Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Low dose ionising radiation IS harmful to health
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/life/health/low-dose-ionising-radiation-is-harmful-to-health/ ^ | May 20, 2012 | Noel Wauchope

Posted on 06/13/2012 10:58:45 AM PDT by ransomnote

A landmark study on Hiroshima survivors comprehensively disproves nuclear lobby spin about ionising radiation being safe at low doses. Noel Wauchope reports.

The nuclear industry has a long history of concealing the truth about low dose radiation

This week, a new report about low dose ionising radiation was published — one that should put a spanner in the works of the nuclear lobby. It is called ‘Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases’.

First of all, let me explain why this report is so important and so timely.

It’s now just over a year since the tragic Fukushima disaster. So the nuclear lobby thinks that it’s time to restart the nuclear renaissance, and to get people to stop worrying about ionising radiation.

To this end, the industry, and particularly the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have projects under way.

In particular, there are two important projects going on — seemingly unrelated ones. But they are, as a matter of fact, closely related. Both aim to dampen the public concern about ionising radiation — indeed, to promote acceptance of “low level radiation”:

One sets out to downgrade nuclear emergency procedures. The other aims at discrediting the scientifically accepted model on the cancer risk of low level radiation — known as the Linear No Threshold model (LNT), which states that there is no level below which ionising radiation is not harmful, with risk increasing with each added unit of radiation. Project 1 – weakening emergency safety standards.

The USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have, in recent times, quietly downgraded nuclear emergency procedures. In particular, the new rules almost entirely ignore the radiation hazard. You can read more about this here.

Among the changes to the original 1979 program for nuclear emergency action, they have eliminated the requirement that local responders always practise for a release of radiation. Also, there is a new requirement that some planning exercises incorporate a reassuring premise — that no harmful radiation is released. As this article comments:

‘ many state and local emergency officials say such exercises make no sense in a program designed to protect the population from radiation released by a nuclear accident …

‘… The Japanese disaster reinforced such worries when officials told some towns beyond 12 miles from the disabled plant to evacuate. The U.S. government recommended that Americans stay at least 50 miles from the plant. Soil and crops were contaminated for scores of miles around. At one point, health authorities in Tokyo, 140 miles away, advised families not to give children the local water, which was contaminated by fallout to twice the government limit for infants. ”

And the NRC and FEMA plan to review their procedures soon — in all likelihood, to continue their history of watering down safety standards, even to wholly ignore problems hen encountering violations at the nation’s aging reactors. (This is detailed by David Worthington in ‘US nuclear safety regulations softened by industry influence’.) Project 2 – discrediting the radiation risk model

The U.S. Department of energy funds research projects worldwide that promote the theories of “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive radiation”.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: agitprop; atomic; fud; hiroshima; nuclear; radiation; scaretactics
The article says the nuke industry, particularly in the US, has two 'public information' projects under way.

Project 1 – weakening emergency safety standards. Project 2 – discrediting the radiation risk model

THIS is their reaction to Fukushima!?

Also, I think his part is a little too optimistic:

"It’s now just over a year since the tragic Fukushima disaster."

Fukushima reactor cores are still releasing radiation into the environment and will continue to do so for the forseeable future because no one knows how to stop it. That and tremendous amounts of fuel in spent fuel pools, some of which are located in destroyed buildings, one of which has a sagging wall or two, mean that the disaster is ongoing.

1 posted on 06/13/2012 10:58:54 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
I wonder about the credentials of the source Independent Australia. .

Their mission statement:

Independent Australia is a progressive journal focusing on politics, democracy, the environment, Australian history and Australian identity. It contains news and opinion from Australia and around the world.

IA supports quality investigative journalism, as well as citizen journalism and a diversity of voices.

Red flag words are "environment", "progressive" and "diversity".

2 posted on 06/13/2012 11:11:39 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

"yuu put dots too well toogetar,you start too much tinkin"

3 posted on 06/13/2012 11:19:54 AM PDT by Doogle (((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
I have been treated for prostate cancer and will have low dose of radiation in me for the rest of my life. Should I have stuck with cancer, I think not. My dental xrays gave me as much radiation as an hour at high altitude in a Jet airliner. The person should stay out of the sun as it is radiation. Brownstone buildings are radioactive. Life is unsafe and if he is worried there is a cure.
4 posted on 06/13/2012 11:21:13 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Sorry, Leftards, “the science is settled,” low-dose ionizing radiation is NOT harmful to health.


5 posted on 06/13/2012 11:23:34 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Life is unsafe and if he is worried there is a cure.

True. Any affliction is just temporary until we die.


6 posted on 06/13/2012 11:25:21 AM PDT by ruesrose (It's possible to be clueless without being blonde.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

How about the medical research cited in the article? Too ‘progressive’ for your liking, too?

“Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950 – 2003:
An Overview of Cancer and Non-cancer Diseases”

http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1


7 posted on 06/13/2012 11:25:24 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

You REALLY want to try to compare elective, controlled amounts of radiation you received to nuclear waste being dumped into the air, water, and land??? You were advised of the cancer risk when you accepted the treatment, weren’t you? Because of liability, Doctors, Dentists etc. all advise of the risk/benefits. I am quite certain you were not asked to ingest or inhale cesium, strontium, plutonium etc. for your treatment. There is no comparison.


8 posted on 06/13/2012 11:30:16 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Sorry, Leftards, “the science is settled,” low-dose ionizing radiation is NOT harmful to health.

______________________________________________________

So that’s what the nuke shills are down to? Flat out lies? BEIR VII (state of the art US research) demonstrates that low-dose ionizing radiation IS harmful. THIS study proves it IS harmful. The only ones saying it isn’t are the same ones with a) no credibility and b) vested interest in lying.


9 posted on 06/13/2012 11:32:32 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ruesrose

Life is unsafe and if he is worried there is a cure.

True. Any affliction is just temporary until we die.

________________________________________________________

So....let’s just let incompetent nuclear industry management continue without comment? We address elective risk based on information but you don’t like that? We should just ‘die’ if we object to nuclear industry incompetence and misinformation? What other industries should we allow to abuse the public interest without comment? Which industries should be allowed to pollute the environment and condescend to us if we object?


10 posted on 06/13/2012 11:37:40 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

if tshtf what happens when we can keep all those nuclear plants running.....


11 posted on 06/13/2012 11:42:51 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

http://www.examiner.com/article/fukushima-forum-arnie-gundersen-reveals-real-reason-americans-need-to-be-afraid?cid=db_articles


12 posted on 06/13/2012 11:44:45 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

http://www.examiner.com/article/fukushima-forum-arnie-gundersen-reveals-real-reason-americans-need-to-be-afraid?cid=db_articles


13 posted on 06/13/2012 11:45:06 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I scanned the pdf, didn’t read it through, it doesn’t mention anything about soy or miso...
You might find this interesting:
http://yufoundation.org/furo.pdf

Cheers!


14 posted on 06/13/2012 11:53:45 AM PDT by spankalib (The Marx-in-the-Parks crowd is a basement skunkworks operation of the AFL-CIO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Hey, if it doesn’t kill you.....


15 posted on 06/13/2012 11:54:06 AM PDT by wolfcreek (A closed eye mentality is the reason for our current reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: spankalib

Thank you for posting the link. I will read it later. I skimmed it for now.
Some people are genetically able to handle radiation poisoning better than others. Researchers in the Chernobyl region have a rule of thumb regarding exposure.

15 percent of the population is resistant to radiation effects and fares better than average.

15 percent of the population is ‘sensitive’ to radiation and fares worse than average (in Chernobyl this meant rapid death)

The rest of the population (the large part of the bell curve) have an average response (diseases like cancer etc.)

The man most directly responsible for the Chernobyl disaster (ranking official on duty in the plant who ordered operators to ‘test’ the reactor systems with horrific results) was the only man in the control room to survive. The other men who were contaminated in the control room died grisly deaths within weeks. That same man was believed to be responsible for a nuclear sub disaster in which he was the survivor. So I will read the PDF with interest and while there may be foods that support immune system and body repair, I go into it knowing that there is a genetic element to responses to radiation in the population.


16 posted on 06/13/2012 12:02:59 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

The initial reports of deadly amounts of radiation contaminating the USA have been shown to be unscientific and plain alarmists. Anonymous “landmark” studies are also unreliable. I have had CBN training in the military later service and think this alarm ism is silly and sometimes hilarious. The cesium in my gasoline lantern have not killed me yet. 65 pounds of plutonium disappeared form Rocky flats weapons factory in fire upwind form me when I was a kid and no problems. We depend on the radioactive decay in the earth for half of our heat or we would freeze to death.


17 posted on 06/13/2012 12:04:07 PM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

So....let’s just let incompetent nuclear industry management continue without comment

I didn’t say that. I agreed there was a cure..that any affliction is tempory until we die. It’s like coughing or bleeding. Eventually they stop.
I live near the Savannah River Site and I know many people who have died or are dying of cancer. The majority of them worked at SRS. If there is a cure no one is bothering to cure them.


18 posted on 06/13/2012 12:04:24 PM PDT by ruesrose (It's possible to be clueless without being blonde.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedommom

You lost any credibility when you linked to Gundersen. The man’s a loon and an opportunist.


19 posted on 06/13/2012 12:04:27 PM PDT by meatloaf (Support Senate S 1863 & House Bill 1380 to eliminate oil slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

By ‘this alarmism’ you mean ‘medical studies of Hiroshima victims’?

“65 pounds of plutonium disappeared form Rocky flats weapons factory in fire upwind form me when I was a kid and no problems” THIS gives you confidence??? Well hey let’s just let the nuke industry story radioactive waste in open buckets! That’s how well they keep track of plutonium!? And you brag of it??

Ok the ‘we depend on radioactive decay’ to warm the earth bit is pathetic. I guess we should just say THANK YOU to the nuclear industry incompetence that has lead to the spread of radioactive waste - they were just keeping us warm! Say...why aren’t the folks in the Chernobyl region just a little more grateful than the rest of us???


20 posted on 06/13/2012 12:11:26 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
Never heard of it. Probably something new, and it may, just possibly, have nothing to do with The Independent Australian

from wiki

The Independent Australian is an Australian quarterly current affairs and politics magazine. Founded in 2003, the magazine describes itself as "politically incorrect" and "socially and culturally conservative." It deals with issues ranging from immigration and multiculturalism to environmental conservationism and sustainability.

21 posted on 06/13/2012 12:11:45 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (If Shellie really loved George, she would have taken his money and run away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
So....let’s just let incompetent nuclear industry management continue without comment?

Perhaps not. But there is a larger problem. Humankind needs power. But all that power that we get is in some way dirty. Nuclear is self-explanatory. Hydro kills huge lands and little fishes. Coal is radioactive and mining destroys lands, and all that smoke is not good for us either. Oil is getting harder to obtain. Solar is not energy-efficient, and semiconductor manufacturing is very poisonous. What do we have left?

There is an alternative, though. We can reduce our energy consumption. But if we do so then we have to reduce the population as well, since primitive farming (with animals for motive force) will not be able to feed 6+ billion people, especially when majority of them will have no jobs. We don't even have enough arable land for 6 billion newly minted peasants. Humans are alive and well today largely because modern intensive agriculture can feed us.

Without energy modern medicine will cease to be. We will be thrown back into middle ages where a horse was the best vehicle you could hope for. Plague and other maladies would become commonplace without proper sanitation (that requires energy.)

I don't want to say that TEPCO and their ilk should be allowed to do whatever they want, unchecked. However it's not enough to say "this won't work" - we need to have a plan, a list of things that will work. I haven't seen such a plan yet - a plan, at least, that does not decimate the population.

Besides, let's assume for the moment that we let 9/10 of the people to die off. The survivors go back into caves. But is such a life worth it? You probably will live longer near Fukushima than in a cave far away from it. The first cold winter, pneumonia, no antibiotics, and you are done for. A newborn's chance of survival would be also pretty low. But Gaia would be happy, I guess.

22 posted on 06/13/2012 12:15:22 PM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
I have studied radiation and the effects of Hiroshima. Which study are you referring to and where is it. Lets look at the original information and not at a hit piece of a study. I suspect the writer has no background in radiation. Radiation is a natural process like the sun. Deep in the earth is radioactive decay that warms the earth also not not the spread of radioactive waste.
23 posted on 06/13/2012 12:22:58 PM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I haven’t read the study and really don’t intend to. These studies generally all use the Linear No Threshold model to extrapolate risk from very high doses of radiation (with very poor dosimetry) to low levels of radiation exposure. I think the LNT concept is dubious at best. I do think studies of medical exposure where there is some basis of the dosimetry and its link to cancer are worthwhile.


24 posted on 06/13/2012 12:26:28 PM PDT by wfu_deacons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

how are you supposed to avoid low doses of ionizing radiation? it’s naturally occuring. You can’t go outside, eat food, or heaven forbid you fly. I agree with mountainlion, sounds like no background in radiation. BTW which types of radiation are ionizing? :)


25 posted on 06/13/2012 12:32:47 PM PDT by class8601_nuke (don't just be critical, be prompt critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The report is fine. The problem comes with the “Review of the Report” by an outsider Ian Goddard. The man draws conclusions from nothing. This report is not about “low levels of radiation”, but the radiation effects on the survivors in these cities between 1950 and 2003. This is the 14th report. It really does not provide any thing new.
26 posted on 06/13/2012 12:39:22 PM PDT by WWTraveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
Most scientific papers are probably wrong, by Kurt Kleiner, New Scientist, 30 August 2005

Especially ones with an agenda.

27 posted on 06/13/2012 12:46:01 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WWTraveler
The people should examine a control group of non exposed persons to show the effects. Reports like this need to be studied by experts and not take bad looking parts out of context. I saw that 0% of the people 50 and had survived. That looks bad until you think that someone 50 years old would be 117 years old now.
28 posted on 06/13/2012 12:52:06 PM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: class8601_nuke
" BTW which types of radiation are ionizing?"
ummm....MR. SUN (SOL :)

29 posted on 06/13/2012 12:55:33 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; different flie$". :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

http://lowdose.energy.gov/pdf/DoseRanges.pdf


30 posted on 06/13/2012 1:29:32 PM PDT by Stymee (Father of 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: class8601_nuke
BTW which types of radiation are ionizing?

Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation composed of particles that individually can liberate an electron from an atom or molecule, producing ion-pairs. [...] US Federal Communications Commission material defines ionizing radiation as that with a photon energy of greater than 10 eV (equivalent to a far ultraviolet wavelength of 124 nanometers). [link]

They even offer an example:

The exposure caused by Potassium-40 present within a normal person.

I guess there is a huge market out there for some process to remove Potassium-40 from everyone and everything that lives :-) After that is done, the next task would be to remove all the granite rocks from Earth, somehow. Ultimately, of course, since Earth is inherently radioactive, we have to get rid of the planet.

31 posted on 06/13/2012 1:56:37 PM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
I was very careful not to critique the article. I was researching the source since I never heard of them before, which wouldn't be uncommon here in the US.

I was associated with the Aussies while in the USAF and they were top notch people and remade my political definition of conservative. In the US I stand to the right of Reagan but in Australia, we would both be seen as left leaning pinkos. On the other hand, Australia is the country that gave us Wikileaks and Assange too.

32 posted on 06/13/2012 3:14:44 PM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

“A landmark study on Hiroshima survivors comprehensively disproves nuclear lobby spin about ionising radiation being safe at low doses. Noel Wauchope reports.”

I’ve only gotten through this first sentence...but when I read something like this, I immediately DISCREDIT the source.


33 posted on 06/13/2012 5:19:29 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

You say: “I have studied radiation and the effects of Hiroshima. Which study are you referring to and where is it. Lets look at the original information and not at a hit piece of a study”

But your prior posts like #4 and #17 show a shocking lack of scientific knowledge and/or an intent to manipulate and distort. If you were an expert - you’d enhance the public’s understanding of radiation but I see you threw everything in there but bananas in an attempt to confuse and misinform. Not worth spending my time talking to an ignorant shill.


34 posted on 06/13/2012 10:33:09 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freedommom

Thank you for the link, Freedommom. Gunderson has done excellent work - that is why the pro nuke shills hate him so much.
John Gofman, the ‘father of plutonium’, was a well respected physicist and medical physician right up until the day he told his superiors that radiation was harmful to human health and his studies proved it. I’ve seen quotes where the nuclear lobby portrays him as the most irrational incoherent person etc. and yet he has a nice long history of discovering radioactive elements, supplying Oppenheim with material on demand, pioneering the work in cholesterol (LDL/HDL) and ‘elegant’ experimental designs which proved the relationship between low dose radiation and breast cancer. When posting on a board with nuke shills, you are going to see Gunderson and Gofman ridiculed as crazies or tree-huggers - and the people doing the ranting will be nuke shills who have no credibility at all.


35 posted on 06/13/2012 10:38:40 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BobL

BEIR VII report has a similar sentence in their report. It’s something like ‘contrary to what the nuclear industry would like to believe...’ and it’s there because the medical community seems to be frustrated by the way that the nuke industry has commandeered, or tried to, the reporting of medical consensus. Nuke shills HAVE to claim BEIR VII and all other medical reports are biased or lack credibility because it says things they don’t want to hear - it points to their liability to the public and if there’s anything nuke apologists will never accept, is accountability for their actions. So - yes you discredit medical reports you don’t like. I am not surprised.


36 posted on 06/13/2012 10:42:21 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Greysard

“But there is a larger problem.”

The larger problem is that the public, and the will of the people, is being undermined by an industry subsidized and leveraged by their government. It’s a corrupting arrangement and the public is lied to, shouted down, and regulated out of participating in the proper governance and risks associated with resources.


37 posted on 06/13/2012 10:47:16 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

and nuke shills attacking peer reviewed medical research spanning about 50 years have NO agenda....


38 posted on 06/13/2012 11:24:39 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

“So - yes you discredit medical reports you don’t like. I am not surprised.”

You may be fine with biased reporting, when the bias is on your side. I’m not good with it, regardless of which side they favor.

As to your nuke hysteria - you might want to check on just what happened to all the people that were supposed to get cancer and die from the Chernobyl plumes. They never materialized. Sure, if you’re dropping concrete above a melted-down reactor, you were toast - but for the millions and millions of people downwind, nothing. Also, the place has turned into an animal refuge now, just due to lack of people. Some of those animals are very hot, but they thrive.

Of course I made up everything above (as you would see it), so just ignore the UNBIASED work and live in your paranoid world.


39 posted on 06/14/2012 4:55:28 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
You need to be able to look at both sides of a story and make up your own mind. When you read the opinion piece you get the opinion or the writers’ agenda. I agree that people need to be better educated on radiation and nuclear power and not dismiss it on raw fear.
Liberals tend to lock on one idea and get angry when others do not agree with them. Name calling usually occurs when they lose the discussion. Just because radiation can be dangerous does not mean it should be feared.
40 posted on 06/14/2012 5:12:05 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

War of the agendas.


41 posted on 06/14/2012 5:27:08 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BobL

So pointing to medical research like the peer reviewed National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation or the international research collated from physicians actually treating those affected by Chernobyl documented in this report,
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

is ‘bias’ and ‘hysteria’. Oh there is cancer, leukemia, early dementia, cardiac arrest, and countless conditions for which science hadn’t developed a name for because they don’t originate from organic diseases but are instead the result of irradiation. The medically devastating effects of Chernobyl are alive and well today but you pretend they don’t exist and claim anyone acknowledging what science and medicine knows about radiation is ‘hysteria’. And that doesn’t strike you as biased? Right.


42 posted on 06/14/2012 11:48:12 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

My science background prepared me for the task of evaluating opinion and data, reading through documents like John Gofman’s radiation studies, the international report compiled of physicians data for the Chernobyl region: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
and the National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report as well as the competing documentation put out by the nuke industry to confuse and distort the issues.

YOu say that “I agree that people need to be better educated on radiation and nuclear power and not dismiss it on raw fear.” but you are the one who displayed absolute ignorance of science by employing the old nuke industry talking points in your posts upthread leaving, sadly, bananas out of it for some reason.

You then say “Liberals tend to lock on one idea and get angry when others do not agree with them. Name calling usually occurs when they lose the discussion. “ as if you didn’t name-call me a ‘liberal’ for disagreeing with you. Anyone wishing to refer to actual documentation can read through my posts on FR and conclude that I am not a liberal.

Lastly you say “Just because radiation can be dangerous does not mean it should be feared.” It isn’t radiation I fear, it’s the lies, incompetence, arrogance, manipulation, and excessive power of the nuclear industry propped up by the government.


43 posted on 06/14/2012 11:57:32 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
"Fukushima reactor cores are still releasing radiation into the environment and will continue to do so for the forseeable future because no one knows how to stop it. That and tremendous amounts of fuel in spent fuel pools, some of which are located in destroyed buildings, one of which has a sagging wall or two, mean that the disaster is ongoing."

I guess you mean the "disaster" that has yet to kill a single person...as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000.

I'm sure you're aware that the largest single hydropower disaster in history killed over 170,000 people. Also that the best estimate for fossil fuel electricity generation pollution deaths per year is around 200,000 worldwide.

So, my first point is that no human activity is completely "safe", and power generation in particular has issues. Solar and wind are no panacea, btw, although I do think PV solar roof panels will be worthwhile once a process is discovered that's efficient, cost effective and doesn't involve rare earth elements.

Now, on to the radiation exposure discussion in particular. The first data point is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have, on average, longer life expectancies than the population at large. That's quite hard to square with radiation being a huge risk, given that many of them were exposed at high dosages.

That brings me to the next point - the x axis of the graphs in the article are in units of Sieverts of radiation. One Sievert is a large dose - four Sieverts will cause radiation poisoning. The maximum dose received by a plant worker was 0.180 Sievert (180 millisieverts). No member of the public has received a dose remotely approaching that, by all indications.

I refer you to the excellent xkcd radiation chart which shows graphically the various radiation doses from different types of exposure. For instance, the average personal yearly dose is about four millisieverts, 85% of which is from natural (non-medical) sources.

It's also worth remembering that between 1945 and 1963, hundreds of nuclear weapons were detonated above ground. The total worldwide was about 500 megatons of TNT equivalent. Compared with that, nuclear releases related to power generation have been absolutely minuscule - most certainly including Fukushima.

Finally, I will state that I'm unabashedly pro-nuclear as far as power generation goes. There are readily achievable methods to handle nuclear waste, and thorium reactors greatly limit this problem regardless. Nuclear is the best solution for meeting our power needs going forward with minimal environmental impact. Wind power generation is a joke, not only is it area-intensive, but the dirty secret is that for every megawatt of wind generation, you must build a megawatt of conventional power generation as backup.

44 posted on 06/14/2012 11:59:40 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty (Pray for America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

I guess you mean the “disaster” that has yet to kill a single person...as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000.
_______________________________________________________

I remember how the Soviets attempted to make the most of the fact that irradiation doesn’t necessarily kill the moment you are exposed but can take years before illnesse kill or maim. They claimed the death count was approximately 40 persons because that was the sum of the firemen on the scene of the explosion and the scientists irradiated in the control room. For many years they refused to count the pilot filmed flying a helicopter over the reactor and, being overcome with intense radiation, crashed his helicopter into it, killing everyone aboard. SEE?? SEE? He didn’t get cancer did he. Oh and the UN’s IAEA supported the Soviet’s assertions and even went to far to underreport the radiation released by a factor of 10 (Hans Blix is on tape explaining why he ‘elected’ to only report one tenth of the radiation reported by the Soviets) The Soviets also made it illegal for a physician to report a death from radiation for the first 3 years following the disaster - that REALLY held the death toll down! But eventually the physicians of the most affected regions pooled their data and researchers helped compile it into a report and were able to track rapid increases in infant mortality. Combining significant increases in illnesses far and wide (downwind, having received detectable amounts of radiation) and worldwide calculations indicate 1,000,000 people will killed and another 8million suffered severe debility. The area is still heavily radioactive and causing cancer, leukemia etc. - still taking human lives or just the health of survivors and will do so for many many generations - it’s not over yet. Say - do you think there’s any reason why the Japanese government forbids physicians from examining patients from Fukushima without permission from the government? Do you think that Japan would allow increased infant mortality rates to be reported or would they suppress it to avoid ‘public panic’ - the old touchstone of the nuke industry. How about the diseases like cancer and leukemia which take a few years to form? Will those be excluded from the actual body count because they didn’t occur on the day the reactors were destroyed? Generations of birth defects? Or are the people of Japan just magically going to avoid the illnesses and infant mortality rates experienced by other human populations that were irradiate? Doesn’t matter - the nuke industry has already started the long laborious process of denying all knowledge and responsibility. Let the medical proof come - the nuke industry will simply deny it.
______________________________________________________

I’m sure you’re aware that the largest single hydropower disaster in history killed over 170,000 people. Also that the best estimate for fossil fuel electricity generation pollution deaths per year is around 200,000 worldwide.
______________________________________________________

How many people is that single hydropower disaster killing today and for the next hundreds or thousands of years (Plutonium and Uranium remain radioactive for thousands of years with a half life of 24,000 years - half still remains radioactive at that point). And when ‘decommissioned’, how many thousands of years does the ‘fuel’ have to be stored’ and where is it stored today? Oh and does hydropower have a power hungry industry denying that the disaster ever happened and that anyone who thinks it did is ‘hysterical’ or a ‘fear monger’?
____________________________________________________________

So, my first point is that no human activity is completely “safe”, and power generation in particular has issues. Solar and wind are no panacea, btw, although I do think PV solar roof panels will be worthwhile once a process is discovered that’s efficient, cost effective and doesn’t involve rare earth elements.
_______________________________________________________

Why say that ‘no human activity is completely safe when that isn’t the issue under discussion. The nuke industry lies and yet more medical evidence proves it and you want to talk about hydropower, coal and anything else but the fact that medical evidence refutes the false assertions of the nuke industry AGAIN.

______________________________________________________

Now, on to the radiation exposure discussion in particular. The first data point is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have, on average, longer life expectancies than the population at large. That’s quite hard to square with radiation being a huge risk, given that many of them were exposed at high dosages.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++”Fukushima reactor cores are still releasing radiation into the environment and will continue to do so for the forseeable future because no one knows how to stop it. That and tremendous amounts of fuel in spent fuel pools, some of which are located in destroyed buildings, one of which has a sagging wall or two, mean that the disaster is ongoing.”

I guess you mean the “disaster” that has yet to kill a single person...as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000.

I’m sure you’re aware that the largest single hydropower disaster in history killed over 170,000 people. Also that the best estimate for fossil fuel electricity generation pollution deaths per year is around 200,000 worldwide.

So, my first point is that no human activity is completely “safe”, and power generation in particular has issues. Solar and wind are no panacea, btw, although I do think PV solar roof panels will be worthwhile once a process is discovered that’s efficient, cost effective and doesn’t involve rare earth elements.

Now, on to the radiation exposure discussion in particular. The first data point is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have, on average, longer life expectancies than the population at large. That’s quite hard to square with radiation being a huge risk, given that many of them were exposed at high dosages.

___________________________________________________________

The ‘survivors’ are long lived? How about all those who sickened and died? Were those long lived too? Note that the survivor class exists in any population. From Chernobyl data physicians have determined that 15% of a population is ‘sensitive’ to radiation exposure (sickens and dies more readily) and 15% is ‘less sensitive’ (recovers and survives better than average even as extremely high doses) and the rest have ailments like cancer, leukemia, birth defects etc at ‘average radiation exposure levels’ (the big part of the bell curve - yes there is illness and debility but ‘most’ of the population has it at these radiation related levels). SO survivors of HIroshima may well be ‘long lived’ but it begs the question ‘what happened to those who didn’t survive? Why not count them as casualties too? Why exclude non-survivors from proof that radiation is harmful?’ Note that Hiroshima left much less radioactive waste in the area (A-bombs are a cleaner burning fuel in that most of the radioactive material is converted into heat/light/sound/enegery etc.) so those fortunate enough to survive were pretty much ‘flashed once’ and while that killed and maimed many, if you survived you were a particularly healthy specimen that lived longer than others and you didn’t have to eat, drink, and breath continuing doses of radioactive waste like those in Japan are now doing. Oh there is so much proof that radiation damages human health you really have to close your eyes to avoid it. In the Ukraine there were regions were 90% of children were visibly ill and the area still has what doctors call ‘Chernobyl Aids’ because the immune system is kept so busy fighting radiation damage that it can’t fight off other diseases. THe first international report I read regarding Chernobyl (it was about 18 years ago) said “All diseases reported in the area increased.” I blinked and read it again. Of course the nuke industry says those diseases were psychologically induced (!) but people who were battling and recovering from minor and major illnesses succumb to them when their immune systemm is suppressed and irradiation does that.
__________________________________________________

That brings me to the next point - the x axis of the graphs in the article are in units of Sieverts of radiation. One Sievert is a large dose - four Sieverts will cause radiation poisoning. The maximum dose received by a plant worker was 0.180 Sievert (180 millisieverts). No member of the public has received a dose remotely approaching that, by all indications.
____________________________________________________

No one knows what doses the populace is receiving combining external, internal, food, water, air etc. and you state it as ‘no member of the public HAS received’ but you know that they continue to receive doses of radiation every day of every year. Low doses cause cancer and debility too - that’s the point of the BEIR VII for example, that there isn’t a ‘safe threshold’. The Hiroshima data details what happens both at low doses and at higher one-time doses (oh and what about the nuke workers that TEPCO didn’t provide with dosimeters and didn’t record their names and no longer ‘knows who they are’? How much radiation did they receive at the plant?)and reports like BEIR VII and
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf. Like those reports, the Hiroshima data proves that there isn’t a safe threshold.

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdfhttp://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
__________________________________________________________

I refer you to the excellent xkcd radiation chart which shows graphically the various radiation doses from different types of exposure. For instance, the average personal yearly dose is about four millisieverts, 85% of which is from natural (non-medical) sources.
___________________________________________________

That chart is a waste of time. It does not replicate conditions experienced by those who have to live with disinformation campaigns from the nuke industry. WE know that radiation is harmful and some of it is unavoidable - we object to incompetence increasing the levels of radiation which we are exposed to. We accept medical xrays as a trade off - we increase our risk of cancer because we were exposed to radiation but in return we find that a bone is broken or a tooth needs a root canal. We have to sign medical wavers. Yes I know that ore, the core of earth etc. contains radiation. What does that have to do with TEPCO’s refusing to increase the embankment and placement of back up genrators, refusing to release SPEEDI data, ordering mayors not to distribute potassium iodide? What does it have to do with medical evidence resulting from Hiroshima which proves that the radiation that the nuke industry’s incompetence is exposing us to is harmful?
_________________________________________________________

It’s also worth remembering that between 1945 and 1963, hundreds of nuclear weapons were detonated above ground. The total worldwide was about 500 megatons of TNT equivalent. Compared with that, nuclear releases related to power generation have been absolutely minuscule - most certainly including Fukushima.

________________________________________________________

I have to assume that you are intentionally employing apples to oranges comparisons to misinform or that you are too uninformed on the subject of science to continue in this vein. Yes - above ground testing caused death and disease and there are organizations for ‘DownWinders’ for people living downwind of those test whose lives were destroyed (death and livestock, livelihoods). Recently when I went looking for those organizations I also found ‘Downwinder’ organizations created to address people becoming ill from radiation releases from nuke plants and actual settlements awarded to plaintiffs. In Europe (England I think) a physician has plotted cancer clusters around muke plants. I’ve seen breast cancer charts which plotted 2/3 of the breast cancer reported in the US during a certain period of years all within a few miles of nuke plants. (THe public is largely unaware that Nuke plants are legally allowed to vent specific amounts of radiation yearly) Above ground testing killed and maimed, the US government under reported by a factor of 10 and years later a researcher finally proved it but that was after the US GOvernment tried to suppress his report. For more - please educate yourself by reading John Gofman (known as the ‘father of plutonium’ because he was the scientist who ‘discovered it and other isotopes and was a medical physician as well) and other scientists working in that field at the time.

____________________________________________________

Finally, I will state that I’m unabashedly pro-nuclear as far as power generation goes. There are readily achievable methods to handle nuclear waste, and thorium reactors greatly limit this problem regardless. Nuclear is the best solution for meeting our power needs going forward with minimal environmental impact. Wind power generation is a joke, not only is it area-intensive, but the dirty secret is that for every megawatt of wind generation, you must build a megawatt of conventional power generation as backup.
________________________________________________________
Readily achievable means of handling nuclear waste do not exist and if they did - Chernobyl and Japan would be employing them right now. After the Fukushima explosions etc., 25% of the US’s nuke power plants submitted a report to the federal government stating that they, too, had vulnerabilities regarding fuel storage similar to FUkushima (i.e., mass quantities of fuel stored in above ground pools above reactors) and requested funds to address it. Oh I know the nuke industry will somehow blame the public for their nuke fuel storage issues.
You say “minimal environmental impact.” even though Chernobyl regions have never recovered and are still sickening and killing those who continue to live in contaminated regions. Their ‘containment’ building covering the Cherobyl reactor is near collapse and if it ‘goes’ before they cover it again, it will shower the surrounding regions with additional layers of long lived isotopes. They are trying to build a cover that will last long but that one has problems too and will have to be replaced. There isn’t enough land in the region to move the populace to ‘clean’ not contanimated regions so generations of people are discovering that they have to live their entire lives and raise families in contaminated zones knowing the medical hardships they will all face.
The melted fuel of three Fukushima reactors is not containamble, recoverable, and is pumping out radiation into the environment every day and there is no known way to stop it. The Japanese Government released a map indicating that all of Japan had received various levels of irradiation with hot spots clustered here and there and you consider this ‘minimal environmental impact.’
UC Berkely tested and found produce and milk tainted with radiation from Fukushima and there are milk samples from that area (as well as someplace on the East Coast, which exceeded radiation limits set by the government for milk. and information like this generally encourages you that this is the best, ‘cleanest’ alternative.


45 posted on 06/14/2012 1:05:39 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

This is an edited version of the above post because I cannot edit the original and it contains large blocks of redundant text:

I guess you mean the “disaster” that has yet to kill a single person...as opposed to the earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000.
_______________________________________________________

I remember how the Soviets attempted to make the most of the fact that irradiation doesn’t necessarily kill the moment you are exposed but can take years before illnesse kill or maim. They claimed the death count was approximately 40 persons because that was the sum of the firemen on the scene of the explosion and the scientists irradiated in the control room. For many years they refused to count the pilot filmed flying a helicopter over the reactor and, being overcome with intense radiation, crashed his helicopter into it, killing everyone aboard. SEE?? SEE? He didn’t get cancer did he. Oh and the UN’s IAEA supported the Soviet’s assertions and even went to far to underreport the radiation released by a factor of 10 (Hans Blix is on tape explaining why he ‘elected’ to only report one tenth of the radiation reported by the Soviets) The Soviets also made it illegal for a physician to report a death from radiation for the first 3 years following the disaster - that REALLY held the death toll down! But eventually the physicians of the most affected regions pooled their data and researchers helped compile it into a report and were able to track rapid increases in infant mortality. Combining significant increases in illnesses far and wide (downwind, having received detectable amounts of radiation) and worldwide calculations indicate 1,000,000 people will killed and another 8million suffered severe debility. The area is still heavily radioactive and causing cancer, leukemia etc. - still taking human lives or just the health of survivors and will do so for many many generations - it’s not over yet. Say - do you think there’s any reason why the Japanese government forbids physicians from examining patients from Fukushima without permission from the government? Do you think that Japan would allow increased infant mortality rates to be reported or would they suppress it to avoid ‘public panic’ - the old touchstone of the nuke industry. How about the diseases like cancer and leukemia which take a few years to form? Will those be excluded from the actual body count because they didn’t occur on the day the reactors were destroyed? Generations of birth defects? Or are the people of Japan just magically going to avoid the illnesses and infant mortality rates experienced by other human populations that were irradiate? Doesn’t matter - the nuke industry has already started the long laborious process of denying all knowledge and responsibility. Let the medical proof come - the nuke industry will simply deny it.
______________________________________________________

I’m sure you’re aware that the largest single hydropower disaster in history killed over 170,000 people. Also that the best estimate for fossil fuel electricity generation pollution deaths per year is around 200,000 worldwide.
______________________________________________________

How many people is that single hydropower disaster killing today and for the next hundreds or thousands of years (Plutonium and Uranium remain radioactive for thousands of years with a half life of 24,000 years - half still remains radioactive at that point). And when ‘decommissioned’, how many thousands of years does the ‘fuel’ have to be stored’ and where is it stored today? Oh and does hydropower have a power hungry industry denying that the disaster ever happened and that anyone who thinks it did is ‘hysterical’ or a ‘fear monger’?
____________________________________________________________

So, my first point is that no human activity is completely “safe”, and power generation in particular has issues. Solar and wind are no panacea, btw, although I do think PV solar roof panels will be worthwhile once a process is discovered that’s efficient, cost effective and doesn’t involve rare earth elements.
_______________________________________________________

Why say that ‘no human activity is completely safe when that isn’t the issue under discussion. The nuke industry lies and yet more medical evidence proves it and you want to talk about hydropower, coal and anything else but the fact that medical evidence refutes the false assertions of the nuke industry AGAIN.

______________________________________________________

Now, on to the radiation exposure discussion in particular. The first data point is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have, on average, longer life expectancies than the population at large. That’s quite hard to square with radiation being a huge risk, given that many of them were exposed at high dosages.

___________________________________________________________

The ‘survivors’ are long lived? How about all those who sickened and died? Were those long lived too? Note that the survivor class exists in any population. From Chernobyl data physicians have determined that 15% of a population is ‘sensitive’ to radiation exposure (sickens and dies more readily) and 15% is ‘less sensitive’ (recovers and survives better than average even as extremely high doses) and the rest have ailments like cancer, leukemia, birth defects etc at ‘average radiation exposure levels’ (the big part of the bell curve - yes there is illness and debility but ‘most’ of the population has it at these radiation related levels). SO survivors of HIroshima may well be ‘long lived’ but it begs the question ‘what happened to those who didn’t survive? Why not count them as casualties too? Why exclude non-survivors from proof that radiation is harmful?’ Note that Hiroshima left much less radioactive waste in the area (A-bombs are a cleaner burning fuel in that most of the radioactive material is converted into heat/light/sound/enegery etc.) so those fortunate enough to survive were pretty much ‘flashed once’ and while that killed and maimed many, if you survived you were a particularly healthy specimen that lived longer than others and you didn’t have to eat, drink, and breath continuing doses of radioactive waste like those in Japan are now doing. Oh there is so much proof that radiation damages human health you really have to close your eyes to avoid it. In the Ukraine there were regions were 90% of children were visibly ill and the area still has what doctors call ‘Chernobyl Aids’ because the immune system is kept so busy fighting radiation damage that it can’t fight off other diseases. THe first international report I read regarding Chernobyl (it was about 18 years ago) said “All diseases reported in the area increased.” I blinked and read it again. Of course the nuke industry says those diseases were psychologically induced (!) but people who were battling and recovering from minor and major illnesses succumb to them when their immune systemm is suppressed and irradiation does that.
__________________________________________________

That brings me to the next point - the x axis of the graphs in the article are in units of Sieverts of radiation. One Sievert is a large dose - four Sieverts will cause radiation poisoning. The maximum dose received by a plant worker was 0.180 Sievert (180 millisieverts). No member of the public has received a dose remotely approaching that, by all indications.
____________________________________________________

No one knows what doses the populace is receiving combining external, internal, food, water, air etc. and you state it as ‘no member of the public HAS received’ but you know that they continue to receive doses of radiation every day of every year. Low doses cause cancer and debility too - that’s the point of the BEIR VII for example, that there isn’t a ‘safe threshold’. The Hiroshima data details what happens both at low doses and at higher one-time doses (oh and what about the nuke workers that TEPCO didn’t provide with dosimeters and didn’t record their names and no longer ‘knows who they are’? How much radiation did they receive at the plant?)and reports like BEIR VII and
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf. Like those reports, the Hiroshima data proves that there isn’t a safe threshold.

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
__________________________________________________________

I refer you to the excellent xkcd radiation chart which shows graphically the various radiation doses from different types of exposure. For instance, the average personal yearly dose is about four millisieverts, 85% of which is from natural (non-medical) sources.
___________________________________________________

That chart is a waste of time. It does not replicate conditions experienced by those who have to live with disinformation campaigns from the nuke industry. WE know that radiation is harmful and some of it is unavoidable - we object to incompetence increasing the levels of radiation which we are exposed to. We accept medical x-rays as a trade off - we increase our risk of cancer because we were exposed to radiation but in return we find that a bone is broken or a tooth needs a root canal. We have to sign medical wavers. Yes I know that ore, the core of earth etc. contains radiation. What does that have to do with TEPCO’s refusing to increase the embankment and placement of back up genrators, refusing to release SPEEDI data, ordering mayors not to distribute potassium iodide? What does it have to do with medical evidence resulting from Hiroshima which proves that the radiation that the nuke industry’s incompetence is exposing us to is harmful?
_________________________________________________________

It’s also worth remembering that between 1945 and 1963, hundreds of nuclear weapons were detonated above ground. The total worldwide was about 500 megatons of TNT equivalent. Compared with that, nuclear releases related to power generation have been absolutely minuscule - most certainly including Fukushima.

________________________________________________________

I have to assume that you are intentionally employing apples to oranges comparisons to misinform or that you are too uninformed on the subject of science to continue in this vein. Yes - above ground testing caused death and disease and there are organizations for ‘DownWinders’ (people living downwind of those tests) whose lives were destroyed (death and livestock, livelihoods). Recently when I went looking for those organizations I also found ‘Downwinder’ organizations created to address people becoming ill from radiation releases from nuke plants and actual settlements awarded to plaintiffs. In Europe (England I think) a physician has plotted cancer clusters around muke plants. I’ve seen breast cancer charts which plotted 2/3 of the breast cancer reported in the US during a certain period of years all within a few miles of nuke plants. (THe public is largely unaware that Nuke plants are legally allowed to vent specific amounts of radiation yearly)

Above ground testing killed and maimed, the US government under reported by a factor of 10 and years later a researcher finally proved it but that was after the US GOvernment tried to suppress his report. For more - please educate yourself by reading John Gofman (known as the ‘father of plutonium’ because he was the scientist who ‘discovered it and other isotopes and was a medical physician as well) and other scientists working in that field at the time.

____________________________________________________

Finally, I will state that I’m unabashedly pro-nuclear as far as power generation goes. There are readily achievable methods to handle nuclear waste, and thorium reactors greatly limit this problem regardless. Nuclear is the best solution for meeting our power needs going forward with minimal environmental impact. Wind power generation is a joke, not only is it area-intensive, but the dirty secret is that for every megawatt of wind generation, you must build a megawatt of conventional power generation as backup.
________________________________________________________
Readily achievable means of handling nuclear waste do not exist and if they did - Chernobyl and Japan would be employing them right now. After the Fukushima explosions etc., 25% of the US’s nuke power plants submitted a report to the federal government stating that they, too, had vulnerabilities regarding fuel storage similar to FUkushima (i.e., mass quantities of fuel stored in above ground pools above reactors) and requested funds to address it. Oh I know the nuke industry will somehow blame the public for their nuke fuel storage issues.

You say “minimal environmental impact.” even though Chernobyl regions have never recovered and are still sickening and killing those who continue to live in contaminated regions. Their ‘containment’ building covering the Cherobyl reactor is near collapse and if it ‘goes’ before they cover it again, it will shower the surrounding regions with additional layers of long lived isotopes. They are trying to build a cover that will last long but that one has problems too and will have to be replaced. There isn’t enough land in the region to move the populace to ‘clean’ not contanimated regions so generations of people are discovering that they have to live their entire lives and raise families in contaminated zones knowing the medical hardships they will all face.

The melted fuel of three Fukushima reactors is not containable, recoverable, and is pumping out radiation into the environment every day and there is no known way to stop it and it will continue indefinitely. The Japanese Government released a map indicating that all of Japan had received various levels of irradiation with hot spots clustered here and there and you consider this ‘minimal environmental impact.’
UC Berkely tested and found produce and milk tainted with radiation from Fukushima and there are milk samples from that area (as well as someplace on the East Coast, which exceeded radiation limits set by the government for milk. and information like this generally encourages you that this is the best, ‘cleanest’ alternative.


46 posted on 06/14/2012 4:36:31 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
Low doses radiation is good for your health as it can be used to destroy cancer. I have 44 radioactive iodine capsules in my prostate to kill my prostate cancer. It is working. See radiation does have a place in this world after all and I am not the idiot you think.
47 posted on 06/16/2012 1:49:53 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Placemark.


48 posted on 06/19/2012 9:01:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Go live in a cave, luddite. Oh wait, that’s probably radioactive too. Guess you’re screwed.


49 posted on 06/19/2012 9:10:31 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

Go live in a cave, luddite. Oh wait, that’s probably radioactive too. Guess you’re screwed.

___________________________________________________

No - you go live in a cave, shill.

Citing medical research and objecting to nuke industry incompetence an lies is not the mark of a Luddite. But - you didn’t have any substance to add so you went for the old nuke shill standbys - name calling and comparing radon to plutonium/cesium/uranium etc.


50 posted on 06/19/2012 10:28:03 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson