EDIT: Oh... it's back for some reason. I don't know what's happening at the moment... seems Disqus is acting up badly.

-------------------

I came here looking for some answers, not petulance. You need to understand that your site will receive visitors who do not conform to your expectations -- but are still looking for information. Many people fear nuclear technology for logical reasons. Fear does not void basic physiological facts. It is those facts that create fear. Fear is a very valid response when a person feels threatened.So what I hear you saying is that it's not the nuclear industry who sets the acceptable levels of radiation exposure and you don't like the Yablokov material. So delete that stuff. This was not the core of my argument. In fact, delete the section on DU in Fallujah too because that's NOT a study, it's reporting. Also, discount my friend because he's not a study; this was just a personal experience and so his death doesn't count or matter.

I think that it can get really easy to dismiss people's views when you know nothing about them. I don't know you Michael. The only thing I have to go on is that you're a computer programmer who has a serious interest in nuclear energy. I do not believe there is a conspiracy or "in-crowd" that promotes nuclear industry for some dark scary purpose. It essentially comes down to a large group of people who love physics and desire to apply that knowledge to solve societies problems. I do believe you are in that group.As for myself, I'm not someone who has read the news in California and suddenly decided I'm in danger from radioactive strawberries. I was in Japan when the earthquakes, tsunamis and meltdowns happened. I remained there because of the reassurances issued by TEPCO and the Japanese government. I understand that one of your colleagues is also there. How is he feeling about TEPCO's handling of information that effects public health? How does he view the attempted rise in permissible radiation exposure in children? (Mattias can jump in here)My presence in Japan when all this unfolded does not make me a nuclear physicist, but it affected my life and my young son's life. It is not a theoretical argument to me and it is very real to millions of others. It does not make me hysterical, but motivated to learn -- and learn quickly.What I observed was that TEPCO prioritized the control of information so that initial public reactions would be muted. As a result, many people have been (and still are) exposed to much higher levels of radiation than they would have been if TEPCO had just bit the bullet. It took weeks and weeks for them to release relevant information. This generates a huge amount of distrust and skepticism from those who might be nuclear supporters. In fact, many people who used to be supporters of nuclear energy have reversed their stance because of responses like this.I'm sure that nuclear physics is amazing and cool and can been seen as the answer to the word's energy needs, but the inherent faults in bureaucracy leads to excessive human exposure to radiation. If this was an isolated incident it would be different. However, standard response in emergency situations has been to deny the problem first. Hanford "Downwinders" were told to get phychological help for their "radiophobia" when spikes in infant mortality, cancers and other diseases began showing up.

I am motivated to hear your side. Tell me why my DNA is not in danger. Tell me why I shouldn't have my son tested periodically for cancers over the next twenty to thirty years. Explain why children in Fukushima are not at any risk for leukemia or solid cancers. Tell me why the National Research Council's study on the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation is invalid. What about DNA repair enzymes? There is a lot left to address in my post.I see you're on the side to create good from your knowledge. I am not questioning your personal motivations, but I am asking you to look at human physiological response to radiation and the limits of the nuclear industry to address these dangers.I thank you for your civil response to my email and look forward to an improved exchange of information.

And I see my other response has been erased as well.

Nice guys.

Have fun.

I came here looking for some answers, not petulance.

Somehow, I think you came here looking for a soapbox.

You need to understand that your site will receive visitors who do not conform to your expectations -- but are still looking for information.

And you need to understand that if you climb up on that soapbox to make your speech, you will receive rotten tomatoes from those who actually know better. Complaining about it, instead of confronting the challenges to what you have said, just makes your position look even weaker.

Many people fear nuclear technology for logical reasons. Fear does not void basic physiological facts. It is those facts that create fear. Fear is a very valid response when a person feels threatened.

Yet your comments are strangely devoid of these ... er ... "physiological facts." Have you ever considered that this fear could be the result of a well-orchestrated FUD campaign? You boldly assert that the nuclear industry is capable of anything. Are its opponents completely helpless?

So what I hear you saying is that it's not the nuclear industry who sets the acceptable levels of radiation exposure and you don't like the Yablokov material. So delete that stuff. This was not the core of my argument. In fact, delete the section on DU in Fallujah too because that's NOT a study, it's reporting. Also, discount my friend because he's not a study; this was just a personal experience and so his death doesn't count or matter.

So what I hear you saying is that you've backed out of almost all of your dubious claims. Please explain to me again why anyone should continue to take you seriously?

I think that it can get really easy to dismiss people's views when you know nothing about them.

Oh ... I think that I have your number. I'm quite familiar with these "views."

My presence in Japan when all this unfolded does not make me a nuclear physicist, but it affected my life and my young son's life. It is not a theoretical argument to me and it is very real to millions of others. It does not make me hysterical, but motivated to learn -- and learn quickly.

If you would drop the attitude and the pseudo-science baggage that you have brought with you here, then perhaps you could learn something. Learning begins with asking questions, not tossing around accusations. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

I am motivated to hear your side. Tell me why my DNA is not in danger. Tell me why I shouldn't have my son tested periodically for cancers over the next twenty to thirty years.

You can have him tested periodically for cancer. That's probably not a bad idea, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Fukushima accident. Without knowing your family's history of cancer risks, I'd say that he's probably most at risk for developing melanoma in the next two decades. (That comes from exposure to the sun, by the way, not nuclear reactors.)

Tell me why the National Research Council's study on the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation is invalid.

From what you have written, I can only conclude that you have not actually read the NRC's report on the effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation.

My post is pretty clear that having a grasp of physiology is a prerequisite to understanding Yablokov's collection of material.

No, your post is pretty clear that harboring an irrational bias is a prerequisite to "understanding" Yablokov's collection of material.

This "collection of material" (and yes, I have a copy, in case you're wondering) can best be described as a series of essays, written by a couple of dishonest people with an axe to grind, that contains very little real, verifiable science. It is long on anecdotes and lame challenges to modern scientific protocols, but is short on anything that can be called credible by any respectable scientist.

This "report" has not undergone any kind of review by the scientific community; the NYAS has publicly admitted this and has distanced itself from all of its contents (it even included a disclaimer on page vi of the book). When it comes to credible science as understood by modern researchers, this book might as well be a work of science fiction.

I realize that the data on the health effects following the Chernobyl accident are lamentably poor. Nevertheless, the UN scientists who have done the difficult work of following up to quantify the effects have done a remarkable job, given the circumstances. What's more, they have had to deal with the many confounding factors that have resulted from the hopelessness experienced by the population at risk -- depression, tobacco use, alcohol abuse, even drug use -- all of which have a profound and well-documented effect on the health of not only the persons involved, but their offspring as well. Almost all of this hopelessness has resulted from the needless fear caused by incompetent governments and the meddling of various NGO's with their own private agendas.

Yablokov et al., with their book full of dubious pseudo-science, are not doing anybody a favor. They are just making a bad situation even worse.

I think that it can get really easy to dismiss people's views when you know nothing about them. I don't know you Michael. The only thing I have to go on is that you're a computer programmer who has a serious interest in nuclear energy. I do not believe there is a conspiracy or "in-crowd" that promotes nuclear industry for some dark scary purpose. It essentially comes down to a large group of people who love physics and desire to apply that knowledge to solve societies problems. I do believe you are in that group.As for myself, I'm not someone who has read the news in California and suddenly decided I'm in danger from radioactive strawberries. I was in Japan when the earthquakes, tsunamis and meltdowns happened. I remained there because of the reassurances issued by TEPCO and the Japanese government. I understand that one of your colleagues is also there. How is he feeling about TEPCO's handling of information that effects public health? How does he view the attempted rise in permissible radiation exposure in children? (Mattias can jump in here)My presence in Japan when all this unfolded does not make me a nuclear physicist, but it affected my life and my young son's life. It is not a theoretical argument to me and it is very real to millions of others. It does not make me hysterical, but motivated to learn -- and learn quickly.What I observed was that TEPCO prioritized the control of information so that initial public reactions would be muted. As a result, many people have been (and still are) exposed to much higher levels of radiation than they would have been if TEPCO had just bit the bullet. It took weeks and weeks for them to release relevant information. This generates a huge amount of distrust and skepticism from those who might be nuclear supporters. In fact, many people who used to be supporters of nuclear energy have reversed their stance because of responses like this.I'm sure that nuclear physics is amazing and cool and can been seen as the answer to the word's energy needs, but the inherent faults in bureaucracy leads to excessive human exposure to radiation. If this was an isolated incident it would be different. However, standard response in emergency situations has been to deny the problem first. Hanford "Downwinders" were told to get phychological help for their "radiophobia" when spikes in infant mortality, cancers and other diseases began showing up.

I am motivated to hear your side. Tell me why my DNA is not in danger. Tell me why I shouldn't have my son tested periodically for cancers over the next twenty to thirty years. Explain why children in Fukushima are not at any risk for leukemia or solid cancers. Tell me why the National Research Council's study on the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation is invalid. What about DNA repair enzymes? There is a lot left to address in my post.I see you're on the side to create good from your knowledge. I am not questioning your personal motivations, but I am asking you to look at human physiological response to radiation and the limits of the nuclear industry to address these dangers.I thank you for your civil response to my email and look forward to an improved exchange of information.

Does Yablokov et al. count as a "report"? Have you read it? It's more of an anti-scientific rant that rails against such things as those awful "Western scientific protocols."

No, you're just trying to fling dirt on nuclear power according to well known FUD tactics.

With phrases like "So when safety levels are "established" by the nuclear industry, what they are really declaring is that it is within their right to impose diseases, cancers and other cross-generational effects on segments of the population." you can dispense with the pretty talk and just cut to the chase, because you have already revealed what you are after. As if it wasn't already perfectly clear that you are trying to paint the nuclear industry as callous spreaders of disease and death, the statement also contains blatant error of fact: it is not the nuclear industry that establishes safety norms and regulations: it is the authorities of each respective country.

Regarding Yablokov et al's report we can quickly conclude that it's bogus. Suspicions arose realy when they launched this rather expensive-to-read report with a heavy attack in IAEA, claiming "a coverup". After that it just got sillier. In short, what they did is to attribute any and all increase in unhealth statistics in - even very mildly affected - fallout areas after 1986 to Chernobyl. Even a layman can see right through that fraud.

I see I just got an email from you so I'll answer that...

Suggesting that there are safe levels of radiation exposure implies that there is no diversity in the human genome. Just as some people can run faster than others, genetic diversity includes variability within the enzymes responsible for repairing DNA lesions. These lesions are caused from all types of mutagenic substances (including man-made and background radiation). There is a direct association between the rate of DNA repair and the development of cancer. In addition, an increase in the rate of damage also increases the likelihood of cancers and gene mutations.

The lack of clarity in pinpointing the exact cause of a cancer is not helped by the latent period of carcinogenisis. When the genes regulating cell division are damaged, the cell does not immediately begin dividing uncontrollably. This hibernation period, which can last anywhere from five to sixty years, is how the nuclear industry is able to discount most incidences of cancer in adult employees and populations as a whole. However, it cannot be denied that it only takes one mutated cell to cause cancer, and even low doses of radiation are cable of producing this type of damage. In addition, the older segment of the population, immuno-depressed individuals and children are far more susceptible to the effects of radiation than healthy adults.

So when safety levels are "established" by the nuclear industry, what they are really declaring is that it is within their right to impose diseases, cancers and other cross-generational effects on segments of the population. In other words, as in war, there are acceptable levels of loss. Most people become alarmed by the fact that they don't know whether they are in one group or the other.
Decisions that effect the human race should not lay in the hands of the few. This has been proven throughout history.Here are a few resources that might help readers along the way:- The National Research Council's "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation", Nadezhda Ryabokon

-  R.I. Goncharova's study entitled "Transgenerational Accumulation of Radiation Damage in Small Mammals Chronically Exposed to Chernobyl Fallout"

- The Russian collection of studies released by the New York Academy of Sciences entitled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment." This study will only make sense once you understand how pervasive and mutagenic the effects of radiation are.The study I find very interesting involves the 22 generations of small mammals (which, by the way, have a higher tolerance to radiation than humans) in the Chernobyl fallout zone. This study noted permanently elevated levels of chromosomal aberrations and embryonic death even while radiation levels decreased. From the study, I quote: "Furthermore, gravid females were captured, and their offspring, born and grown up under contamination-free laboratory conditions, showed the same enhanced level of chromosome aberrations."Radiation-induced genetic abnormalities do not simply go away when the radiation does.If you really want to get out of your comfort zone, the highly unsubstantiated and completely unprovable effects of the American use of depleted uranium on Iraqi populations can be seen in this YouTube video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPUjay-rbgI&NR=1While I'm sure this journalist's report is highly suspect in your opinion, I happen to know a man who died after his involvement with the research and development phase of these DU weapons. His involvement did not include exposure to the fine, airborn DU powder these Iraqi citizens were inhaling. Before he died of cancer, he filed a lawsuit against the US military and won. Why isn't there a comprehensive study on the effects of DU on these populations? It seems that every side has its politics.

I'm not trying to promote one type of death over another, but I would like some consideration for the larger societal impacts of long-term genetic damage. It is true that large population studies are difficult to substantiate because there are so many contributing factors to cancer and diseases. However, low levels of ionizing radiation cannot be discounted either.

- From China we are getting reports how "Green" energy is causing an eco-disaster.
- Solar power (photovoltiacs) uses the same kind of rare earth metals, of which China supplies 95% of the world's needs.
- Solar power in general uses for instance 8000% more bauxite per kWh than nuclear. And what can bauxite do? Hungary knows...
- The world's largest dam disaster killed 160 000 people.
- Fossil fuels and other pollutant-emitting power sources kill 2 000 000 people per year.

The "100% certainty" demand is nonsense because that is a demand you don't put on anything else around you. You just hush those risks up and pretend it's not there, even though in the short time it took me to write this comment along, 10 people died from fossil fuels in the world. Fukushima I has so far not killed anyone.

Do the math...