 'make claims concerning public health' in the face of such an event as Fukushima.
That's really all there is to that discussion kiddo.
Yes
I'm with ya on the prevention deal... it made no sense to build the Fukushima plant the way they did, where they did, with woefully inadequate power backup capabilities. There are other plants with location problems; it looks to me like the San Onofre plant, for example, is not in a lot better position.
But to bang on the BRAWM team's work is not productive. How about those of us concerned work to get Congress, once their current posturing playtime is over, to properly fund RADNET so it does a better job in the future? And identify problem plants, and have their shutdowns properly funded, also?
So the Airplane Analogy WAS productive to your cause?
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4883#comment-15828
Absent of 'Reality Based Science' ideas and solutions, the uneducated and uninformed and inexperienced have nothing against which to 'contrast' the 'nonsense' which has been consistently presented on this forum.
I support your cause.
Do your work.
I'll continue to do mine, regardless as to whether you understand it or not.
Dose equivalences
Dear Leo,
If your issue is with the particulars of comparing the doses from different types of radiation, then I would urge you to read the FAQ on Total Effective Dose Equivalent and the FAQ on comparing dose from airplane flights to other doses.
The airplane dose is due to the increased exposure to cosmic rays at higher altitudes -- cosmic rays are high-energy particles that pass happily through the hull of the aircraft and through our bodies. They give us a measurable radiation dose, even on the surface of the earth. And in the end, doses from different sources -- internal vs. external, full-body vs. single tissue, alpha vs. beta vs. gamma -- can be compared after applying the appropriate weights to each.
Also, as stated below, Pu-239 from Japan has not been detected in the U.S.
But you are right that alpha particles are some of the most harmful radiation when ingested. (By the way, this is accounted for by multiplying by 20 when calculating the dose from alpha particles.)
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
By what science do you
By what science do you assign a 20 weighting factor to Pu-239?
Considering that 1 microgram of Pu-239 in the lungs is pretty much guaranteed to cause lung cancer; considering that 1 alpha disintegration from within the cell can kill the cell, break DNA and/or damage the surrounding cells; considering that Plutonium will bind to the DNA and fire from there;
How do you asign a 20 instead of something more like infinity?
What weighing factor do you assign to Uranium?
Does it take into account the above plus the fact that it attracts more radiation from the surrounding envirnoment?
Please tell us how the weighting factors were decided upon. Do they assume homogenity, or do they account for all of the radiation being applied to 1 cell and/or the cells immediately surrounding that cell, or are we dividing it by the total body mass?
Also please speak to the fact that Pu-239 has such a long half-life that whatever Japanese person gets a speck first, that when he is cremated it will go back into the air and possibly into the next person.
I see a rather constant attitude that 'there's none here, it's safe'. Well I suggest that since it's in Japan that it will eventually be here. After all we all have a piece of Chernobyl in us. Plus wasn't it picked up in Hawaii? How small a piece of Pu-239 in Pacific fish is safe to eat?
Your argument doesn't make
Your argument doesn't make any sense. Also, alpha particles can pass through the hull of an airplane. They are not created by natural decay but from high energy cosmic rays.
who let the dog out
Which radionuclides are alpha emitters?
There are many alpha emitting radioactive elements, both natural and manmade.
Here are two flight paths
Here are two flight paths which my family recently took. The first from LAX in Los Angeles to Hong Kong, and the reverse on the flight back.
This needs investigation. I very much doubt that passengers know what they are flying through.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA885/history/20110414/2005ZZ/KLAX/VHHH
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA882
By the way, the green line is the path as tracked by this tracking technology. The blue dotted line is the path that the airline, in this case Cathay Pacific, logged as their intended path.
Very interesting! (spyware
Very interesting! (spyware warning is (also interesting) bs). Do I understand/ see this correctly that the airplane tracking system cuts out the parts of the route going directly over Japan?
I am also concerned about
I am also concerned about this. The air inside an airplane is only partially filtered and air from outside is brought in without filtration if I understand it correctly.
DO NOT CLICK. SPYWARE.
DO NOT CLICK. SPYWARE.
As has been pointed out a few times
The plutonium 239 reported by the EPA in San Francisco, Ca.
was considered technically not a detection because it's not
at least 2x the stated CSU:
San Francisco 3/24/2011:
RESULT_AMOUNT: 0.0000065 pCi/M3
CSU: 0.0000058 pCi/M3
Riverside 3/24/2011:
RESULT_AMOUNT: 0.0000013 pCi/M3
CSU: 0.000003 pCi/M3
The negative result from Anaheim is obviously not a detection.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_metadata_html.column_page?p_column_name=...
Description: The Combined Standard Uncertainty (CSU) is the estimated standard deviation of the result. The CSU can be used to estimate the "confidence interval" around the amount. Thus, if y is the "best estimate" of measured radioactivity, the 95% confidence interval around y ranges from about y-(2xCSU) to y+(2xCSU). For Strontium-90 in milk during the period of 1960 through July 1978, the uncertainties were +/- 2 pCi/L (two sigma) for Sr-90 concentrations less than 20 pCi/L, and 10% of the concentration for Sr-90 concentrations greater than 20 pCi/L. Sample specific uncertainties are available for data beginning in October 1975 (two sigma).
h
Got it. The Plutonium 239
Got it. The Plutonium 239 that was detected is not considered an official
detection of Plutonium 239 because when Plutonium 239 was detected there was
too little Plutonium 239 detected to live up to the standard of detection
which the [BRAWM Team? Someone else?] is employing. Huh. I wonder why the EPA
even bothered ‘detecting’ Plutonium 239?
Leo (Not anonymous)
The CSU is the EPA's
The Combined Standard Uncertainty (CSU) is one used by the EPA.
Not the BRAWM team.
Regarding why the EPA bothered 'detecting' Plutonium 239, I have no
idea why they post negative results either.
Who stated it was not a detection?
Who officially stated that the Plutonium-239 detection is not legitimate?
The EPA or BRAWM?
The EPA
The EPA's raw data was misinterpreted by some. But by the EPA's definitions of the data fields ("Result" and "CSU," as someone pointed out above), the EPA measurements of plutonium are to be considered "non-detections." We in BRAWM (well, me mostly) have been pointing this out and are applying zero interpretation of our own.
The recent EPA measurements basically look like this: 2±5. The fact that the "result" is 2 and not 0 does not indicate a detection of plutonium. The "combined standard uncertainty" 5 says that the number has a 68% chance of being between -3 and +7. In statistical terms, this is "consistent with zero," i.e., a non-detection.
So those plutonium measurements are, by definition of the EPA, officially non-detections.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Hello Mark, First time
Hello Mark,
First time caller- longtime listener. I appreciate you taking my call.
I really hope we can be friends and I mean that. I actually have your best
interests at heart I believe, as well as UC Berkeley's.
You state that you are implying zero interpretation of your own. The
following is your statement, right?
"Another weird thing about those results is that many are negative, which
is physically impossible. This means that they are nondetections, and the
fluctuations around zero are due to statistics.
Be careful when interpreting data straight from a database without any
explanation!
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]"
It might interest you to know Mark, that sometimes when researchers post
results in the field, that they employ a type of 'shorthand method' to
acknowledge that a CSU has been applied to the result. It is common for
researchers to do this by posting the same result detected, as a
'negative'.
'This means that they are nondetections', comes across to me as not living
up to the standard of 'not applying interpretation'.
I would also take issue with almost your entire cited post on that matter,
especially: "The closest result I found was for Pu-239 measured in San
Francisco on 3/24. The result is (6.5±5.8) * 10^(-6) pCi/m^3, but this is
not statistically significant."
That's applying 'zero interpretation'?
To your answer here, just above this reply: "So those plutonium measurements are, by definition of the EPA, officially non-detections."
(Again, this is your opinion of applying 'zero' interpretation?)
I would like a solid answer to this question please, this time without any interpretation on your part:
Does the BRAWM Team acknowledge that the EPA has detected Plutonium-238 and Plutonium-239 in the USA, attributed to the 'Fukushima Nuclear Accident'? Yes or No?
The EPA has NOT detected Plutonium
Now THAT Is Science Which Puts the Public Health 1st, Isn’t It?
Thank you for indulging me and enlightening me Mark. I wasn’t aware that
the EPA had pulled the Plutonium Detection results. I’ve shared the
information.
In addition to being so poisonous, Plutonium 239 has one of the longest
half-lives of all of these poisonous radioisotopes, doesn’t it? Between
24,000 and 24,200 years, dependent upon where one references? Doesn’t that
mean even the most miniscule amounts of Plutonium 239 will accumulate
rather easily?
In light of that premise, if miniscule amounts of Plutonium 239 were
detected in 'one individual air sample', it seems to stand to reason that
those same miniscule amounts of Plutonium 239 will accumulate within the
soil during 'rainwater runoff' and that such testing would be preferable in
terms of detection.
This is one of the reasons that I love science so much. It always boils
down to 1+1=2...1+2=3...1+3=4...etc, which is really how we determine
accumulation, right? 'Accumulation' is just 'Addition', correct?
(I understand that the Asymptotic Analysis for decay rates of multiple
radioactive isotopes is a 'bear', but we start with determining
accumulation, correct?)
About these ‘non detections’ of Plutonium 239 and Plutonium 238, I have a
question:
"The plutonium 239 reported by the EPA in San Francisco, Ca.
was considered technically not a detection because it's not
at least 2x the stated CSU:
San Francisco 3/24/2011:
RESULT_AMOUNT: 0.0000065 pCi/M3
CSU: 0.0000058 pCi/M3
Riverside 3/24/2011:
RESULT_AMOUNT: 0.0000013 pCi/M3
CSU: 0.000003 pCi/M3"
Will you please indulge me and tell me, doesn't that mean if there had been
testing that entire week as opposed to one day...even with that 'extremely
miniscule amount' of Plutonium 239, that it would only have taken one
additional day of the same exact miniscule result to accumulate Plutonium
239 to a level which satisfies the CSU you have provided, as an official
detection?
______________________
(On a side -note):
I believe that Plutonium 239 will be detected here on the West Coast
soon enough. Let us check back in a month from now and see if
Plutonium 239 has been detected by then. Today is June 03, 2011.
I hope bright young minds from the BRAWM Team detect it first. I believe
that would be quite the ‘feather in the cap’ for UC Berkeley. I really do
admire the pursuit of excellence and I’ve grown up loving science.
I would encourage the BRAWM team to conduct testing of soil samples,
collected from under people’s rain-gutter downspouts, up and down the West
Coast, especially at higher altitudes, given we are dealing with
'Distribution of Hazardous Materials' through the mechanism of 'Natural
Weather'.
I believe that if the BRAWM Team detected Plutonium first- it would really
be big news as well as beneficial knowledge for Public Health.
On Zero Tolerance
Thank you for indulging me and enlightening me Mark. I wasn’t aware that
the EPA had pulled the Plutonium Detection results.
Actually, the EPA did not "pull" the results — they reported them as non-detections in that 4/6 report; they never reported those results as detections. As far as I can tell, the idea that they were detections came sometime in mid-April when some people outside the EPA found the raw data and misinterpreted them.
Will you please indulge me and tell me, doesn't that mean if there had been testing that entire week as opposed to one day...even with that 'extremely miniscule amount' of Plutonium 239, that it would only have taken one additional day of the same exact miniscule result to accumulate Plutonium 239 to a level which satisfies the CSU you have provided, as an official detection?
No. Both the result and the CSU would change if the collection time were changed, not just the result alone.
By the way, the data listed earlier only gave the test date, not the sample collection dates. The San Francisco sample was collected on an air filter over three days (3/15-3/18), and the sample was tested in a detector on 3/24. The Riverside sample was collected over four days (3/11-3/15) and tested on 3/24.
I believe that if the BRAWM Team detected Plutonium first- it would really be big news as well as beneficial knowledge for Public Health.
Thank you. We did collect our own air filter sample in mid-April and are still testing it. We are not set up to test for Plutonium like the EPA is, so it has proven difficult to get it to work.
By the way, as others have pointed out here, the limits that are set by the EPA's measurements in March are quite restrictive, and well below significant detections that were made 20 or 30 years ago. This is indeed putting the public health first — they have ruled out any amounts of concern at all.
And in this sort of testing, as in basically all science, there is no such thing as "absolutely zero." We can test and test and test, and drive the limits down farther and farther and farther toward zero, but in the end we can never say there is "exactly zero" there. We can say there is 1±2, -0.01±0.02, 0.0001±0.0003 and so on, but we can't get to "zero." We are always limited by the counting statistics of our detection techniques. And at some point, we say "close enough, this is not worth the extra time."
I really understand that you would like "zero tolerance" — but in the real world, we have to decide what "zero" we can tolerate.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
My apologies- I didn't communicate the question properly
San Francisco 3/24/2011:
RESULT_AMOUNT: 0.0000065 pCi/M3
CSU: 0.0000058 pCi/M3
Mark, what I mean to ask:
.0000065 was detected.
If .000013 would have been detected (double the miniscule amount detected)
Then the result would have satisfied this particular CSU, (.0000116 correct?)
It would have been considered an actual detection, yes?
No problem, I see what
No problem, I see what you're asking.
If the measurement reported were 1.3E-5 (two times the actual measurement 6.5E-6) with a CSU of 5.8E-6, then twice the CSU would be 1.16E-5, and the measurement would be reported as a detection.
What I was responding to in my answer is that there are no guarantees that measuring for twice as long would give a result that is twice as large, nor that the CSU would remain the same. In general, this will not happen. A measurement like this cannot be used to extrapolate in the way you seemed to imply.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I understand your point. Thank you.
I understand your point. Thank you.
I doubt most of the 'working Mom's out there understand that
literal 'split hair' and what weight it carries.
With that clarification I want to say thank you- we just
exhausted that discussion. You are an extremely patient
individual. I really admire that.
I hope my opener gave you a 'so close yet so far'
laugh, but I hope you also listened for some thoughtfulness
and some good advice. I'd like to request the face palm art
go back up. I rather liked it. It looked like a 'thinking man'.
Have a great weekend.
P*E*A*C*E*
Thanks for the EPA link, Mark
I think "ND" makes it pretty clear.
I respectfully disagree.
I respectfully disagree.
Mark from the BRAWM team explained it
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3439#comment-4463
Even if the recent result was an actual detection
It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've seen that amount
and higher in the US in the last 20 years. As recently as 1999,
Pu-239 was detected in Knoxville, TN at an amount approx. 3x
the recent San Francisco result. And that's at 13x the CSU.
Just FYI, the results below are aCi/M3 (10E-18) vs. the more
recent pCi/M3 (10E-12) unit being used. So, 6.5 aCi/M3 is the
same as 0.0000065 pCi/M3. And 18.9 aCI/M3 is the same as
0.0000189 pCi/M3.
CITY, STATE, RESULT_AMOUNT, CSU, RESULT_UNIT, RESULT_DATE
KNOXVILLE, TN 18.9 1.5 ACI/M3 7/15/1999
LAS VEGAS, NV 16.1 1.6 ACI/M3 8/4/1992
COLUMBUS, OH 13.9 8.7 ACI/M3 2/19/2002
LAS VEGAS/906 NV 11 2.6 ACI/M3 10/2/2006
OAK RIDGE/K25, TN 8.4 1.4 ACI/M3 7/21/2005
TOLEDO, OH 8.17 0.89 ACI/M3 8/18/1993
SANTA FE, NM 7.2 5.1 ACI/M3 10/8/2002
LAS VEGAS/913, NV 6.5 1.6 ACI/M3 7/26/2005
I'm Attempting To Understand your Point...
Today our situation is that the US is in the 'Natural Weather Distribution
Path' of an 'Ongoing Multiple Core Nuclear Meltdown/Explosion Event'.
Perhaps that does not make a difference? It seems to stand to reason that
it would make a difference as it is a continuing emanating source
radiation.
Can you tell me which of the detections you cite would not have been of
interest to the public health? (Public Health is the focus of my queries.)
Perhaps some of those detections were attributable to Fallout from Nuclear
Tests in the past, lingering in the upper atmosphere? If so, should that
give us 'pause' in terms of the 'Long Term effects' of such hazardous
radioactive releases into the environment?
Can you tell me what methods exist in terms of physical remediation for
people such as myself, who prefer a 'zero-tolerance', (to the best of our
ability), in terms of excluding such poisonous hazardous materials as
Plutonium 239 from our diet, inhalation?
I've read about the use of 'Zeolite' and 'Prussian Blue' and other natural
methods which were developed or utilized in Chernobyl, Belarus, etc...but
I'm looking for more information.
Levels up to 5 times higher in the late 70's/early 80's
Los Angeles had a result of 32.8 aCi/M3 reported 10/15/1981.
Berkely had a result of 21.9 aCi/M3 reported 10/5/1981
Those results are 5x and 3.4x the most recent San Francisco
result. And are well above 2x the CSU. Which, again, the most
recent San Francisco result is not.
For this exercise
What matters is whether or not Plutonium 239 or other
alpha emitters from Fukushima have been detected in
California or elsewhere in the US.
What matters is the complete picture
Which includes historical detections and impact.
Glad to hear it
If the 'complete picture' is truly what matters to you, then
I'm certain you must have very harsh words indeed, for those
who have claimed "Mission Accomplished- Everyone Is Safe", prior
to paint being applied to canvas, (much less drying), whereas
the repercussions of Fukushima fallout are concerned.
Now as to the 'current' limited scope of 'my' particular exercise,
what matters to 'me' is whether or not alpha emitters from Fukushima
have been detected in California or elsewhere in the US.
Facepalm. So much wrong,
Facepalm. So much wrong, don't know where to start.
Darnit...these pesky
Darnit...these pesky 4channers are EVERY where.
I can empathize with your plight.
Maybe you could start by refocusing your efforts upon educating the
public to natural physical remediation efforts which were employed after
Chernobyl, for those who wish to have a ‘zero tolerance’ for unwanted
radioactive isotopes in their diet, etc? Some of us don’t like the idea of
low level ionizing radiation coursing through our bloodstream etc.,
regardless of the BRAWM Team’s assurances of safety.
For instance, I understand the powder form of the ‘molecular sieve’, Zeolite, was applied to the diet of both humans and cattle (including cows- to remove radioactive isotopes from their milk), after Chernobyl. I
understand it also removes radioactive isotopes from the soil. Do you know
if that’s true?
It seems to me that it stands to reason, that such topics would have
been much healthier topics for the public over the last few months, than
these 'airplane analogies', especially in light of the risks to children
and expectant mothers. But the 'airplane analogies' have really lit up
the limelight, haven't they?
Maybe that would be a good place to start?
"Maybe you could start by
"Maybe you could start by refocusing your efforts upon educating the
public to natural physical remediation efforts which were employed after
Chernobyl, for those who wish to have a ‘zero tolerance’ for unwanted
radioactive isotopes in their diet, etc? Some of us don’t like the idea of
low level ionizing radiation coursing through our bloodstream etc.,
regardless of the BRAWM Team’s assurances of safety."
Sorry man, this is a physical impossibility even without Fukushima or the 100 years or so of Nuclear science. Every radioisotope by most people's definition is unwanted in diets.
Background radiation is naturally present and humans have always been exposed to it throughout their evolution and history.
You would have a better chance of flying to the moon with your own two arms than to be able to eliminate radiation from the environment.
Let me clarify-
Elsewhere within this thread I expressed the same thought more accurately
as: ['zero-tolerance', (to the best of our ability)]
That is achievable. It's why people go on diets, etc...it's all about
lifestyle.
Background Radiation is not the issue- 'background radiation' is 'one' of the
ways to 'distract ' people from the issue, which is the ongoing Nuclear
Meltdown Emanations from Fukushima.
In terms of what is achievable or not, 'zero tolerance' for 'murder' is as
unachievable as 'zero tolerance' for natural death. Regardless, civilized
society does the best it can to prevent 'murder', as it should.
good post, one that makes
good post, one that makes sense. that public health risk model is pseudo-science.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay
This man
is not well.
.............................
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`
You know what this guy is
You know what this guy is thinking?
Calculation of effective dose from exposure to ground contamination.
1) Equation
The effective dose calculated includes the external dose and committed
dose from inhalation (resuspension) resulting from remaining on
contaminated ground for the period of concern – first month, second
month or lifetime (50 years). Once the radionuclide concentrations on
the ground are known, the effective dose can be estimated.
The equation is:
‘Once the radionuclide concentrations on the ground are
known, the effective dose can be estimated.’
Are the concentrations from Fukushima known? Were the concentrations known at the time?
Does ‘effective dose’ really tell us anything valuable when so
specifically 'factioned off' and 'compartmentalized' to the tune of
‘one individual radioactive isotope', 'without accumulation’, from
'one sampling', early in the life of an event such as Fukushima?
If you faction off the incomplete data and isolate a single facet of
that incomplete data, is that the best way to propagate out and determine
'public health risks'?
Leo (Not anonymous)
"Are the concentrations from
"Are the concentrations from Fukushima known? Were the concentrations known at the time?"
of course not. this denies commonsense and accountability, another gaping hole in the scientific method on display.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.