Why Hasn't BRAWM Team Ever Answered This Question? Because It 'Condemns' Their Methods.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4926
Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."
I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.
Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?
Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."
Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________
Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.
Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)
Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?
I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.
More crazy comments.
More crazy comments. Everything around you include yourself is radioactive. The air you breath, the water you drink, the food you eat. Radioactivity has been around us since we were single celled organisms. What does this have anything to do with variables?
I notice you avoid the question.
So you don't have an answer?
What role do variables play here?
Perhaps you don't understand how data is accumulated.
Amazing how many BRAWM supporters/defenders appear not to understand the role of data in 'quantifying an event'.
Oh I know how variables
Oh I know how variables work. One ignores variables when their effect is less than the uncertainty in a measurement. If I have a measurement that gives me 10+-2. I do not care about the variables that only cause an effect of .01. They are irrelevant. The data is really straightforward. You measure some water, you find how much radioactivity is in it and then you report it.
Yours is not the set of variables in the question posed. Read.
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life?
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
It is obvious that the MDS variables to which you refer are not the variables referenced in the question posed. That would seem to indicate some discomfort with answering the question.
Why not just answer the question?
BRAWM is all about the ‘illusion of due diligence’.
BRAWM is all about the ‘illusion of due diligence’.
Sure. You bet. Testing has been on the 'up and up'.
So has analysis.
That's why the EPA shut off the testing. “Shut it off. We aren’t going to detect that. You have no idea what the repercussions of detecting that are. Shut it off. Canada agrees. Shut it off.”
1947 War of the World's game theory is still 'taking the day' or whatever. Meanwhile people just want to know what kind of water and air filters they should look into.
BRAWM is the follow up scientific 'Dog & Pony' show. That's all.
That's why the brightest of UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering, the most illustrious Nuclear Engineering program in the country which leads the free world, the program which just laid claim to suspending anti-matter for record time- 'pretended' not to be able to come up with a 'method or device' for detecting alpha particles (while 'hobbyists' were uploading youtube videos on old technical literature on how to do it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8GlzUjYazs
Here lies the ‘best line’ the nuclear industry has left:
___________________________
"Everything around you include yourself is radioactive. The air you breath, the water you drink, the food you eat. Radioactivity has been around us since we were single celled organisms.
___________________________
That's all they've 'got left' isn't it?
Positive Effect Hormesis.
Radiation is good for us.
It's hot out today- wear your sunscreen- don't forget behind your ears!
But the 'hazardous nuclear materials' which become infinitely more dangerous when they are enriched and fissionable?
Such are the warm, soapy rays within which one should bathe.
Those same 'extremely hazardous nuclear materials' in the heat of their uncontrolled chain reaction 'running amok' on the edge of the huge island known as Japan?
MOX Fuel dumped into the seafood supply into Ocean currents, directed by counter-rotating gyres which move the Pacific stream directly East- or to the US/Canada West Coast?
"Oh, that's good for you. It's been around forever."
_______________________________________________________________________
Wow. Is that what's taught at UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering?
Please say it isn't so.
What exactly would 'make your list' of a man made catastrophic failure of design and safety implementation?
How many nuclear reactors need to go 'belly up in a row', to get the attention of so many 'dizzying intellects' pulled away from 'background cosmic radiation?
How much 'man made nuclear contaminated land mass' and 'man made nuclear contaminated sea mass' would do it?
Do we have enough on our own planet or would we have to send out for more?