NRC Wants 100 Times Higher Acceptable Exposure Level
The NRC is battling the EPA in order to increase the 'acceptable' public exposure limit to 100 times more than currently 'acceptable' in the case of a severe nuclear power plant accident. The NRC has already limited liability to the owners of the nuclear power plants to the resources of that plant alone (the melted down one), and now they want to increase the amount of allowable public exposure. BRAWM members, will this new 100 fold increase in the acceptable radiation exposure be acceptable for you and your children? View Arnie Gunderson's current post; also includes discussion on the fallacy of the MACCS2 method of exposure analysis which the NRC uses and it's designer has repudiated. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"Are Regulators And The Nuclear Industry Applying The Valuable Lessons Learned From Fukushima?"
http://fairewinds.com/content/are-regulators-and-nuclear-industry-applyi...
"UNSAFE AT ANY DOSE"
************
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html?_r=2
Want to offer some
Want to offer some scientific proof of this? There has been ZERO evidence of danger from doses less than 2 REM and all the studies from 15 REM to 2 REM are done on animals. They then multiply by a "human factor" to get an idea of damage to humans. I know a lot of people on the forum complain about the airplane analogy and stuff like that. How come no one complains about this form of radiation damage study? The fact is humans have evolved in a radioactive environment and have adapted very well to radiation damage. That is why there are numerous mechanisms in your body that fight cells that are damaged by radiation and subsequently become cancerous. However, even that is unlikely since most of the time when cells get that kind of damage apoptosis occurs.
Here You Go
**********
The New York Times article offers proof of the dangers of exposure to radiation from a nuclear meltdown:
[...]a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases.[...]
You can download a copy of the study done by the New York Academy of Sciences free here:
www.llrc.org
I have read the study. It
I have read the study. It is not a scientific study. It is a book. I can write a book saying eating arsenic is healthy, doesn't mean it is true.
It is a study
performed by the National Academy of Science. It is not just a book. Stop the nuclear spin, please. It's shameful.
Correction:
The New York Academy of Science
It was not performed by
It was not performed by anyone, it is a book. The academy published the book, but in its general reading category. The book is as factual as Harry Potter. Have you read it? I found fallacies on page 2.
It's fully referenced,
It's fully referenced, scientific data collected and analyzed over 20+ years by a team of three Russian doctors. Nothing in common with Harry Potter, indeed. Very sobering in every chapter (I have actually read it. Not so sure about you. What is your problem with page 2?). Demonstrating the horrific, ongoing effects of radiation on humans, flora and fauna after the Chernobyl disaster. Genetic mutations, birth defects, leukemia, cancer, 1 million extrapolated deaths as a direct result of the Chernobyl catastrophe til 2008. And still ongoing. Eventually, Fukushima will write its own book (despite every possible effort currently at suppressing data collection). I have a feeling it will be worse.
Sure, the doctors analyzed
Sure, the doctors analyzed data. But anyone can analyze data, and MDs are pretty bad at statistics. They even state that since the study is so difficult to correlate doses to damage, they assume all damage in the region is from Chernobyl. What an amazing statement to make. So if you had any illness in the region post 1986, it has to be Chernobyl. Also, birth defects are not from Chernobyl. There has yet to be any study linking genetic abnormalities to radiation. Even after the atomic bombing when people got an enormous acute dose, there were no statistical birth defects. FYI, this is a fact that many scientists do not understand since it was believed such a high dose would have caused genetic damage to the fetus and eggs/sperm.
The book was authored by...
"Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center."
The book states that up to a million cases of cancer/adverse health affects can be attributed to Chernobyl's nuclear plant meltdown.
Here's more proof of the damage done by a nuclear plant meltdown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCCVU4y7oE
You do realize the most of
You do realize the most of the damage attributed to Chernobyl is caused by other causes.
That is completely inaccurate
The horrendous birth defects and thyroid gland diseases in the children of Chernobyl were caused by the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl which released dangerous radionuclides into the environment.
According to the EPA regarding exposure to radiation:
"Other than cancer, the most prominent long-term health effects are teratogenic and genetic mutations.
Teratogenic mutations result from the exposure of fetuses (unborn children) to radiation. They can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, abnormally slow growth, and mental retardation."
I am well aware of the
I am well aware of the thyroid issues. However, I do not know where the epa gets its information. They say health physicists estimate, but you would think there would be studies showing this. A fetus getting one rem of radiation is difficult unless the mother is getting multiple ct scans. I still believe there has been no statistical connection for Chernobyl and the birth defects. Here is a paper explaining some of this.
http://www.teratology.org/updates/60pg100.pdf
Health physicists estimate, but there has yet to be any proof of hereditary damage from radiation. It is surprising and not well understood.
Anti-nuclear propaganda
Russia has its anti-nuclear propagandists, just like the USA has. If this book had been authored by Helen Caldicott, or Arjun Makhijani, or Amory Lovins...; would you give it any more credence?
There is no such thing as "anti-nuclear" propaganda
**************
It is merely honest people trying to get the honest truth out over the lies and spin told by the pro-nuclar propagandists.
So if you are pro nuclear
So if you are pro nuclear you lie and spin the truth as a propagandist. However, if you are anti nuclear you are always speaking the truth and never lie. Well considering the people who are pro nuclear tend to actually know the science of nuclear power, I tend to believe them more. I have yet to find a scientist who is antinuclear.
Hi! Nice to meet you,
Hi!
Nice to meet you, friend. I'm sure we agree on other things. What field are you in?
Pollyanna
These 'blind faith' pro-nuke AND 'blind faith' anti-nuke propagandists have their blinders on a bit too tightly.
Both sides sound like 'Kool-Aid Guzzlers' to me.
In my experience human behavior is more complex.