Why Was The Airplane analogy SOOO Important To Nuclear Engineering???
Why Was The Airplane analogy SOOO Important To Nuclear Engineering???
Any ideas?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Search
Why Was The Airplane analogy SOOO Important To Nuclear Engineering???
Any ideas?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Myth of 'a little won't hurt you'
One reason that the use of the airplane analogy is soo important is that it tends to quell the public's fear about the continual releases of radioactive isotopes by the nuclear industry into our environment. We are told 'The releases are as safe as flying'. In order to use that analogy they have to disregard both the ICRP and the ECRR nuclear radiation models . ICRP (the oldest model) is not applicable to the analogy and the ECRR places such a high level of risk, due to low level internal exposure, that it would invalidate the analogy.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5089
The risk assessment model they chose, supporting their aiplane analogy, is BIER VII. That model was designed exculsively by scientists who favor the nuclear industry. All BEIR VII members specializing in radiation appear to support a dose-rate effectiveness factor (DREF). This means they think low doses are less effective at causing disease per unit dose than high doses. So according to the DREF, if you get a high dose of radiation all at once, this is more likely to harm you than the same total dose of radiation given to you in lower doses over time. DREF is not supported by a wide swath of human evidence. The majority of valid human evidence supports either a Linear-No-Threshold or Supralinear curve shape, depending on the disease. Instead, to derive the DREF number, they often ignore valid human data in favor of evidence from animal or cell studies. With their model, the nuclear industry could release a damaging amount of radiation over a longer period of time in lower doses, rather than all at once, and claim that it isn't harming anyone, (flying in the face of both low level exposure risks and the cumulative nature of exposure). The DREF model is one "scientific" justification they would use for putting radioactive waste in consumer products.
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/beirvii.htm
There is ample evidence of the destructive health effects of low level radiation.
http://www.llrc.org/
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5089
http://www.euradcom.org/
http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1
http://vimeo.com/15382750
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yScEI0ZgQP4J:www.di...
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
The nuclear industry is continually releasing radioactive isotopes into our environment. Their reactors are designed to 'vent' radioactivity into the environment in order to keep them from exploding when the pressure gets too high.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3589
http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/complex.php#lanl
The military's use of uranium weapons is continually spreading radioactivity around the world. The extensive and often ineffective use of radioisotopes by the medical industry is also spreading radioactive isotopes. Mining, processing and massive amounts of waste is another source. Fifty percent or more of the so-called 'background radiation' has come from the nuclear industry. Or, to say it another way, the industry has doubled the amount of radiation we are subjected to on a daily basis. That is, due to the nuclear industry's activities we all now get twice as much radiation as we would otherwise receive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puwy2ijQlVw
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-ra...
http://www.260press.com/nuclear-fallout-maps.htm
Most of the radioactive particles which are creating half of all the 'background radiation' would not exist in our environment if it were not for the nuclear industry's production and release. Their mantra of 'a little won't hurt you' is just plain wrong. We can see that it is wrong on two counts: 1) The damaging health effects of low level radiation, and 2) The buildup of all the releases combined, having now doubled the amount of environmental radiation.
The industry is unable to boil water with nuclear fission without periodic releases of deadly radioisotopes. It is unable to mine, process or use the radioisotopes without releases. It is unable to dispose of the waste without the releases. It is unable to clean up radioactive contaminated areas completly. In short, they must maintain the myth that of 'a little won't hurt you' so that we will continue to allow the nuclear industry to pollute our world with deadly radioactivity from radioactive isotopes. 'Little releases' of radioisotopes will, and are, hurting us. They are a major contributor to the current cancer epidemic. The continued toxic accumulation over generations will be unacceptable to our children and their children's children. The release of any and all levels of radioactivity and radioactive particles must be stopped now, before it is too late.
The nuclear industry has not doubled our radiation exposure
- Medical procedures: X-rays, CT scans, etc. These can give a large dose to the patient, and their use as diagnostic tools has been increasing over the years. Averaged over the entire population, the dose from such procedures is about 220 millirem per person. Some people get much more, some get less. If you haven't had any such procedures, you have gotten zero.
- Nuclear medicine: PET scans, radioiodine therapy, etc. These tests involve the use of radioactive material to treat cancers or perform imaging. The dose from these procedures to a patient can be quite large, and the use and availability of facilities has been increasing over the years. The average dose from such procedures is about 74 millirem per person. Same deal applies: if you haven't gotten any such procedures, your dose is zero for this category.
- Consumer goods: The NRC website says this: "Some consumer products such as tobacco, fertilizer, welding rods, exit signs, luminous watch dials, and smoke detectors contribute about another 10 mrem to our annual radiation exposure." Once again, many people may get zero dose for this category, but the average per person is 10 millirem.
- Industrial and Occupational: This is the dose that one encounters from jobs where you are required to wear a radiation dosimeter, or where there is a known increase in natural sources. This would include hospital technicians who run CT scans, academics who use laboratory radiation sources (like us), and miners. For many people in the general public, this category is zero.
As for how much radiation dose is due to the nuclear industry, the number has been studied. The UNSCEAR 2008 Report, Vol. I, Table 1 gives a similar breakdown as the NRC pie chart, but it is intended as the average for all people (not just for the U.S.). Here is a summary:"The 50% of the pie chart
"The 50% of the pie chart colored with blue ("madmade sources") is made up up medical procedures, nuclear medicine, consumer products, and industrial and occupational dose. None of these has anything to do with the nuclear industry. "
Mark this is a great point- in fact, because I want you to do well- I would encourage you to quickly write a research paper attributing the radiation doses which are being applied to the elderly Japanese: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/japanese-pensioners-lobby-...
These elderly Japanese are lining up to do the work that the NRC and the IAEA will not do because the levels of radiation are too dangerous. Now here is the silver lining: The radiation the elderly are exposed to will, from a certain perspective, act as a form of euthanasia, for which Pro Industry arguments can be made is a medical procedure!
I feel confident you will have no problem getting such a paper quickly 'Peer Reviewed' and accepted into the hallowed halls of 'Industry Owned Science'.
"Weapons testing, Chernobyl, and the nuclear fuel cycle currently contribute practically zero to the total artificial dose the average person on earth receives."
Well that's great news Mark! I didn't realize that every single time we have a Fukushima down the street- it won't matter at all!
By the by...where does the 'Nuclear Medicine' come from Mark?
Where is the 'Nuclear Medicine' manufactured?
It isn't managed through 'Back Door Nuclear Storage Government Related' contracts, is it?
If it were- which Government Agency would be involved in such a 'Side Industry'?
Nuclear Medicine
Leo, I would like to point you to some information on nuclear medicine. The wikipedia article is a good starting point. That article also discusses the sources of radioactive material used in medical treatments.
Some medical isotopes are produced in specially-designed research reactors. These are much smaller than power plant reactors, and there are only a handful in the world. Their operation is driven by the needs of the medical field, not the nuclear industry.
The rest of the isotopes are not produced at reactors at all, but are produced at hospitals through the activation of non-radioactive material using particle accelerators, typically linear accelerators or even cyclotrons.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
That was my point, Mark.
What is your chosen method of choosing 'when to run' and when to answer posts? I'm curious.
"Some medical isotopes are produced in specially-designed research reactors."
Who manufactures specially-designed research reactors, Mark? The 'NON Nuclear Proliferation Industry'? Greenpeace?
Listen- I understand how disconcerting this is for you and that brings me no joy. However- the discredited 'pseudo-science' which BRAWM championed was pivotal to erasing Public Health Fallout Concerns from the National Radar Screen.
I'll continue to separate those acts from you as a human being, understanding that you are 'doing your job' as I used to do mine. However, I'l treat 'the abominable act' as such.
Outside of that, I wish that I could benefit from instruction from you. The flaws in the BRAWM calculations have evidenced through your methodology that on these particular subjects, that's not the case. Maybe you can teach me about weather balloons and how your fascination with gamma rays came about someday. I understand that is your field of research.
In terms of following the instructions for calculating scientific method however, you had your chance for debate and the result is available for those who wish to research in order to have an informed opinion.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4799
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4926
Now if you'd like to do something 'useful' and give me the link to the little 'After Party Forum' where you and BRAWM have retreated into discussion, you can do that.
It shouldn't take me long to find, regardless.
who let the dog out
good call. research isn't always about research but an easy paycheck within easy reach.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
good post. the continued
good post. the continued toxic accumulation of radioactive poisons and radionuclides by the nuke industry into the environment is just mind boggling. it is also destroying the planet.
"Their mantra of 'a little won't hurt you' is just plain wrong."
you can say that again.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
The airplane analogy
The airplane analogy ignoring strontium, the bone invader and leukemia producer. The half-life game—if it’s half gone, it's all good!
And of course they pretty much ignore the other food products.
I know it couldn't be
I know it couldn't be because it's the most innocuous-sounding piece of misinformation since the banana-equivalent dose. Honesty over profit, that's the industry motto!
no of course not. pick a
no of course not.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
It is not important at all.
It is not important at all. It is just a way to show equivalent danger in doses to the general public. One can make an analogy to moving to Denver, where there is a higher dose due to cosmic rays. Or to a place with black sand beaches, where there is a higher dose due to the amount of thorium in the ground. One can make an analogy to radon exposure, which is found everywhere. There is a substantial increase in yearly dose if one for example moves into a basement apartment. The airplane analogy is just one way to show dose equivalents, it is not the only way.
I agree
With your dose equivalent where I differ is u can compare pathways but radiation exposure is directly related to the exposure pathway and comparing flying where exposure is limited to time @ altitude and breathing in long lived isotopes where they stay inside your body are two separate pathways of many and every situation of someone's exposure is unique.making the comparison Of there structure hard to compare though not impossible as the partial similar definition implies...
a·nal·o·gy/??nal?j?/Noun
1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
2. A correspondence or partial similarity. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
Read Section 4.
http://www.vesica.org/main/holistic-health/articles/1160-update-on-the-w...
From the article:
4. MOST MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOLLOW THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY’S “SCRIPT” AND ARE NOT CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT REPORTING
Mainstream media sources in the United States rely almost entirely on government and industry spokespersons for the information they give the public about nuclear fallout health hazards. These spokespersons not only routinely understate the health risk, regardless of the reality (which they justify in their internal memos as “preventing panic”), they also use special public-relations crafted “scripts” which they often provide to media outlets; reporters then read this script on the air as if it were their own research.
There is virtually no investigative reporting in this area remaining in the U.S. mainstream media (partially due to the consolidation of these media by just a few mega-corporations; for example, nuclear power plant contractor General Electric owns NBC.)
Where is this guys evidence.
Where is this guys evidence. A lot of the interviews I have seen on the mainstream media were from non government and non industry people. These people gave a lot of misinformation. Also, the author views antinuclear sites as the only reputable sites, which is just plain bias. One cannot claim the media is faulty for bias, and then have the same fault.
who let the dog out
false dichotomy. the media is corrupt. plain and simple.
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
Ah, knock knock anyone home up there ?
That statement about msm not being biased is about as swift as sending 300 kids out to pick radioactive tea where there was just a couple of HUGE and powerful nuclear reactor explosions.
Somebody needs to grow some grey matter and fast.
Common sense.
That sounds like Saddam Hussein's exact line of defense...?
"Where is this guys evidence. A lot of the interviews I have seen on the mainstream media were from non government and non industry people. These people gave a lot of misinformation. Also, the author views antinuclear sites as the only reputable sites, which is just plain bias. One cannot claim the media is faulty for bias, and then have the same fault."
Didn't Saddam Hussein share that exact line of defense?
Besides, plenty of government and industry people agree with Robert J. Gilbert, Ph.D.
On his website provided he lists many sources, including news sources and the EPA. Did you avoid reading his evidence? All you have to do is read. (?)
http://www.vesica.org/main/holistic-health/articles/1160-update-on-the-w...
Maybe you should consider signing up for one of the courses which teaches the following subject- I'm certain there are many such courses available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters
(Of course, these are only the most 'well known' acknowledged industrial disasters- many more go unacknowledged)
I would encourage you to read Dr. Riki Ott's book: 'Sound Truth And Corporate Myths'
It's likely that you would learn much from it.