Experts urge great caution over radiation risks
By TOMOKO OTAKE
Staff writer
In order to address public concerns over post 3/11 food safety, the government should be more forthcoming in the monitoring and disclosure of data regarding radiation contamination of soil, Akira Sugenoya, mayor of Matsumoto City, Nagano Prefecture, told this reporter recently.
Sugenoya, a medical doctor, speaks from experience, having spent 5½ years from 1996 in the Republic of Belarus treating children with thyroid cancer. He was there because the incidence of that disease in children surged after the Chernobyl disaster in neighboring Ukraine in 1986. In that April 26 event, which involved an explosion and a fire at the nuclear power plant there, large amounts of radioactive substances were released into the atmosphere.
Consequently, due to his unique experience, Sugenoya — who has held his position as mayor since 2004 — was asked by Japan's Food Safety Commission to share his opinion as an expert at a series of meetings convened in late March to set emergency radiation limits for domestic food.
Commenting on these to the JT, Sugenoya said it is his understanding that the current limits set by the commission (see table) are "relatively stringent" by international standards.
However, he added that infants, children up to the age of 14 and pregnant and breastfeeding women should avoid eating food contaminated with even the small doses of radiation. In fact he said that adults should leave safer food for these more at-risk segments of the population even if it means they will eat contaminated food themselves.
The graph at the top of the
The graph at the top of the article is very interesting.
What a contrast
"Sugenoya, a medical doctor, speaks from experience, having spent 5½ years from 1996 in the Republic of Belarus treating children with thyroid cancer. He was there because the incidence of that disease in children surged after the Chernobyl disaster in neighboring Ukraine in 1986."
What a contrast between such medical professionals who have studied the
repercussions of Chernobyl versus the 'Pro Nuclear Science Advocates', who
'avoid Chernobyl like the plague', so that in the year 2011, they may race
back over 'half-a-century' to get to the comfortable confines of the 'Atomic
Era testing data' which they have been 'massaged and sculpted like clay' for
over 'half-a-century'. It's staggering.
typo
which has been been 'massaged and sculpted like clay'
Without the efforts of some
Without the efforts of some of the so-called 'Pro Nuclear Science Advocates', we would be unable to ascertain anything about the current condition of the Fukushima reactors, spent fuel pools, and control systems. We would be unable to obtain, interpret, or extrapolate results of radiological monitoring. We would be unable to assess the nature of the emergency, its prospective remedies or the potential of catastrophic failure. In other words, we would be deaf, blind, and dumb. (Okay -- more than we are already, I mean.)
You are of course welcome to argue that none of these services, efforts, or knowledge bases would be necessary had their predecessors not invented the scientific discipline in the first place -- and you'd be correct. But at this point it's a little like blaming your local fire department for the efforts of the first Neanderthal to successfully rub two rocks together and create sparks. You can't "un-invent" something. At least, not without a second Dark Ages.
Wow that's a pretty misguided and meaningless rant
Let me help you, friend.
You negate the differences within the 'Nuclear Culture' and you certainly
negate the reality with which we've all been exposed to in the form of
'Fukushima'.
We HAVE BEEN unable to ascertain anything about the current condition of
the Fukushima reactors, spent fuel pools, and control systems- especially
in 'real time' due to the incessant misinformation and downplaying by 'Pro
Nuclear Science Advocates'. Only now, 4 months later, are the facts coming
to light- and the facts tell us that we have been given false information
at the time which have had repercussions to 'Public Health' because
citizens were unable to make informed decisions based upon 'truth'.
(Only people who have stayed tuned in to 'Preventative Maintenance Minded'
Nuclear Professionals like www.Fairewinds.com Arnie Gundersen, have been
getting accurate and reliable information. Arnie might only be right 97% of
the time, but contrast that to the 'Pro Nuclear Lobby' which has been
correct 0% of the time when it comes down to their own Safety Protocol,
Nuclear Containment and Range of Radioactive Material/Isotope Dispersement
Projections.)
We HAVE NOT BEEN able to obtain, interpret, or extrapolate results of
radiological monitoring- due in large part to the lack of ability and
preparedness fostered through the overconfidence and 'outright petulance'
displayed by 'Pro Nuclear Science Advocates', who claimed both that this
entire scenario was 'impossible' as well as claiming there were 'multiple
safety measures in place.
(*Not to mention the egregious 'factioning off of data' by BRAWM as well as
'extrapolation of that same factioned data' which was then utilized to make
vast projections concerning public health which have since proven false)
We HAVE BEEN and CONTINUE to be unable to assess the nature of the
emergency, its prospective remedies and the potential of catastrophic
failure due to that same misinformation- which is why only very RECENTLY
has there been any talk on this forum of 'Physical Remediation'.
Which forum have you been reading?
Not this one apparently.
What do you remember as the 'bell was being rung' mid March?
Do you remember:
'We need to talk about physically remediating our bodies from any and all
radioactive isotopes from Fukushima which may surprise us with their
arrival, (just to be cautious and safe- you know- for the kids and pregnant
women).'
or do you remember:
'The amounts of radioactive isotopes we are detecting (the same amounts we
told you last week were impossible in terms of reaching us), are nothing to
worry about. 'Ingest' away. Eat your veggies, drink your milk. We have kids
too and we're not changing anything in terms of diet. It's all just a fun
airplane ride'
Read through the forum from the beginning- it will refresh your memory.
So, your entire 1st statement is (I'm sorry but it's true), 'pure rubbish',
in that it makes claims in diametric opposition to reality. (Standard 'Pro
Nuclear Propaganda' although I don't claim you are a propagandist)
Your 2nd statement is best ignored, as I wouldn't make such a weak and
ridiculous argument.
I instead would argue that I know very well through experience that there
are good and ethical Nuclear Engineering Scientists at UC Berkeley- as well
as throughout the industry. In fact I'm waiting for them to start speaking
up. (You can start anytime folks- Berkeley's image is tarnished more every
hour you don't speak up)
(The following is widely known in the Energy Industry- if you question it
then go ask someone you know- an engineer, physicist- they'll confirm it's
true if they're worth their salt)
In the Nuclear Industry Culture- we have 'Preventative Maintenance Culture'
which knows the value of following safety protocol and standards. Such
admirable people have been ignored and shoved to the side and events like
Fukushima are the result of not heeding their advice. (Warning against
Tsunami Generators designed to be housed in the basement for instance)
In opposition to that we have 'Firefighter Culture', which prefers to
'plunge ahead with the lowest bidder' and the 'most profitable outcome',
regardless of impact upon human and environmental health. (Those are the
engineers who decided to 'champion' Tsunami Generators designed to be
housed in the basement for instance- that was THEIR grand idea)
See the difference?
'Preventative Maintenance Culture' warned against the 'recklessness' of
Tsunami Generators designed to be housed in basements, citing safety
concerns. Somehow they figured out that water might somehow find it's way
into the basement should a Tsunami occur. (Maybe they had a crystal ball or
alien intelligence helped them understand the mechanics of the scenario and
the forces at play)
'Firefighter Culture' ridiculed 'Preventative Maintenance Culture' for
being concerned with such a thing.
Get it?
The 'Pro Nuclear Lobby' has provided the public with false assurances for
decades.
THAT IS HOW WE GET FROM:
___________________
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0164/r4/
"REACTOR SAFETY SYSTEMS
_A nuclear power plant is equipped with four major types of safety systems
to prevent accidents and reduce their effects if one should occur:
_A system to quickly shut down a reactor and stop the fission chain
reaction.
_Numerous systems to control reactor pressure and to continue cooling the
reactor fuel -- that is, to carry away the heat that continues to be
generated even after the reactor is shut down.
_Electrical, control, and instrument systems for safety systems and for
monitoring reactor conditions. Systems of barriers to contain radioactivity
if it should escape from the reactor fuel in an accident."
___________________
TO:
_Our BWR Nuclear Reactors crack like 'Faberge Eggs' under stress. Sorry.
Where are we meeting for lunch today? Steakhouse and sushi? Man...I'm tired
of steakhouse and sushi.
_Our safety systems are a patented 'Designed to Fail' process which we
employ, such as locating our 'Tsunami backup generators' in the basement.
(We do things like this because our intellectual capacity, experience and
integrity is truly beyond reproach)
_We have no idea whatsoever, how we would contain radioactive fallout
emissions, especially if we were dealing with multiple outlets of
distribution, say the 'Atmosphere' as 'Outlet 1' and the Pacific Sea, as
outlet 2.
_However- we do have a distraction plan. We will 'circle the wagons' and
mislead the American Public into believing that 'natural background
radiation' and other 'naturally occurring radiation' is all anyone need
think about. Also- we will slow-walk any additional information that may be
of interest to the public health.
IT GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON TV:
_Reporting on the Fukushima Nuclear reactors- there seems to be an issue
with one of the reactors.
_This reactor situation appears to be worsening.
_This reactor is really heating up.
_There is a slight possibility that this reactor may go critical- there are
very good reasons we want to avoid that scenario...
_Oh no this reactor has gone critical...
_Oh please don’t let this reactor explode- this is really frightening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE&feature=related
_Ummm...the reactor just exploded.
_Everything is fine now.
_Have we mentioned that radiation may be good for you?
Wash, Rinse & Repeat that 4 times (so far) and THAT is the reality of what
we owe 'Pro Nuclear Lobbyists'.
Try and get that 'tiny little bit' straight.
Sigh. I guess I actually
Sigh. I guess I actually have to draw a picture.
You indicted the "Pro Nuclear Science Advocates", but being "Pro Nuclear SCIENCE"is NOT the same as being "Pro Nuclear POWER", much less "Pro Nuclear Power INDUSTRY", to say nothing of "Pro Nuclear Power Industry LOBBY". You -- and others -- do some very fine, upright, honest scientists an injustice when you confuse and conflagration and combine these very distinct groups.
I would remind YOU, sir, to go back and read Dr. Chivers' own statements, in which he repeatedly assures Forum participants that NO ONE on the BRAWM team has a particular dog in this fight. If I remember correctly, they're all involved in advanced weapons applications or preparing for careers dealing with radiation medicine -- though Cyberspace himself has a background in nuclear power, no one, to my knowledge, is currently an active participant in the "industry". Yet they are all demonstrably "Pro Nuclear SCIENCE Advocates", and we're better off for it, believe me.I happen to agree with you that Arnie Gunderson is a reputable and discerning authority whose knowledge and judgements have been invaluable throughout this crisis. Yes, he's been wrong here and there, having access to precious little data and being forced into guesswork by less-than-forthcoming authorities... but he could very easily have been right (and may yet). He HIMSELF is a Pro Nuclear SCIENCE Advocate", and this is IN NO WAY at odds with his prominent position as a leading voice in the anti-nuclear industry lobby (or at a minimum, pro-responsible nuclear industry lobby). Being an advocate of SCIENCE does not necessarily make you a proponent of every possible technology application DERIVING from that science. Oppenheimer himself, having led the U.S. development of the Bomb, in later life all but disowned the terrible technology. He did not, however, campaign for an end to nuclear science, nor investigation, nor experimentation.
That's a wide brush you're wielding, there. Be sure you're tarring your intended targets, and not also the faultless bystanders who happen to share certain of their characteristics. You can despise the fruit of a particular tree without chopping down every orchard in view.
I spoke to the difference in Industry culture to which you refer
It's difficult to please everyone in terms of labels.
I'm certain that there are very good people in the industry
whom you respect.
I'm aware that every individual is a mixed bag.
Outside of that I'm more interested in the general public
health than I am in worrying about whose feathers I ruffle.
I've read Dr. Chiver's statements- especially his forum posts
encouraging everyone, even pregnant Mother's, to disregard the
Fallout situation and 'ingest away. He's got some explaining to do.
Do you think his encouragement on that front was wise?
Do you have any statements in defense of the public health?
Got anything like that?
I don't give a damn about
I don't give a damn about ruffling fathers. The only thing sacred cows are good for is flame-broiling and sticking between two halves of a bun with tomatoes and onions.
This, I think, is reality:
> The entire Northern Hemisphere is now more or less saturated with cesium. It's in the entire food chain, the air, the water, us. It cannot be avoided unless you're willing to give up drinking, eating, breathing, and existing.
> Currently available data establish that outside of Japan and proximal international waters, concentrations are very very low. Even at peak levels in late March, North American levels were only a fraction of Europe's exposure following Chernobyl.
> Cesium will become concentrated in our food supply, in some foods more than others. It will be years or longer before it disappears completely, and even then, it will remain in the soil.
> Since we still don't fully understand Chernobyl's effects on human health - and likely never will - the "tipping point" beyond which exposure becomes a definitive threat to public health in quantity cannot be firmly defined. However, the best guesses of the smartest and most knowledgeable experts on the matter are that we're not there, yet, based on the fact that Europe has not experienced a mass die-off over the past 25 years. But, no one really knows for sure.
> A healthy, well-balanced diet including fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy, etc. is essential to any successful pregnancy and in-utero human life. The consequences of a deficient diet are well-established and very predictable. So are the potential effects of stress and anxiety. These are "knowns". Since the possible long-term wages of low-dose radiation exposure and radiological intake are much less definitively established (though probably not good), BRAWM weighed the options and decided, better to avoid the KNOWN bad outcome, than guarantee said result in efforts to avoid a POSSIBLE bad outcome. Thus we come to the end of the logic puzzle and witness the triumph of the "known" over the "unknown" or, as I like to call it, rationality over terror.
I agree with Leo! To be
I agree with Leo! To be truly honest, I do not give a damn whose side the industry people are on, if they have the information that can help the human race then it is their responsibility to stand up and speak up! All you people educated and involved in the nuclear industry have some guts and do the right thing for your fellow human beings!
CONFLATE. Not
CONFLATE. Not "conflagration", though one might very well lead to the other.
CHIVERS, not "Cyberspace".
CHIVERS, not "Cyberspace". Bloody Hell.
Sorry, I missed something
Sorry, I missed something:
_We have no idea whatsoever, how we would contain radioactive fallout
emissions, especially if we were dealing with multiple outlets of
distribution, say the 'Atmosphere' as 'Outlet 1' and the Pacific Sea, as
outlet 2.
I forgot to add: 'Maybe we'd throw seawater on it. Not certain.'
I also neglected to give you a copy of the 'Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Emergency Containment Breach Plan'. (It's only a one page document):
http://ckight.wikispaces.com/file/view/frowny-face-3d_original.jpg/20673...