Isn't It True That Radioactive Isotopes Which Zip Through Our Bodies During Cross Country Flights Just Dehydrate the Human Body?
Isn't It True That Radioactive Isotopes Which Zip Through Our Bodies During
Cross Country Flights Just Dehydrate the Human Body?
We all agree, (I hope), that the same type of radioactive isotopes which
fly through our bodies while riding bicycles fly through our bodies while
we fly in airplanes, merely are found in higher concentrations at higher
altitudes, yes? That's the general premise, right?
The human body is primarily composed of water and the radioactive isotopes
zipping through our bodies and boggling speeds are only present long enough
to deliver an infinitesimal amount of energy, correct?
'Effective Dose' attempts to calculate that infinitesimal amount of energy
and extrapolate based upon that infinitesimal amount of energy, correct?
So what we end up with conceptualizing through 'Effective Dose', is a 'bit
by bit compounding' of 'infinitesimal amounts of energy', correct? That
compounded 'sum' of expressed energy is what we are 'allegedly dealing
with' in terms of effective dose, correct?
It seems to me to stand the test of reason, that we may be able to divine
the effects of such alleged amounts of energy encountered through bair
travel by our own human behavior and changes in our physiology before,
during and after air travel.
In addition to the low humidity in airline cabins, what if this extra
'alleged exposure through radioactive isotopes' merely dehydrates the human
body just a bit more?
I've always heard that flying dehydrates people. I've experienced it every
time I fly. In fact my Aunt tells me to drink water before and after I fly,
because she believes that she has learned that flying dehydrates people.
Isn't this dehydration while flying common knowledge? Water is certainly a
popular purchase in airports.
Also, people seem to become inebriated with more ease on flights, much like
drinking on a sunny beach- dehydration while drinking= higher concentration
of alcohol, right?
Everyone I know seems to be aware of these long understood truths.
Commercial Airlines seem to be aware of dehydration during flights as well:
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/your-health-inflight/global/en
The human body is primarily composed of water and when water is exposed to
energy, isn't 'evaporation' or 'dehydration' the natural process in terms
of cause and effect?
If that is the case, and if we can apply Occam's Razor successfully to this
situation, doesn't that mean that the 'airplane analogy' is possibly and
even probably, nothing more than a comparison of Fukushima Nuclear Fallout
(which we are finding in our water and food cycle), to relatively
'Nothing'?
If a dose is dose, why do
If a dose is dose, why do pregnant women avoid x rays but still fly on airplanes?
Larger dose
The dose from an X-ray procedure is often much greater than the dose from an airplane flight.
This can be seen in the table here. The cross-country airplane dose we are using is 5 millirem = 0.05 mSv, while the dose from many X-ray procedures is over 1 mSv.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
IQ = dress size
;)
Is the OP
1) a blond stewardess with an IQ that matches her dress size?
2) an airline steward, whose IQ is less than his shoe size?
3) a TEPCO corporate executive
This 5-pound 'question' would require 10-pounds of correction before posting a 1-ounce answer.
;)
No, low-humidity cabin air
"Effective dose seeks to
"Effective dose seeks to quantify the amount of damage from ionization for each type of radiation — cosmic rays, alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma-rays. The ionization is measurable and is what leads to the potential cell damage from radiation exposure."
and certainly it must have occurred to you that this idea in and of itself is a very unreliable quantification, making the idea of an effective dose from various types of radiation to be complete pseudo-science and utter nonsense.
your effective dose model has been clearly debunked, if only because it is an apples and oranges thing.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
Actually you are omitting additional data...'again'.
There are a 'variety' of calls for studies, not just the ones you mention, including studies into whether or not the increased magnetic fields produced through airline avionics might be responsible for elevated increases in cancer, etc...not just 'cosmic radiation' (That appears to just be just YOUR favorite, Mark):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11025496
Also it seems to me to be your 'long-standing method' at BRAWM, to avoid all other types of 'dose' methods save for 'Effective Dose'. You know- the 'NRC Preferred Method' which waddles up and down the 'Airplane Aisle' while 'Quacking'.
I don't believe that 'Flaws in Effective Dose' is an uncommon claim in Science, by the way- in fact it appears 'on the way out the door': http://www.columbia.edu/~djb3/papers/bjr3.pdf
It seems to me that BRAWM has been offering a VERY SPECIFIC EDUCATION, down to a 'FAQ' which looks like a NASCAR Racing Jacket peppered with 'NRC Logos'.
I'm happy to see you take a step back when you phrase:
"Effective dose SEEKS to quantify"
as opposed to the claim in your FAQ:
"TEDE [Effective dose] is the MOST APPROPRIATE QUANTITY for comparing the risks of different types of radiation doses."
I'm curious...WHO SAYS it's the most appropriate quantity?
The NRC?
It's interesting to note that the 'Most Appropriate Quantity' is on it's way out the door, isn't it? (I'm not saying that the NRC won't 'cling to it for dear life' I know it will...and with your help it appears.)
All the literature I have read on Effective Dose states that it's only utilized because the 'Actual Variables In Reality' are too 'sophisticated' to discuss with the uneducated public. In other words it describes itself as 'Dumbed-Down-Science'. Here, look:
"However, this [Effective Dose] is a more useful method of discussing risk with patients. They are generally not interested in a complex discussion of the dose and type of radiation absorbed and the potential biologic effects on individual organs."
Source: http://www.polarisacademy.com/resources/1b_Part2-MEASURING%20RADIATION%2...
How many public citizens who came to this forum for education on Radiation do you think were 'not interested in a complex discussion of the dose and type of radiation absorbed and the potential biologic effects on individual organs', Mark?
But do go on! Secure your future career (Isn't that already checked off on the To Do List?)...
...and whatever you do- don't proceed with caution. How could that possibly be prudent in the face of 'Fukushima' when we're discussing public health?
Effective dose
That is not a dead parrot!
“That is not a dead parrot! It’s just sleeping!” – Monty Python
Dear Mark,
Yeah, it was probably a bad idea for you to respond but you could have discerned that from reading your own offering.
If ‘Effective Dose’ and it’s ‘Illegitimate Offspring’ known as the ‘Airplane Analogy’ were human beings as opposed to ‘pseudo science which has HARMED human beings’, I would have mercy towards this slaying.
But that is not the case.
So I am going to ‘stick a few extra swords’ in this ‘ALREADY DEAD sacred cow’ known as ‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’. After that I’d encourage you to leave it to the flies and vultures currently buzzing about. They’ll take it from there.
By the way, the end of the ‘Airplane Analogy’ and ‘Effective Dose’ won’t be blamed upon you, Mark. However, if you hold it 'so close to your heart', that scientists begin to define you as ‘Effective Dose incarnate’ over your emotional objections, then there may be ‘discomfort detected’.
Consider that as a little friendly advice. I don't 'blame' you, but I am forced to discredit some of the science which you 'defend'. Please understand the difference. (I gave you a chance to withdraw your defense on this same forum.)
I can understand the ‘separation anxiety’ of losing the ‘Airplane Analogy’ and ‘Effective Dose’, however. After all, that ‘Effective Dose’ is a ‘magic wand’ that Harry Potter would be jealous of, wouldn’t you say? It must have been fun to wield it for a time...but that's done now.
Now, have you considered that perhaps you don’t have all the data you need to consider in evaluating my 'tone'? That ‘treatment before diagnosis’ method has been a ‘recurring theme’ with methods for which you seem to have an ‘affinity’.
So here is some additional data regarding my tone, (think of it as a FAQ):
_______________
Tone Data FAQ
Tone Data Set 1:
I’ll tell you about some history I’d like to avoid.
The authorities lied to the people in Chernobyl. Upon reflection it was obvious, but not at the time. Just like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI And because nobody succeeded at stopping the authorities in their tracks with the questions that you are facing today, the entire ‘Nuclear Establishment’ has “STUDIES THAT DON’T EXIST” to point towards, so that they may in large part, (as in the BEIR VII report), brush past the reality of Chernobyl and Belarus as if that ‘reality’ were a ‘subway turnstile’.
So here is a declarative statement: Today in 2011, We, The People, will not share that same fate in the form of listening to nonsense as regards Fukushima, understand?
________________
Tone Data Set 2:
…perhaps it would also help you to understand that ‘my tone volume’ is set at ‘volume level ‘1’ right now? And that my overall volume level goes to ‘11’? (I hope you got that in ‘stereo’.)
God I LOVE ‘Spinal Tap’.
Tone Data Set 3:
Most importantly, perhaps it would also help you to understand that my ‘tone’ is not a ‘subject of debate’ and is no more submitted for your approval than the ‘act’ of ‘factioning’ off data to the tune of ‘one radioactive isotope’ from one ‘isolated test’ from ‘one isolated location’ and removing that specific result, frozen in time as it were, ‘as far from reality’ as you could, was ‘subject to respect’ for ‘public health concerns’ OR ‘scientific reason’.
_______________
AbraCadabra and Poof! The ‘Airplane Analogy’ was ‘born’. (Oh ‘Airplane Analogy’, We hardly knew ye, but we KNEW ye were ‘full of it’.)
That was one of BRAWM’s 1st acts, so I can understand why you’d rather talk about my tone. So here:
You ‘win’ the tone debate. You can have it. You can take it back to the Industry and you may claim ‘victory’ over it. That’s ALL you are walking away with and you are only walking away with that because I am ‘gifting’ it to you.
________________
The ‘Airplane Analogy’ and ‘Effective Dose’ is another matter.
Now I believe that scientists who swim within the same soup that you do, will look at your post and attempt to ‘glean hope from it’, otherwise I wouldn’t even bother answering it. Not as an affront to you Mark, it’s just that you bring nothing legitimate to discuss, with the exception of my ‘tone’, I suppose.
I will illustrate:
________________
“First, about magnetic fields….”
You can take up any arguments you have with ‘magnetic fields causing cancer’ with the doctors and scientists who disagree with you, or at least believe it is possible if not probable and deserves further study. I’ve provided the link to their research and offering.
That is what I have done ‘here’ in bringing my arguments against the ‘Airplane Analogy’ and ‘Effective Dose’.
(I’d encourage you to consider that not every science ‘you don’t know about’ or ‘disagree with’ necessarily ‘discounts it’, however.) I just find it interesting to note that there seems to be ‘healthy competition’ in science, for those ‘potential numbers’ you seek to attribute to ionizing radiation, in terms of ‘cancer rates’. (Some things affect other things etc…etc.)
I personally believe that you realize that there are many views and not just your own out there in the grand world of ‘International Science’, although that’s not an idea BRAWM has pushed is it?
________________
Regarding ‘Effective Dose’
EFFECTIVE DOSE IS DEAD AND WITH IT DIES THE AIRPLANE ANALOGY
Yes, the shift Brenner makes is in an interesting direction isn’t it? What’s the title of his piece?
“EFFECTIVE DOSE: A FLAWED CONCEPT THAT COULD AND SHOULD BE REPLACED”
Man! That’s powerful isn’t it!?
It reminds me of that ‘infamous ignored memo’:
“BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.’
Do you believe Brenner’s offering strengthens my case that ‘Effective Dose is flawed’ or weakens it Mark?
Brenner’s offering is the ‘BEGINNING of the exploration’ of the idea of ‘what if we REALLY HAVEN’T accounted for ‘EVERYTHING’ and ‘CANNOT’ through mathematical calculation???
That seems like a reasonable question to me. Is it a radical question?
Curious.
Isn’t bypassing that ‘thought’ a ‘peculiar method’ under which to develop a scientific theory with such ‘VAST’ applications, along with ‘VAST’ projections, which ‘Effective Dose’ claims to ‘make’ or ‘seek’?
Isn’t that ‘Cart before the Horse’?
As regards potential misuse of ‘Effective Dose’, I hardly think that my ability to find compelling arguments arguing SOME of the flaws of Effective Dose and ‘urging it’s replacement’ with a method or calculation which is NOT flawed, evidences anything other than ‘cracks’ in the walls and the foundation!
It certainly indicates how much thought went into the original ‘premise’ for ‘Effective Dose’, doesn’t it? I see cracks like that and I see crumbling, maybe you interpret cracks like that as ‘strengthening’ of ‘walls’?
To each their own…
________________
To your other attempts to ‘salvage’ the unsalvageable, (with a focus on illustration of your failed ‘employed methods’ in attempting that task), you are a good soldier and I give you that:
Your quote, Mark:
“It is important to notice that the author does not propose that the concept of equivalent dose be discarded…“
The author’s quote (with my comments in parentheses):
“The effective dose represents questionable science: TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS (apparently there are more?) for this are that the tissue-specific weighting factors used to calculate effective dose are a subjective mix of different endpoints, and that the marked and differing age dependencies for different endpoints are not taken into account. Importantly, the effective dose is prone to misuse, with widespread confusion between effective dose, equivalent dose and absorbed dose.“ (HERE is where you stopped quoting Mark, omitting THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:)
“It is suggested here that EFFECTIVE DOSE SHOULD AND COULD BE REPLACED by a new quantity that does not have these problems.”
I wonder why you omitted that last sentence and then attempted to spin it your own way by rephrasing it? Was that act due to the ‘weakness’ or the ‘strength’ of your argument, Mark?
I wonder how many people 'fell for that' chacanery by not reading the full abstract within the piece?
________________
Your Quote:
Equivalent Dose is the "building block" of other doses (e.g., effective dose, effective dose equivalent) and is the quantity that accounts for the damage done by the specific type of radiation in the specific tissue.
My response:
For now, stick to the issue at hand please. Currently, we aren’t discussing ‘Equivalent Dose’, (although you never know, there may be ramifications or ‘ripples’) and I’ll not allow you to ‘drag it in here’ so that you may attempt to subject IT to ‘misuse’ as your ‘heat shield’.
‘Effective Dose’ and the ‘Airplane Analogy’ is the ‘pseudo science’ being done away with here.
On a sidenote I will say that if you believe that ‘small quadrants’ of scientific method are ‘Too Big Too Fail’? I would encourage you to study how ‘Copernican theory’ came about. I would also encourage you to repeat out loud 3 times, loudly, the question: “DERIVATIVES AND HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS DO NOT MIX, EXCEPT WHERE DEAD PEASANT’S INSURANCE EXISTS.”
_________________
Your quote:
We are aware of the potential for misuse of effective dose (measured in Sieverts or rem), equivalent dose(measured in Sieverts or rem), and absorbed dose (measured in Grays or Rads). That is why we consulted with a health physicist — to make sure that we were using the appropriate dose.
My response:
Wow, you found ONE ENTIRE health physicist? I guess those are 'difficult to detect' as well.
How could I have ever doubted the integrity of the methods which Effective Dose requires for calculating the planet’s health risk in this case?
Here is a single question I have for your (1) health physicist:
Who made the staggering ‘scientific breakthrough’ of quantifying the vast variables encountered within what we know as the ‘individual human experience’, from Zygote to Corpse and when did it happen? I seem to have missed the memo. I am really embarrassed to have to ask such an ignorant question, but hey, I don’t have a PhD.
Now ask yourselves, scientists, researchers and lovers of Reality Based Science, is THAT a ‘flaw’? Or is that the ‘Grand Canyon’?
And aren’t the biological physiology claims only ‘half’ of what Effective Dose claims to be able to ‘quantify’?
The OTHER half is quantifying ALL known radioactive isotope emissions, regardless of variety, through ‘normalization’ or 'equalization' isn’t it?
Why stop there? Why not show off the ‘Effective Dose Grand Unification Theory’ while we’re at it? I mean, let’s REALLY show them what we can do!
___________________
These claims are really ‘amazing achievement’ claims. What other amazing achievements has the same Nuclear Regulatory Commission ‘Brand’ of science brought us in ‘reality’?
I’ll offer that in the form of a question:
Within the field of Nuclear Engineering, in design phases and then again in construction phases for ‘Tsunami Backup Generator Systems’, according to ‘best practices’, does one place them in:
A)The basement?
Or
B) The cellar?
(If the ‘tone’ of this question is uncomfortable I refer you to my Tone FAQ at the top of this post.)
___________________
There. That is as clean a death as I can muster for the Airplane Analogy.
Most people don’t know how 'important' that card was.
I do.
To working Mom’s who didn’t get that? I would say: If you can smell poopy, that typically means there is a dirty diaper. Now Fukushima is a PARTICULARLY DIRTY DIAPER, but Effective Dose allows you a way out of that. You see, on a subatomic level, matter is all made of the same ‘tiny stuff’, arranged in different ways. Arranged according to ‘variables’, in other words. So the same subatomic particles that make up poopy, also make up ‘roses’. So if you can understand the science, then you can understand how you are actually smelling ‘roses’ if you think about it. This is very well understood in science. Wallah! Airplane Analogy! (That might not be perfect b ut I think I just about got it)
_______________
Now, I know this is a fragile moment…looking down at the splintered and broken magic wand in all it’s little ‘pieces’… so I‘ll offer some helpful advice.
I’d encourage JB Weld…or maybe a ‘transparent resin’ for repair.
I don’t think the ‘wand’ will ever be the same, however.
This July 4th we will be spending it free of the ‘Airplane Analogy’. Everyone in ‘Reality Based Science’ (RBS) knows that is true.
(Many of those in ACS will argue that for a time. I’ll take care of that later.)
Oh, I wanted to share a poem I wrote and then I’m going to untie one hand and get back to painting and writing songs. Please remember, my volume goes to 11.
My poem is about the New Nuclear Brand of Cigarettes we’re all smoking whether we want to or not, thanks to the pinheads that’ll no doubt be annoyed with me.
______________
(For Laurel)
‘Invisible lights’
Cigarettes dance with angels
On the heads of pins
-niwa shimizu ('clear water in the garden')
______________
P*E*A*C*E*
Wow you sound crazy. First,
Wow you sound crazy. First, you seem to not know the definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is stuff like ghosts and astrology.. You may disagree with effective dose, but that is a scientific theory and not pseudoscience. Also, your arguments against it seem to be based on the idea that since all variables cannot be taken into account, the theory is false. Well, nice to know that you have single handily admitted you don't believe in any scientific analysis since in all analysis all variables cannot be taken into account.
I agree with Mark's points. The author only claims that we should include a few more variables, but still keep the effective dose. The paper you cited is going against the point you are trying to make. If you have such a problem with this science, get a degree in nuclear engineering and preform some research. That is how science is done, when 99.99999% of scientists agree with this analysis, you will still have a small percentage that disagrees. Yes, our understanding of dose can be wrong, but until we see evidence that it is wrong, we will not change the theory. That is how science works.
Thank you for surrendering on 'premise'.
That's more like it.
Now, do you think I would bypass the 'BUFFET' which exists in the form of the miscalculation of 'variables' evidenced by BRAWM's use of 'Effective Dose'?
What do you think brought me here?
(???)
Let me ask an ignorant question: Does 'accumulation of data' affect 'beginning and endpoints' of data in terms of determining 'variables'?
Where is your data? As in 'ALL' of the data which is necessary to quantify the repercussions of this event? BRAWM admittedly can't even detect all forms of radiation which may be encountered while they test ('primarily' from very few locations, correct?), but man- talk about an 'exponent factory'!
Your 'Exponent Manufacturing' reminds me of this:
'Alright girls! Listen carefully! This is the EXPONENT Department!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uztA6JCKB4s
What about data? Why doesn't anyone want to talk about 'Accumulating Raw Data' and working from such data? Is it because it's 'damning'?
Where is your 'Distribution Concentrations of Fukushima Born Radioactive Isotopes due to variable altitude data?
Where is your blood test data?
Where is your lichen data?
Where is your 'asymptotic analysis' on ALL of the 'Fukushima Released Radioactive Isotopes' (Decay series as well, just in case that little girl playing in a rain puddle who 'already HAS cancer' runs into some Tellurium-132 which is on it's way to decaying to Xenon gas or whatnot?)
The headache of actually dealing in REAL science with the task at hand led to 'intellectual laziness' controlled through 'Industry Obedience'.
Do you think I went to premise first because it was the only way to expose it's Grand Canyon/Mariana Trench flaws? (Marine Biologists will be helpful soon, won't they?)
I went to premise first so that the 'conversation' would be maintained within the public sphere of understanding. That way the public could witness the death of Effective Dose in a manner that would make complete sense to them, down to the working Mom's. How did I do?
I hope that I have established quickly, 'who' is credible and who is 'not'.
Guess where you're standing and what you are standing in? It won't make a difference as to what you say in the halls and classes by the way...
"Leo is not civilized in how he is going about destroying our pseudo-science."
Do you think I refer to 'Effective Dose' as 'pseudo-science' due to my confusion as regards 'definition' or is it even REMOTELY possible that I wish to give your 'current methods' the 'respect they deserve'?
(You account for all variables all of the time don't you?)
That must be why Mark has on numerous occasions on this forum, found it necessary to 'recalculate' due to 'errors', because the method is so 'airtight'. Imagine the complexity given the current situation of Fukushima, if a 'tenth' of the variables necessary with what 'Effective Dose' claimed to do were even 'taken into account'!
Question: "What about the direct injections of the radiation into the sea and wreckage which was drawn out by the Tsunami?"
Answer: "Oh, look on this paper. We accounted for all the variables. It'll just be dispersed. See (points) There is the 'O' for Ocean and there is the 'V' exponent, for variables. All done. See how easy science makes matters? If only the general public weren't so uneducated, they could understand."
The current methods didn't even bother to cook the books. 'Effective Dose' just 'burned the books'. It was easier and 'Hey, we had to put this puppy together quickly! Give us a break!
From my perspective? It seems that the only effort which has been given to 'variables' under the misuse of the recently deceased 'Effective Dose', has been to compose 'scientific arguments' which deny that the variables 'exist'. THAT is where you have spent most of your 'energy' and 'thought' and that's why it is SO easy to 'dig up this weed'.
We'll have a nice long discussion regarding your 'method' concerning variables, don't you worry.
"You support Leo? Are you crazy? He wants to destroy us all!"
Not true. I love science and it will rise again like a Phoenix.
There is 'Very little to NO' future in the 'Airplane Analogy Science'(AAS) which has dominated the discussion for the last 4 months, however. That should be obvious to even the casual observer.
Now since the 'Public Relations' plan had it in mind to leave all these Nuclear Engineering students as the 'scapegoats' for the egregious act which has been committed, I've decided to do the best I can to help them avoid that fate.
They're good kids- just misled. They deserve a good future. They've worked hard.
So, excuse me and 'enjoy' your last days on Mt. Olympus.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/01/huhne-fukushima-emails-criticism
Happy 4th of July.
Enjoy your weekend
'ACS Science' will definitely hold onto the Airplane Analogy and 'Effective Dose'.
Enjoy your weekend
Is cosmic radiation (for
Is cosmic radiation (for simplification pre Fukushima) particulate? Or is the energy in the form of waves of energy or both? I have just enough knowledge of this to think dangerously, so if BRAWM could respond? Or some other nuclear scientist : )
Just looked into my own
Just looked into my own question above and found this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Looks like most of the cosmic radiation is of the microwave variety.....which is in the form of a wave and less harmful than the radioactive particle...correct? (Assuming that this radioactive particle enters our body in some way).
You are way off. What you
You are way off. What you were looking at was the cosmic microwave radiation, which is the time after the big bang when the universe became transparent. Cosmic rays are high energy particles, mostly protons that bombard our planet from space. They are extremely energetic. This makes them extreme;y fascinating since its hard to tell how some of them are created. For example, some cosmic rays are protons with the equivalent energy of a tennis ball traveling 100 mph. That is a lot of energy for 1 proton. They can be extremely damaging since they can hit some atom in your body and literally explode the atom. This of course adds a dose to your yearly dose and is the reason why people who live in Denver get a much larger yearly background dose than someone who lives near sea level.
Okay, looks like I did the
Okay, looks like I did the wrong search. This looks more like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation
Lots of reading to do. I am sorry if this is basic stuff to many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_wave
haha...ok, give me about an
haha...ok, give me about an hour to read this : ) Thanks for the link. I will read it, however if anyone wants to explain this in "normal non-nuclear physicist" terms feel free!
"which is in the form of a
"which is in the form of a wave and less harmful than the radioactive particle...correct?"
Who told you that?
This is just my assumption
This is just my assumption from college coursework. If particles are inhaled or ingested and in close proximity to tissue, then the POSSIBILITY of damage is greater. It would seem this is especially true when comparing to microwaves. ??? I am putting this out there for BRAWM or others to discuss, not to claim I know it all. Any facts to add to this is appreciated. I am trying to understand the airplane analogy.
The 'Airplane Analogy' is nothing more than a successful effort
The 'Airplane Analogy' was/is nothing more than a successful effort to move
the subject of 'Fukushima Fallout' out of the public sphere where it
belongs.
When Fukushima hit the media over 4 months ago- the same proponents of the
'Airplane Analogy' claimed that Radioactive Isotopes under the 'worst-case-
scenario' would never survive the trip across the Pacific Ocean.
Thanks to efforts of proponents of this 'pseudo science' known as the
'Airplane Analogy', the general public was persuaded that there was 'no
cause for public health concerns'. This declaration, (absent of any caution
whatsoever in the face of an unprecedented event), has not been withdrawn.
This is the irreparable damage which UC Berkeley in the form of the Nuclear
Engineering Dept and the BRAWM Team have caused. I have hopes that the
BRAWM Team and UC Berkeley will get that straightened out.
The BRAWM Team now know that their projections as regards the severity of
the Fukushima event were wrong. Despite that fact, currently they refuse to
withdraw their defense of the 'Airplane Analogy'. In the future it's my
opinion that posterity will look back upon this 'Airplane analogy' act with
amazement that so many were fooled by so few.
If you really want to understand the 'Airplane Analogy', you will need to
research it from it's roots. That begins with the raw data from the
'Radiation Detection' flights which are not sourced in the FAQ.
I don't believe that data has been offered or discussed on this forum(?)
Such a discussion would be extremely educational for the public to know
about since it is so pivotal to the analogy.
Maybe someone for BRAWM or an anonymous can provide a link to that data?
That would be useful. The 'Flight Detection' data I refer to is:
_The dates when the data was compiled (Day/Month/Year)
_Along with the data
_Along with the exact type of aircraft which was flown to collect the data
(so we can compare differences with the current commercial aircraft to
which the analogy makes comparisons, in order to assure we are not
comparing apples to oranges)
That data wouldn't be the 'ER2 Data' would it?
You clearly do not
You clearly do not understand the airplane analogy and seem to lack a lot of knowledge on the topic of radiation dose. The analogy is used to connect the dose one gets from numerous other sources to the dose one receives in an airplane flight. Now this may be hard to understand, but when you received a dose from a flight, it equates to a dose from internal emmiters. That is how all doses are calculated. 5 mrem on a flight equals 5 mrem of internal dose, if both are converted to whole body dose. They cause the same amount of damage. Claiming it is pseudo science is laughable. I have never meet or seen a nuclear scientist claim that the radioactivity would not reach the US. We have known since the 50s that it we can measure the radioactivity across the globe. The amount of dose received is easy to calculate. You take the dose one receives from cosmic rays at ground level, and then you take into account the amount of air that is between the ground and a flight. You have that much less attenuation. That is why the dose is higher in Denver compared to here.
Anonymous, I understand just fine.
Anonymous, I understand 'normalization' of data just fine, thank you.
I also understand the method of normalization provides nothing of value
in this instance. It's a sham.
Most within the industry realize that. Fear of reprisal in the form of
blackballing keeps them publicly silent on the matter.
It's well understood that Iodine-131 specifically targets the thyroid.
Why don't you explain to everyone how that happens on a flight from San
Francisco to DC since you are so knowledgeable and the doses are equivalent
and interchangeable.
How is it a sham? What data
How is it a sham? What data do you have showing that the scientific method for calculating dose is wrong? I know I131 is absorbed by the thyroid. That is taken into effect when calculating the dose. Thus the doses are equal, even when taking into account the increased dose to the thyroid. Getting a dose from an internal emmiter will cause the same amount of damage as a dose from an external emiiter. Doses take everything into account, that is why you can say they are equivalent.
Really? Fascinating.
In that case, you should have plenty of cases of diagnoses of
Thyroid Cancer attributed to 'Cross Country Flight Radiation
Exposure'.
I don't suppose you'd like to share that data with everyone?
I see you still don't get
I see you still don't get it. A dose is dose. Currently, the conservative belief is that any dose, even very small doses, cause cancer. So yes, technically people flying in planes will have a chance of getting cancer. As well as people who eat bananas. They may not get thyroid cancer, but some type of cancer. That is how dose to cancer is calculated. You may ask how come there is not a huge rise in cancer because of flights. Well, there has yet to be a conclusive study on low dose risk. So are conservative estimate may be wrong. That is also the reason why the doses here in America are low and will not statistically show up in cancer rates. You have a higher chance of getting cancer from China's coal plants than from these low iodine levels.
For the record, and for what
For the record, and for what little it's worth, I tend to agree. But if there's ne thing that pisses (rightfully) concerned people off more than the so-called "Airplane Analogy", believe me, it's the Banana Banality. Or, "Banananality", I suppose.
It's no one's fault, and I know it's grounded in science... it just comes off badly, like a particularly bizarre SAT question: Bananas are to cancer as alcohol is to ____________.
That answer would be [C] liver disease, btw.
So you don't have that data?
What a surprise. I wonder what clued me in?
Can you feel people laughing at you and rolling
their eyes?
I thought you were a fan of data?
Keep flying your 'Banana Plane'. It's disappointing
that you can't even keep up with your own concepts.
That took all of...what...5 minutes? Must have
taken longer than necessary due to my
'lack of understanding'.
Thyroid targeted by Iodine-131 on an airplane
flight...sheesh...I hope you aren't a Nuclear
Engineering student at Berkeley because if you
are- you just embarrassed your peers.
Hard to show data when it is
Hard to show data when it is in books. But here is a couple of web searches.
Effective dose
http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/eff-dose.html
cosmic dose
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm
I don't have time to scan all the books I have on this topic. You are arguing against the prevailing norm on radiation dose. Pick up a book on health physics and see what it says.
Enjoy the summary of papers on airline dose found here:
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html
I'll attempt to clarify...
I'm not arguing math/calculation.
I'm arguing premise.
Let's say that I have lost 5 hours of 'nightly sleep dose'
over the 'abomination' that is known as the 'Airplane Analogy'.
Let's say that started 14 weeks ago. 14 X 7 = (let me get my
calculator)...98 nights. 98 X 5 hours per night = 490 hours.
Now...let's say that UC Berkeley owes me $2000 an hour (my
sleep means quite a bit to me) $2000 X 490 = $980,000.
OK. UC Berkeley owes me $980,000.00
Where is my math wrong?
You had insommia because of
You had insommia because of the airplane analogy? Why don't you just check the raw data or the data on Becquerel/Kg? It's not like BRAWM provide us with the airplane equivalent and hide the rest of the data.
I tell you again, you are giving the airplane analogy more importance than what it has. At this point I don't don't know what are you trying to argue about.
1) Airplane flights do not correspond to a higher dose
2) The dose coefficients used by BRAWM to normalize internal/external dose depending on the different isotopes are not correct
I don't think you are retarded, so I think you are upset because of 2). That's easy, just use the data published by BRAWM and analyze it according to LLRC's own dose coefficients, for example, which multiply by 100 the received dose by each isotope. I mean, they haven't done their own studies, they just assume ICRP standards are wrong by two orders of magnitude. But anyway, even the guys from the LLRC said that the levels measured on the West Coast are no cause for concern.
OK, you can argue the
OK, you can argue the premise is wrong. But what is wrong about it? It has been shown to be correct, and if it is wrong that dose is dose that means that there is absolutely no proof that low level of radiation is harmful. It also means that any study used to link a dose to an effect is specific for the dose received by a specific isotope. That is not true. I want to know where is the premise wrong because arguing dose is not dose would mean that all radiation studies since the 40s are wrong.
I have a BETTER question
How is the premise NOT wrong?
Do you want to know what the root cause of this
'fiasco' is? Groupthink. It's more important to
be part of the 'group' then it is to do the right
thing, such as asking questions of ourselves or
questioning authority.
Just because the 'Airplane Analogy' is 'fantasy'
doesn't mean that 'every study since the 40's is
completely wrong'. It just evidences that massaging
and sculpting of data takes place. (In some places
more frequently than others.)
In reality, Radioactive Dose 'resists encapsulation
through normalization' as a result of Radiation's
'varied nature'.
Again, the math is fine.
It's the 'premise' that's flawed.
You lost me at the end with
You lost me at the end with encapsulation and normalization. Seems you are just throwing around terms. You are saying the premise is wrong and blaming it on group think. Apparently you think science is all group think. That is a ridiculous statement to make. Where is your evidence of manipulation of data? You keep saying the premise is flawed, but what is the flaw? This analogy is based on science, so if you have a better theory for radiation damage I would love to hear it.
Really? Science has 'proven' the Airplane Analogy?
Really? Science has 'proven' the Airplane Analogy?
How old is the Airplane Analogy?
I was under the impression that the 'Airplane Analogy' was 'rolled out' for the Fukushima PR Campaign.
Am I wrong? Did Schroedinger, Bohr, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Rosen create the Airplane Analogy? Who is the scientific genius who conceived the 'Airplane Analogy' and proudly touts it as their accomplishment?
Can you answer that?
What great scientist conceived of the 'Airplane Analogy' as the BRAWM Team has utilized it, to make 'vast projections regarding public health' on data 'factioned off' to the tune of '1 radioactive isotope in 1 individual water sample' frozen in time?
The airplane analogy HAD to have an 'origin'.
Who is that scientist?
Science assumes dose is
Science assumes dose is equivalent to dose when all factors are taken into account. Now this is difficult to prove since there has been no study that can show correlations between cancer rates and low doses of radiation. This view of dose is dose is assumed because it yields a conservative estimate of the dangers of radiation. Your claim that this airplane analogy is faulty is suggesting that the dose is dose assumption is faulty. Now I agree the dose is dose assumption is faulty, but probably for different reasons than you. I think it overestimates the dangers of low doses. Now if you claim the dose is dose assumption is wrong, that would then suggest that there is no way to quantify the dangers of radiation except with studies that look at the dangers of each isotope in every situation. That will never happen.
'Science' does nothing you claim.
But the 'NRC Brand' of science does.
"Now if you claim the dose is dose assumption is wrong, that would then suggest that there is no way to quantify the dangers of radiation except with studies that look at the dangers of each isotope in every situation."
That's right, not to mention each individual's age, gender , health condition as well as the method of exposure, and on and on etc...
"That will never happen."
It just 'did' happen.
Apparently you missed it.
Probably because it wasn't submitted for your approval.
Have a good day.
They are going to have the
They are going to have the same problem as they did in quantifying the Chernobyl effects. They would not be able to measure the actual dose received by everyone or the method they received it. Epidemiological studies are notoriously difficult. What you are arguing will most likely go agasint what you are aiming for. The only study that was able to do that was the Hiroshima study. However that measures high acute dose. Every other study since then has not been able to take into account all those variables. That means we have no idea if low dose chronic is bad for you. We assume it is, but it then it has no backing since the studies cannot take into account all of those variables. The effects may be seen in 20 years, but the ability to account for variables in a 20 year period is near impossible and the increased rate of cancer will be statistically hard to quantify, i.e barely above the noise.
Nuclear Energy Brand Science should have studied Chernobyl?
Nuclear Energy Brand Science should have studied Chernobyl?
No kidding? You should write a paper on that.
I agree with you that the concept of 'Effective Dose' is about as realistic as a newborn infant immediately conducting a 'Mission To Mars' upon the cutting of the umbilical cord.
I guess we must learn to walk before we can run?
"Is it only a threat if the health effects suffered by individuals
start to be noticeable in terms of average statistics?" - Paul Langley
Please seek out one of your physics instructors
Please seek out one of your physics instructors and ask him/her
to explain what I am offering. I'm certain they will be able
to convince you that I am not just throwing terms around:
In reality, Radioactive Dose 'resists encapsulation
through normalization' as a result of Radiation's
'varied nature'.
I've got tired head. I've responded to many comments. I'll
follow up with the rest when I can.
P*E*A*C*E*
The statement does not make
The statement does not make sense. I do not need to ask a physics professor about it. You haven't laid out why the premise is wrong. I may just be unable to understand the statement, what does that mean? You keep using it so I assume you know what it means.
it is a flawed unscientific analogy
the airplanes/bananas/speedboats analogy is severely flawed, bogus pseudoscience, and nothing more. anyone that doesn't realize or understand that does not possess critical thinking skills nor understand rudimentary gradeschool science.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
How is it pseudoscience?
How is it pseudoscience? Since you are lumping it in the same category as psychics and ghosts, what is so non scientific about the analogy? It is an analogy based on the assumption that dose is equivalent to dose. That is a scientifically held belief.
you're not paying attention
you're not paying attention obviously.
bananas/airplanes/speedboats analogy debunked here :
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4799#comment-13024
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
Look! Truth! On this forum!
Remember when Charlie gave Willie Wonka the 'Everlasting Gobstopper' back?
zB^D?
who let the dog out
certainly i didn't realize that three different types of radiation and their effects on human tissue were normalized for this model. what non-scientific nonsense.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
First I want to know something.
Your voice and written technique sounds to me like someone with whom I conversed 'early on' in this Fukushima experience about independent testing who didn't even realize that dust could be radioactive, or to be more specific, that 'radioactive isotopes attach to dust or are absorbed by dust' and then can be carried away by 'wind'.
After being harassed by this voice I discontinued communication.
This wouldn't be you would it DB?
If it is, try to have some integrity and answer honestly.
I have never conversed with
I have never conversed with you before. I am a scientist. I am not trying to harass you, but I am trying to figure out what exactly you find wrong about the analogy.
That's what I thought. Lotta nerve. No class.
You have acted foolishly in the face of this disaster and you should be acutely aware of that by now.
I'll answer your 'questions' (more like 'frantic flailing') at the bottom of the page.
Not trying to speak for
Not trying to speak for anyone else, here, but it's just possible that it's the fact that analogies are being used at all that's unacceptable.
Radiation exposure / dosage is by definition poorly documented and only minimally understood. Absent odor, color or taste, it's undetectable in even massive quantities except by highly specialized equipment and uniquely qualified experts. Except in the most extreme cases its effects are invisible and take years or decades to manifest. Even the most diligent forensic investigations of later illness often leave nagging questions with no reassuring answers. And there are precious few well-documented historical cases to reference. The entire concept is fraught with inexactitude and uncertainties, no more so than when attempting to assess likely risks or predict ultimate outcomes. This most precise of sciences, nuclear energy production, leaves in its wake a landscape littered with questions.
So by-definition subjective and approximate analogies, no matter how clever or even accurate, may be cold comfort to a world anxious for hard answers.
What. The. Hell. You manage
What. The. Hell.
You manage to collect on that, let us know. For a cool millgion bucks, my good sense might just be up for negotiation! (...Sorry BRAWM.)