Another great article from Jeff McMahon/Forbes: "Harm from Fukushima Radiation: A Matter Of Perspective"
"Harm from Fukushima Radiation: A Matter Of Perspective"
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/07/09/harm-from-fukushima-radia...
Search
"Harm from Fukushima Radiation: A Matter Of Perspective"
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/07/09/harm-from-fukushima-radia...
Radiation: The Future Children of Fukushima
An even better article right to the point. The point being the peaks of mountains of medical data, sick political and financial rationale and evidence of impending catastrophe for Japan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24611
another excellent thread,
another excellent thread, providing us with relevant information in an intelligent civil debate vs. sarcasm, insults and name calling.
sorry - this link works better
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/07/09/harm-from-fukushima-radia...
"In spite of the relative
"In spite of the relative level of Fukushima radiation, which many minimized through comparison to radiation from x-rays and airplane flights—medical experts agree that any increased exposure to radiation increases risk of cancer, and so, no increase in radiation is unquestionably safe."
The problem with that
The problem with that statement is there is no proof. A link for damage from radiation to increased cancer has only been shown for doses above 12 Rem (.012 Sv). The doses experienced in America are well below that, so we truly do not know the effect. We assume it is similar to the larger doses, but we frankly have no evidence it is.
wow, arguments like this one
wow, arguments like this one is another good example of why I have realized that nuclear power is very wrong.
No proof? Have you checked
No proof? Have you checked out MEDLINE?
If it is not available to you, try Google Scholar and at least read the abstracts of the articles in peer-reviewed medical journals you seem to be unaware of.
None of those papers show
None of those papers show increased rate for low doses on humans. They are all in animals.
Have you asked yourself why that is?
None of those papers show increased rate for low doses on humans. They are all in animals.
Could it possibly be 'related' to the fact that the EPA does not include human beings in it's studies of ecosystems?
Do human beings not share certain analogous biological traits with animals?
Thus that is why research done on mice in early stages of clinical trials 'stair-steps' it's way up to human clinical trials, yes?
Also, on a 'non-scientific' and 'uncivilized' note: Is there any part of your mind which actually functions towards 'benefiting humanity' as opposed to defending the 'destruction of humanity'?
Is there not at least one (1) little human 'girl' or 'boy' worth saving from your perspective?
No the argument is this.
No the argument is this. There have been hundreds of chemicals and drugs tested on animals that have a completely different biological response when tested in humans. If you want human testing, there has been no increased cancer rates in nuclear workers who are exposed to a chronic low dose over their lifetime. Actually, these workers even live slightly longer than the average worker. I am all for benefiting humanity, probably much more hard lined than most people. You must always make a choice of where you get your energy. More people die per year from windmills than nuclear power plants, but I am not saying they are dangerous. Danger is all around us, we take calculated risks. I think humanity better off having electricity that is produced cheaply. I don't want to cut off power to poorer families if electricity becomes more expensive.
Here is the evidence (which one can find when not avoiding it)
Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident
European Committee on Radiation Risk
Documents of the ECRR 2006 No1
Eds: C.C.Busby and A.V Yablokov
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf
A poor family's home can be
A poor family's home can be powered with one solar panel. You buy it once and it "produces" energy forever.
Nuclear plants power corporations and industry.
It doesn't produce energy
It doesn't produce energy forever. Solar panels degrade with time and are quite expensive at the moment. Of course the more money we invest in solar energy technology and other renewable sources the better. We can get it from the taxpayers money that was supposed to be used to build new nuclear power plants.
Renewables get more money
Renewables get more money per unit of energy produced in subsidies than most sources. Nuclear gets very little subsidies per unit energy produced than almost all other sources.
So, who is subsidizing the
So, who is subsidizing the billions of dollars of clean up in Japan???? Who is insuring these time bombs?
so.. we have evidence that
so.. we have evidence that it produces cancer and death at higher rates, but because there isn't definitive proof that it causes cancer at lower levels you prefer that we assume it's safe? The precautionary principle should dictate that we assume there is harm until it is PROVED otherwise.
Think of how many things industry presumed to be safe (DDT, asbestos, lead) and then once it was finally proved to be dangerous many people had already died because of it.
Spoken like a well paid lawyer from the NRC.
Spoken like a well paid lawyer from the NRC.
Don't you just love the scientific perspective which doesn't stop or get out of the speeding car which has been destined to careen over the cliff, due to the 'lack of evidence that we're going over the cliff until 51% of the car is already past the cliff line'.
Then of course, it becomes a conversation of 'we have no evidence that we will now hit the ground until point of impact'.
Such strong science, especially when it pertains to human health concerns.
True Leo, pretty damn
True Leo, pretty damn ridiculous.
Hey Leo: is there anyone who
Hey Leo: is there anyone who disagrees with you who isn't a shill, a member of the nuclear industry, or a hater of mankind?
Just curious.
That is a very thoughtful question. The answer is 'yes'.
In terms of individual belief systems, I would not shortchange the variable complexities of each 'individual human' anymore than I would shortchange the complexity of 'radioactive fallout' utilizing 'nature's methods of distribution'.
For example, there are many within the industry who are very good people, who wish to 'change the industry from the inside'.
The battle of 'Reliability Centered Maintenance Culture/Preventative Maintenance Culture' VS 'Firefighting Culture' within 'the industry' has been 'ongoing', since 'the industry' has been in existence.
Working Mom's can consider 'Reliability Centered Maintenance Culture/Preventative Maintenance Culture' as 'installing a 'fire extinguisher' in the house, just to be 'safe'.
Working Mom's can consider 'Firefighting Culture' as 'intervening in' or 'stopping the installation' of a 'fire extinguisher' in the house. Reasons cited might be 'cost', or 'disingenuous safety concerns'. (i.e.: What if someone bumps their head on the fire extinguisher, has anyone thought of that? That's a dangerous safety concern!!!)
The real reason of course, to avoid the fire extinguisher is to save some money in the process. Of course, the 'anticipated criticality' gives the 'fire' a fighting chance. (Oh well, at least there is the 'silver lining'- we can always make additional profit when we rebuild the burned down house, yes? Oh, someone died in the fire? That's so unfortunate. But that's life. We're all gonna die right?)
Such 'culture' is taught from the very beginning, in college for instance.
The industry 'weeds out' Preventative Maintenance advocates as best it can. At times it offers them 'carrots' if they will do something the industry needs (Providing a 'cover' in the form of a 'safety study', for instance), or if they will 'remain silent' on certain issues to which they've been exposed.
Such 'managed silence' issues may include public health concerns. 'Thank You For Smoking' and the 'Ford Pinto' come to mind. (It's difficult to prove 'intent', if one obviously has no way of knowing in advance which particular family will purchase that particular Ford Pinto prone to exploding upon rear impact, isn't it?)
Soon , if it's not happening already, the NRC and other Pro Nuclear Industry advocates will begin conducting 'Scientific Dog and Pony Shows' in an effort to create 'the illusion' that these egregious issues which caused this tremendous failure in Fukushima, related to 'individuals' and not the overall 'culture' promoted within the industry.
This is a commonplace 'method' within the industry. This is the 'illusion' of 'due diligence' which the industry is adept at providing.
So who is winning the culture war within the industry? How can we gauge where 'industry culture' is leading the nation and the world?
?Within one year and between 2 individual industry failures, the entire USA has been contaminated by both petrochemical and radioactive industrial fallout, as well as Canada and parts of Mexico.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/10/oil_spill_causes_climate_pr...
How many of those whom disagree with me would have believed that possible two years ago?
Yes, there are good people who disagree with me. Education and experience is key to understanding 'why' that is. Management is very sophisticated within the industry.
I have not come to my conclusions overnight. I have been 'beaten into submission' by industry 'culture'.
"They were deliberating among themselves as to how they could give
Wings to Death so that it could, in a moment, penetrate everywhere,
both near and far."
-Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius)
-The Labyrinth of the Worlds (1623)
Yes, there are good people who disagree with me.
They should refute my scientific argument if they wish to convince me that I am wrong. We haven't seen very much of that, have we?
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf
You use up more words saying
You use up more words saying nothing than anyone I have ever seen. Half of them in 'quotes' which I suppose is your unsubtle way of drawing even more attention to yourself and your well used thesaurus.
I'm calling you 'fili-bluster' from now on.
But we almost certainly will
But we almost certainly will in the future, one way or the other. As detection and analysis techniques improve, just like BRAWM are showing us, it will eventually be possible to prove one way or the other this cause-and-effect question of how much it is true that low-level radiation causes cancer. Such improved future techniques will finish the nuclear power industry for good if they are shown to be the cancer producers and toxic polluters that many now think they are, the financial liability if that cause-and-effect were shown to be the case will be vast.
Imagine also a scenario where the radionuclides that caused a tumor were actually detectable still within the tumor, and where the signature of for example Fukushima material were detectable (from the material composition and decay rates etc.). Imagine how that kind of information would change the liability of the nuclear industry forever, just like DNA detection has changed forensics forever.
The detection techniques are
The detection techniques are not the problem. The problem is the effect of low dose radiation on cancer rates is so low that we cannot see it over the large amount of cancer people get from other sources. If it was really dangerous at low doses we would have seen it by now. Also, if it was shown that low doses of radiation cause cancer, it would cause the closure of many other industries before nuclear since they emit way more radiation. Also, the dose you get from something like a SPECT scan is enormous. These people walk around you all the time and give you far more of a dose than many other sources.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-ra...
How do you know the cancers
How do you know the cancers are from 'other sources'?
You would have to know what the exact cause was of these cancers to know that this attribution to 'other sources' is valid, and no one knows that yet. It is inconsistent to be so certain about these large amounts of cancer you mention as being caused from 'other sources', but then have no certainty about them being caused by low-dose radiation.
Until the cause of each cancer is determined it is even possible that low-dose radiation is actually a factor in a large percentage, or even all, these cancers you state are from 'other sources'. There is a possibility for example that cancer is multi-causal and that radiation induced damage is a required trigger factor.
The EPA says on page 1 in the Executive Summary of their document
EPA 402-R-11-001
"EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and
Projections for the U.S. Population"
April 2011:
"Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radio-
biological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with
a linear, no-threshold dose (LNT) response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of radiation is proportional to the dose to that tissue."
So the EPA is stating that low-dose radiation is generally presumed to be a cancer risk.
What other industries emit more radioactive contamination (or radiation) than the combined fallout from Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima and numerous other accidents and planned and unplanned 'low-level' releases from hundreds of nuclear power stations over many decades, as well as the accumulating toxic spent-fuel waste problem?
Your point about SPECT scans is interesting because 1) it suggests that this potential hazard is not properly controlled or communicated to the public, and 2) following up SPECT scan patients and their families en masse and long term for their cancer rates pre and post-scan would help in determining better cancer causation statistics if the SPECT scans are such a potential risk.
The controversies in the LNT
The controversies in the LNT are well-known and well documented, and continue to be debated at all levels. The truth is that at low doses (<1 mSv) the statistical probability of any cancerous effects are so low as to be virtually unobservable. Note that virtually unobservable is not the same thing as "no cancer", and its not even the same thing as "safe" which is often a personal judgment that cannot be imposed from any government agency as the Japanese are finding out now. However, when deciding whether or not to evacuate a city of 1 million people due to the cancer risk that might be faced by approximately 1 millionth of this population, some cold-blooded decisions have to be made.
Minimizing the risk? Is this a fair statement?
Is BRAWM "minimizing the risk" and is this cause for concern.
Thanks for posting this link to Forbes Magazine blog. A good article.
Yes to the former and the
Yes to the former and the latter is a matter of opinion.
What kind of career does an academic background in nuclear engineering prepare you for? Do you identify yourself while you air your industry's dirty laundry? Most of us are protective of our industry, whatever it may be. It's our in-group. Go, team!