Last updated on March 1, 2013
It has always mystified me (and I think I can speak for all of us in NPYP) that someone can be anti-something when it comes to energy. Lets suppose for instance that someone declares himself to be anti-chemical energy, the logical follow up question to the fellow would of course be “what kind of chemical energy?”. The question is logical because there are so many different ways one can extract chemical energy, everything from burning cow dung in huts to the engine in your car to high tech gas turbines to dynamite. Our friend there probably didn’t even think of those distinctions when he made his statement, but what if he did? Let’s say he rebukes by stating he really means that he is anti coal. Even that statement can be challenged, it must by necessity be conditional otherwise it is moronic. If he is anti coal because of air pollution, then would he change his mind if there was a solution to the pollution? If someone developed a filter that reduced pollution levels to insignificant amount is fossil fuels then ok? Logically he should think so. If he is anti coal because of the immensely destructive coal mining, would he change his mind if environmentally sound mining practices where developed? The guy is presumably actually anti air pollution or anti dirty mines, not anti chemical energy or anti coal. He just never bothered to go through the chain of reasoning to understand what he really opposes in chemical energy.
Same can be said of any energy source, there is no rational reason to be against the energy source itself, rather one is against some undesirable effect due to the present application of the energy source. NPYP are not fans of coal by any means, but I dare say that if there was solid solutions to its problems, then none of us would oppose its use. There just isn’t any justifiable reason to oppose it if the problems are solved. There is no other way to rationally look at energy production.
The advantage with digging deep and specifying exactly what one is actually opposed to means opening up to the possibility of finding solutions! If someone simply state that they are anti windmills then the discussion pretty much ends right there. If the person instead states that the noise from windmills is disturbing then the discussion can turn to possible solutions to reduce noise. Everyone wins on that! There is no reason to be horribly emotional about the whole thing and cling to an anti-something idea so hard that one blocks any fruitful discussion and becomes blind to solutions.
A discussion goes no where until one gets to the core of the argument, which is, what properties of a specific energy source makes you oppose it and and how can it be improved so you no longer oppose it?
The frustrating thing in the nuclear debate is that the discussion never seems to reach that point. Ask leading environmentalists that exact question and they will squirm like a worm on a hook.
If someone specifies that they are opposed to nuclear energy due to the waste problem. Fine we say, but what exactly do you mean by the waste problem and what effect does the waste have that you find repulsive? If you are bothered by the possibility that the waste will hurt future generations, then lets discuss how to safely dispose of the waste. If you are anti nuclear because you are bothered by the safety of nuclear installations, then specify what level of safety is safe enough (obviously there must be a level where an activity is considered safe enough, otherwise the person in question would never get out of bed to shower for fear of slipping and dying) and lets discuss how to reach that.
But the discussion always ends before reaching that point because the “anti person” generally never seems to be interested in solutions to the posed problems and they are usually not even able to state clearly why they consider the issue as a problem in the first place. This is not only valid for the nuclear debate, one sees the same tendencies in all kinds of discussion where there is a clear anti side. Anti genetic engineering, anti cars, anti meat, anti space exploration, you name it! It seems very hard for people to go past the simple emotional attachment of being against something and instead engage into a meaningful discussion about the issues. It is too easy to just be opposed to something, it is damned much harder to actually find solutions.
So to move the nuclear discussion into a more fruitful direction it would be enlightening if some nuclear opponents could specify what conditions nuclear would have to fulfill to be an acceptable energy source. Believe it or not even we have such conditions. I don’t think for instance anyone in NPYP wants to see more RBMK reactors built (the type of reactor at the Chernobyl plant) and just to speak for myself I have quite strict demands on what nuclear energy should be in the long run to be an acceptable energy source. I am not anti nuclear, but I am certainly anti towards some ways of extracting nuclear energy.
To summaries and to state the challenge again clearly.
What conditions would have to be fulfilled for you to consider nuclear an acceptable energy source?
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
You have a good question here – unfortunately I think that the “anti” people that is hardest to discuss this with, are also the people that let their feelings rather than facts control their opinion on such matters, thus they will not “pick up the glove”.
Logical reasoning around these subjects is not interesting for them…and the only way to reach a compromise or turn these people around is to reason at the same level, i.e. with emotions rather than facts… The same way that NOT using facts fells really strange to people with a logical mind, a lot of those are engineers etc, is probably how it feels to NOT letting the emotions guide you for amotional guided people, I think.At least that is logical ;)/K
I would not mind being happily surprised to for once engage in a constructive discussion with a opponent (a dialectic rather than a debate to be nerdy). But you are probably right. I don’t have the slightest idea how to make an emotional argument for nuclear energy though? Besides painting emotional horror stories about the alternatives.
Usually the anti-people are only interrested in things that support their belief, rather than challenging it.
Science on the other hand should be about the opposite. You should confirm your theories by challenging them. It might after all just be a loose cable…
Ah I see. So scientists are logical and not swayed by emotions, but non-scientists are emotional and can’t think logically, thus they oppose nuclear. Nice bit of closed-loop self-serving arrogance that actually neatly encapsulates some scientists’ attitude of distain towards anyone who doesn’t share their mindset. You do know it’s abuse of argument?
I know you all have it drilled into you that science is about hard facts and you mustn’t let emotions have any influence whatsoever … trouble is, this attitude has led to some pretty nasty distortions of science, which were unemotional and objective for sure, but hardly something I would wish to promote. Eugenics is one example you may care to defend.
Scientists have been known to put themselves at the disposal of despots and psychopaths, have collaborated in mass murder and environmental degradation on a massive scale; so there is no automatic assumption one can make that all science is good, and all scientists neutral because emotionless. GM scientists doubtless logically believe they are right, despite serving the desire of huge capitalist enterprises to grow richer, and have no qualms about creating plants which produce infertile seed so that farmers will forever be tied to the GM seed provider, or GM plants that are designed to allow larger amounts of weed- controlling poisons to be used in the environment. The scientists involved are not, however, environmental scientists, and are ignorant of the inter-related nature of the biosphere, the impossibility of restricting seed dispersal over wide areas and contamination of the natural world. Just another example where unemotional scientists can do harm while doing their job.
So to the question.
Well, to be truly carbon neutral the uranium [or any other fissile material used now or the future] would need to be as easily available as renewable siurces, rather than locked into ores buried deep in the crust and costing huge amounts of energy to mine, extract, purify and transport.
There would need to be no radioactive emissions or waste products which negate any claims to be clean or sustainable [more on that later] and the process would need to be safe, and that includes future scenarios where society could break down and control be lost. That is the single most worrying aspect; wind turbines unattended by a now vanished humanity would ebventually fall down and rot away, and be absorbed into the biosphere without much affect. PV similarly, once the building holding the panels were collapsed, the panels too would recycle by natural processes of plate tectonics and movements, topsoil creation etc.
Being a finite source of enery, uranium will run out, faster as more and more countries follow the lead of those which have it and have yet not abandoned it. Everyone wants to join the nuclear club and doesn’t see why they shouldn’t – and given the logic of equality I don’t see why not either. I think it collosal impudence that the nuclear west lectures Iran and tries to interfere with its nuclear programme, while continuing to use nuclear itself. Hypocrisy doesn’t come close. That’s not to mean I’m sanguine about a bunch or Islamist nutters locked in the 8th century being in possession of what is potentially the most dangerous process so far invented. I would have preferred a global abandonement of nuclear, a clear explication why and a UN decision to never ever go that way again. Then lecturing Iran, or North Korea or Saudi Arabia would be justified.
Faith in nuclear rests on the world remaining as stable as it is now, which isn’t much. Nuclear installations are now being seen as likely terrorist targets, no one can say they will never be successful, not what damage might be possible. Lots of unknowns yet pro-nuclear people always like to appear so certain.
So-called ‘backround radiation’ which didn’t exist before Hiroshima [or rather the tests which preceded it] rises r=year on year. We are constantly told it is minimal and can cause no harm to living things. Scientists have been known to lie, especially when defending an untenable position, they are not immune from any of the human inadequacies despite their unemotional nature and training, in fact, lack of emotion makes scientists potentially more dangerous.
Too much of the rhetoric in defence of nuclear contains words like; might, would, could, possibly, theoretically, in the future, and others. None of these instill confidence. Can you understand why that is?
Unemotionally, I distrust using a bomb as a means to make energy. Anyone thought of using controlled dynamite?
Unemotionally, I distrust using a bomb as a means to make energy. Anyone thought of using controlled dynamite?
Well you drive a car don’t you? Even if you don’t do that you sometime go by car, or by bus, or any otehr mode of transportation that uses an internal combustion engine. At 3000 RPM, a 4 cylinder car engine experiences 100 explosions per second, explosions that could very well do some serious damage if they were not contained.
Too much of the rhetoric in defence of nuclear contains words like; might, would, could, possibly, theoretically, in the future, and others. None of these instill confidence. Can you understand why that is?
That’s funny because that is exactly the kind of rethorics we have to fight off from the nuclear opponents. The biggest one of them is “Well renewables could cover our energy needs, if we just let it”.
So essentially you have switched the labels around. The normal situation is that we are accused of making too accurate statements that don’t hold enough would/could/should… they tell us “No, you can’t be that sure!”, while we have to fend off an endless stream of would have/could have/should have and other such soft, fuzzy, indeterminate arguments.
So-called ‘backround radiation’ which didn’t exist before Hiroshima
Eh hm…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
That statement you just made was plain nonsense.
“Well, to be truly carbon neutral the uranium [or any other fissile material used now or the future] would need to be as easily available as renewable siurces, rather than locked into ores buried deep in the crust and costing huge amounts of energy to mine, extract, purify and transport.”
No, the uranium just has to be as easily available (as measured in energy units used per energy unit produced) as the resources needed to produce renewable energy. I.e cadmium, neodymium etc. Already today nuclear is more easily available than renewable energy sources,
“There would need to be no radioactive emissions or waste products which negate any claims to be clean or sustainable”
That is not a self evident truth, the fact that radioactive material is produced is not equal to large environmental impact being unavoidable. You are making the fallacious assumption that just because a toxic product is produced it most inevitably do harm. With that logic we must never produce a photovolatic cell because the process involved DOES use toxic materials and the end product is often toxic by itself, for instance cadmium telluride solar cells.Your statements regarding wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are also false, I don’t think anyone would consider it environmentally benign to abandon installations that contain cadmium, rare earth metals and lots of hydraulic oil.
I don’t see what the relevance of the “uranium running out argument”. Uranium is so abundant that one has to make some pretty absurd assumptions regarding consumption rate for it to ever “run out” in a realistic time frame.
“Nuclear installations are now being seen as likely terrorist targets, no one can say they will never be successful, not what damage might be possible.”
So are airlines, oil refineries, subway systems, high rises etc. Should we give up those activities?
Your statement that background radiation is caused by humanity is patently absurd and shows a gross ignorance about even the most basic facts regarding the topic we are discussing.
Your comment highlights what we wrote in the blog post. You have not even tried to specify what your objections really are. You are just trying to hint that scary scary things can happen.
To much of the ANTI rhetoric contains “might, could, possibly etc” because that is always what we hear. Terrorist might attack and the consequences might be disastrous, uranium might run out, the waste canisters might leak etc etc. But NEVER do you try to specify HOW.
I assume the anti-dolphin logo is a bit of a joke to catch greens? I trust no one thinks ‘our race’ is threatened by dolphins or people who ‘care’ about them? Actually, the word is species, race is just an ethnic diversion. And there’s no way that any time now the hominid numbers are going to stop rising, let alone reduce. It is currently 6.998 billion, if you don’t know that we are the problem, you are pretty unaware. And we still shoot other animals for sport, not food. How sick and perverted is that? Sorry, mustn’t be emotional!
The image is irony/sarcasm/parody. Follow the link given and read up on it.
Essentially what is does is to use anti-whatever rethorics, and apply that to something that is publically known to be benign. The point is to illustrate that the rethorics and common “tools” used in campagns against for instance nuclear power hold no weight, because if they can make dolphons look bad, they can make anything look bad.
Another such example is the campaign against dihydrigenmonoxide, DHMO.
http://dmo.org
As such the image presented by such rethorics doesn’t actually mean anything because it is a self-evident truth that not everything is bad.
You’re making the mistake that you can talk rationally to these people, but you can’t.
In an rare slip-up of brutal honesty, Greenpeace said it best: “It really isn’t a question of science.” Thus, any kind of scientific arguments will not work. Watch the Greenpeace guy squirm when asked whether there is any scientific evidence that could alter his opinion. Of course there is none, since his opinion is based entirely on ideology, not science or evidence. Logically, “nuclear is bad” is taken to be an axiom and everything else falls out from there. That’s how ideologues think.
An excellent example of what I’m talking about is Peter Simmons’s incoherent rant in the comments here. He begins by constructing three straw men arguments: only scientists are logical, nuclear power is equivalent to eugenics, and genetically modified organisms only serve to make companies richer. All three are not only ridiculous in themselves, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is a common tactic of the innumerate anti-nuke crowd. They subconsciously realize that their arguments are weak, so they try to derail any discussion by shifting the argument to whatever nonsense they can find.
Even when they do try to stick to the topic, however, they reveal that they are the type of people who will do anything to save the world, except open a science textbook. Thus, intellectually handicapped advocates like Simmons here regularly make ignorant claims, such as backround radiation “didn’t exist before Hiroshima.” If he had ever bothered to learn a just little bit about the subject, he would know that the largest source of background radiation, worldwide, is exposure to radon, part of the natural decay chain of uranium, which has been sitting in the crust of the Earth decaying for billions of years.
What hope can you have trying to argue with people who harbor such contempt for science?
Most likely you are right Brian and that greenpeace spokesperson is a perfect example of it. But I still hold hope that some people can be discussed with rationally. I want to get to the Monbiots , Lynases and Lovelocks in the green crowd.
Hello
ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled.
According to the National Cancer Institute, cancer incidence (all sites) in the US increased by 55% between 1950 and 1995; the trends in Europe and other industrialised nations are similar. Non-smoking related cancers are responsible for about 75% of the overall increased incidence of cancer since 1950, and cannot be explained in terms of better detection or ageing. Cancer incidence increases in parallel with gross national product and industrialisation but the obvious explanation for this phenomenon – environmental pollution, chemical and radioactive – is ignored. Perversely, victims are blamed for their lifestyles. http://www.preventcancer.com/books/about/cancer_gate.html
“Background radiation is also the primary reason why women aged over ~40 are advised not to have children. (…) Many scientists also consider that background radiation is the prime factor in the ageing process, and is ultimately the reason why we are not immortal”: PAGE 5 http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_review/tritium/Tritium_Radiation_Risks_Additional_Note_for_ODWAC_Fairlie.pdf
many times increased chromosomal changes in the blood of people who live on sandy monazite thorium soil. Both residents and monazite-workers. tenfold increase in the radioactive lead-212 of the air (beta emitters) increases defective chromosomes from 0.9 percent to 2. a tenfold increase of lead-212 concentration increases defectives only by 0.57 percent . which means lower radiation is more dangerous than high radiation. this is the petkau effect. study by Barcinski and Costa-Riberio here: http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1975/03000/Radiobiological_Aspects_and_Radiation_Levels.7.asp
In 1970 it was proven that human fetus is 500 times more vulnerable to radiation. And in 1978 this was released in the bulletin of atomic scientists: http://books.google.de/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=cancer+stewart+xray+1970+radiographs&source=bl&ots=UGZYt0TZGo&sig=ENE9wYZjjNs3Rh2XyptdZwP3Ucw&hl=de&ei=7545Tu6iF8aAOsLrvbMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
n 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a. Natural radiation is used as an excuse to increase artificial radiation with radionuclide-antagonists.
They call that radiation-protection!
1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a).
the USAEC “protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later renamed in AEC, then renamed in NRC.
Source NRC (USAEC / AEC before): http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/32111590/seaborg-resigns-from-aec
Source (ICRP 5 mSv/a): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596042/pdf/yjbm00117-0064.pdf
! no coincidence !
Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html
And, in 1991, the ICRP lowered the standard from 5 mSv /a to 1 mSv/a: “For occupational exposure in planned exposure situations the Commission now recommends an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv in a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv.” page 1: Source: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP%20Statement%20on%20Tissue%20Reactions.pdf
And in 2011, the japanese government increased it for infants, students, mature, unborn, to: 20 mSv/a
A 2000 PERCENT INCREASE.
Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/japanese-ire-over-radiation-limit-for-kids/story-e6frf7jx-1226061484710
20 mSv mean: below, but still high: 555,000 becquerel per m² contamination (from 1995 Belarus National Report)
17 milli Sievert per year mean: 16,000 – 32,000 additional cancer deaths AND 150,000 – 1,5 million deaths by genetic diseases: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/app1.html by John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D and Arthur R. Tamplin, Ph.D. quote “If we use the most optimistic Russell mouse genetic data, and even if we give full credit for slow delivery of radiation, we reach the conclusion that 100,000 extra genetic deaths per year would occur for the allowable average exposure of 170 millirads to the population. This can hardly be construed as an “optimistic” outlook, or a “safe” dose of radiation.”
http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/effect-of-cesium-and-strontium-on-japanese-children-japanese-officals-irresponsible/
NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST in SLOW MOTION.
“…To provide an adequate safety standard the dose limit of 1 mSv/y have to be reduced to 0.02 mSv/y or 20 µSv/y.”Page 9: http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~kunih/all-doc/stoakuni.pdf by Dr. Horst Kuni, Nuclear Medicine, University Professor.
Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky, a pathologist, Rector of the Medical Institute of Gomel, on the ingestion of radio caesium includes – he said: “Clinical checks on children between 1996 and 1999 show that at levels greater than 50Bq/kg there are pathological changes in vital organs and systems – cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, digestive excretory and eyes. Caesium concentrations in the placenta reveal a relationship with nervous system defects in the foetus. The health condition of the population is a disaster but being a physician myself I cannot accept it as hopeless. With all my faith in God and life I appeal to anyone who can influence it: do your best to improve the situation. There is nothing more precious on this planet than life. And we should do everything possible to protect it.” http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf
Until 1990 ICRP said it is not necessary to evacuate people, as long as the radiation does not exceed 500 mSv.: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ber3ENERfGwC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=ICRP+40++500mSv&source=bl&ots=IaOqT2MqK2&sig=l3l0MYGe_nKkaXxvFZxkkG8hP5M&hl=de&ei=gc81TpqyI4PfsgajxLG5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ot%20exceed%20500%20mSv.%20The%20ICRP&f=false
IAEA subsequently took its radiation protection recommendations directly from ICRP (rather than WHO), therefore persons from the Commission who also sit on UNSCEAR both make the rules and judge their adequacy: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/CaUFtH.html
”The cancer producing potential of plutonium is well known. An amount as small as one ten-millionth of an ounce injected under the skin of mice has caused cancer. A similar amount injected into the blood streams of dogs has produced bone cancers. However, it is the lung that is the most vulnerable to plutonium.” http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/chp8.html
Bross and Natarajan have presented the hypothesis that low-dose fetal irradiation in the range of 5 mGy – 50 mGy which confines its damage to 1% of the irradiated subjects and that for this “affected” group there is a 5,000% INCREASE in the risk of leukemia as compared with unexposed subjects. http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?SID=Q2kiGlBbfFgNPfKfkLo&product=CEL&UT=A1972N025000001&SrcApp=CR&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&customersID=Highwire&Func=Frame&SrcAuth=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord
“Radiation can reduce antioxidant levels dramatically because of the use of antioxidants to eliminate free radicals produced in the presence of radiation.” PETKAU EFFECT: “The production of free radicals of Oxygen (O² with a negative electric charge) caused by ionising effect of the radiation. The free radicals caused by the slow dose (0,001) are sparsely distributed radicals do have a higher chance to reach the cell membranes.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01353.x/abstract;jsessionid=90C315EEFA3E5B978EFA17BBB75F03EB.d02t02#.T0fbqeWicyA.facebook
“Weakening of the victim, then another radiation shocks” -> Based on the long term follow up of the population exposed to ionizing radiation due to residence near nuclear testing fields in the period 1949-1962 increased chromosome aberration were detected not only in directly exposed population but also in their children and grandchildren. Unstable chromosome aberrations ( dicentrics and rings) were detected in children of parents who were exposed to radiation as part of anticancer therapy. Cells of such children also express higher radiosensitivity. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f373917263h7hxg6/
US sacrificing it’s infants with food: 55 Bq/Kg Iodine 131 + 370 Bq/Kg Cesium 134 / 137 http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/Radionuclides/UCM078341#level98 Basics: “Clinical checks on children between 1996 and 1999 show that at levels greater than 50Bq/kg there are pathological changes in vital organs and systems – cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, digestive excretory and eyes. Caesium concentrations in the placenta reveal a relationship with nervous system defects in the foetus. The health condition of the population is a disaster but being a physician myself I cannot accept it as hopeless. With all my faith in God and life I appeal to anyone who can influence it: do your best to improve the situation. There is nothing more precious on this planet than life. And we should do everything possible to protect it.” http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf and: http://www.chernobyl-today.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=45&lang=en
If you read somewhere: “Cesium” or “Strontium” or “Iodine” – DO NOT believe ONLY these are released by Fukushima or Chernobyl. Where they went down, everything else alsoHere is a full list of all artificial radionuclides in reactor core / fuel: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/inventory-reactor-beznau2.jpg – share.
Juri Dubrova created children DNA fingerprints and compared their data with the DNA profile of British children who had lived on unirradiated region. The results of the study: the higher the soil contamination by cesium-137, the higher the mutation rate in a genomic fragment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378537/
Published in 1990 by Martin Gardner and Eve Roman, a study in which they examined the fathers of children with leukemia. They found: These fathers worked at Sellafield before “making” children and were exposed to radiation. The higher their dose was, the greater the risk was for their children to develop leukemia. Maximum: 5 mSv per year (Japan 20 mSv per year): http://www.jstor.org/pss/29718787
Louise Parker in 1999 published a paper in which she examined primarily stillbirth in the “radiation workers” who work in a nuclear plant. She registered 9,208 births – among them were 130 stillbirths. The result of Parker’s study is appalling: When producers were irradiated 24 percent more stillbirths occured than of non-irradiated. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2899%2904138-0/abstract
Tritium is a carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen and developmental toxin. It becomes incorporated into DNA and disrupts the genetic code of men’s and women’s reproductive cells: http://www.iicph.org/files/IICPH-Final-Statement-re-Darlington-NNPP-May-17-2011.pdf IAEA says: A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862623,00.html
“areas surrounding Fukushima” and “470 millisierverts per year”. based on these numbers (of course too low) around Fukushima we have something like 11,544,000 Becquerel per m² – which is: 312 CURIE! The 50 mSv/annual they talk about as “off-limits to human habitation” (but for growing food?) is an equivalent of: 555,000 Becquerel per m² (15 Curie per km²) or 1,480,000 Becquerel per m² (40 Curie per km²). THEY ARE COPYING BELARUSIAN DICTATORSHIP – but with speed of light! Modern times accelerate errors of the past, it seems.
The main part of the radiation dose is accumulated by the population with the consumption of food: 70 – 90 %. To eat, the children have to take the masks off. Invest in these products, the people in Japan and Belarus need it: http://www.atomtex.com/en/products/radiometry-stacionarnye
Thanks for reading.
ICRP may have concluded that backgroundradiation is harmful, this is clearly evident when the LNT model is extrapolated all the way down to background radiation levels. However the conclusion is absurd when looking at empirical data. The main reason why cancer has increased in the world since 1957 is strongly linked to the increased life expectancy confounded with polution and smoking. The linkage to increased background radiation is blatantly absurd as the natural variations in the background is far greater than the man made increase (mainly due to nuclear bomb tests). The variation in background can’t be correlated with cancer incidence on any level!
Refuting the LNT model at low dos levels are quite easy, just look at the following places around the world;
Guarapari Brazil, natural background 37 mSV/year, LNT life expectancy ~62.
Tamil Nadu India, natural background 53 mSv/year, LNT life expectancy ~55.
Denver Colorado, natural background 10 mSv/year, LNT life expectancy ~72.
Ramsar Iran, natural background 89-132 (someplaces as high as 200) mSv/year, LNT life expectancy 20-25 years.
With LNT life expectancy it is ment that there should not be a single individual alive with a greater age than the one given, LNT predicts 100% mortality rate from radiation induced cancer at the age given.
The Petkau effect is still only relevant to very high dose rates, not applicable to <500 mSv/a range. Perhaps you should consider the term "priming dose"? I suggest reading this, though I do not agree fully with Cohens conclusions he is at least being rigorus about his reasoning:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no3/cohen.pdf
Are you being serious when you use Sternglass as a reference? His studies have been proved to contain cherry picked data, he also stated himself that some data that did not correspond to his hypothosis was discarded!
I will let somebody from NPYP deal with the rest of your "references".
According to the Lois Parker paper: in Cumbria as a whole there are 66 live births to every still birth. The workers at Sellafield have 69 live births for each still birth…
Would that not imply that the workers at Sellafield produce less still births and therefore actually are healthier than the rest of Cumbria?
If that was not enough, her own data has an error bar (which she did present) that includes the number zero for the causal association between father exposure and stillbirth, hence no conclusion can be drawn from the data as it is not statistically significant…
The
Martin Gardner and Eve Roman study states that their findings are not statistically certain due to the numbers being too small. The fact that a dose <5mSv/year would produce a significant increase in leukemia in children of the people exposed is down right absurd, the variations in the natural background in the UK can be significantly larger than that!
Play it a bit, trust me, it’s more simple than nuclear fission: http://www.energyrichjapan.info/en/animation.html
No one here is disputing that high levels of radiation increases the incidence of cancer. But can you please narrow your post down to something that is comprehensible and possible to discuss? I gladly discuss some of the aforementioned studies if you select one or two at first that you find most significant.
No one here is disputing that high levels of radiation increases the incidence of cancer. But can you please narrow your post down to something that is comprehensible and possible to discuss? I gladly discuss some of the aforementioned studies if you select one or two at first that you find most significant.
Thank you for your comment! I want to point out, that LOW levels of radiation are the main problem today. Your organism does not activate cell repair, because he doesn’t notice low radiation. Cesium decays into Barium and blocks Cell membranes. That’s the “Chernobyl heart”, we hear about.
As humans we should be really interested in Radiobiology. To underline this point, I post some personal information. During my many stays in Chernobyl irradiated areas, staying, living, eating with victims there, I learned, that 70 – 90 % of radiation in these areas comes from food. By the radionuclides there. We measured the alpha emssions and spotted much Am241. Let’s take the 15 Curie area of Luninetz for example (555 kbq/m²) 200 – 250 km from Chernobyl: http://www.rbic.by/images/stories/articles/files/Luninetsky-Map.pdf
The people there get 20 – 40 mSv/annual only by living there. Radiation by food not included. So I did some research, became very interested why modern radiation dose limits do not cover food, but only external radiation. You probably know the “T65D RERF Study” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is really interesting to see, that this became the base for all ICRP / IAEA recommendations.
The international radiation protection bodies such as ICRP, UNSCEAR and BEIR base their findings on the somatic damage (cancer, leukemia risks) mainly on studies of the victims of the nuclear tests of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, wo still lived in 1950. That’s right, not 1945, 1950. This study is called “T65D.” It was begun in 1950. The five years before that has not been studied. It was observed since 1950. About 800,000 Japanese people harmed by radiation, and the analysation of their causes of death. http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/t65d.htm and: http://www.rerf.or.jp/library/archives_e/lsstitle.html / For validation of this study the US even did an atomic test in Nevada: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/212/4497/900.extract
More: “Since 1950, more than 90,000 of the survivors of the
atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been enrolled in a
lifetime study of their health”: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp4F.html / Alteration of the study: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp5F.html
But reactor explosions have much more inventory, than a h bomb or a bomb, which is more EXTERNAL. This is a inventory: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/inventory-reactor-beznau2.jpg
This is my conclusion:
– Radionuclides
– produced by every reactor – released by every reactor chminey
– collected by every soil – collected by every food – eaten by every animal and human
– collected in every organism, every organ, fetus – collecting, collecting, collecting,
with every gram of food.
WE ALL EAT.
It’s not air, it’s not natural radiation. It’s in food (70 – 90 %)
Short half lifes have no meaning.
Permanent radionuclide supplies in small quantities, summing up over years and decades. In our children.
Latency. Full effect in each generation. During each generation, at least one radiation shock (Chernobyl, Fukushima).
Thus, new generations always have lower tolerance for radiation and simple infections, disease, they become more mortal. The purpose of procreation to produce healthier offspring disappears.
Soon, the tolerance is so low that the normal natural radiation is
sufficient enough to destroy more and more of the generations.
>> Tritium mimics hydrogen (body cells) – natural tritium increased by reactor tritium millions of times.
>> Radio-Cesium mimics potassium (heart) – radionuclid did not exist before atomic age.
>> Radio-Strontium mimics calcium (bones) – radionuclid did not exist before atomic age.
>> Radio-Iodine mimics Iodine (thyroid gland -> brain of fetus) – radionuclid did not exist before atomic age.
Working for the destruction of mankind: IAEA, UNSCEAR, WHO, BEIR,
NRC, ICRP, health ministries, reactor operators, regulatory authorities,
with or without knowledge.
Now you are with.
We constantly consume and are exposed to naturally occurring radionuclides. A cell in the body can not know if the gamma, alpha or beta particle that hit it came from a man made or naturally occurring radioactive nuclei. The end result is identical, ionization.
The relevant quantity is the dose received. If low radiation is the problem, why can’t we see differences in cancer frequency between areas in the world with naturally higher radiation levels?
Your conclusions are just idle speculation, statements like this
“Thus, new generations always have lower tolerance for radiation and simple infections, disease, they become more mortal. The purpose of procreation to produce healthier offspring disappears.”
Has no basis in science whatsoever.You also state that lower radiation doses somehow bypasses cell repair, that goes against both science and common sense. Again, we have evolved in an environment where we are constantly exposed to radiation, both external and internal. No one has ever convincingly showed that LNT underestimates cancer risk in the low dose region.
The main way in which the “radiation protection industry” has succeeded
in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear power is by
insisting on a group of extremely restrictive definitions as to what
qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic. For example, under
IAEA’s criteria:
> If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA’s figures
> If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but accelerated
or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.
> If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it is not counted.
> Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count
> A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses
are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.
> Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart
disease does not count since it is not a “serious genetic disease” in
the Mendelian sense. > Even if radiation causes a fatal
cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is
discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv=
millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred
millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].
> Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if
the person smokes — in fact whenever there is a possibility of another
cause, radiation cannot be blamed. > If all else
fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose
does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the
radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body
or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the
thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100
mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a technique used to
dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of
ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years,
and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging
cells in a particular part of the body.
You are either a liar, an idiot, or both.
That is simply not true.
It is not counted in figures for mortality. There are separate figures for morbidity. I suggest that you look up these two terms to understand the difference.
This claim is so stupid that it is almost not worth responding to. To understand what I mean, a little common sense is in order. For this to be true, one would have to be able to identify specifically the carcinogen that initiated the cancer, which is virtually impossible. Cancer is a highly stochastic disease — that is, its appearance is based on random processes, which is why professionals, when speaking carefully, don’t say that factors “cause” cancer, but rather “increase the risk for” cancer.
Not true. Any other effects are studied separately, because they involve different mechanisms and different diseases. For the same reason, the effect of smoking on risks for lung cancer is studied separately from the effect of smoking on risks for emphysema. The two are simply different diseases.
Not true. There have been plenty of studies that have looked at the rate of miscarriages.
And how do you know that these illnesses are “radiation-related”? This is just nonsense. Speaking of nonsense …
This is classic nonsense in the Lysenkoist sense. No such genetic predisposition has been observed by careful studies, and this has been known for decades from Atomic Bomb Survivor data.
This is just a lie.
Another lie, which stretches the limits of credibility that someone could make such a stupid claim. So you would have us believe that researchers simply throw out any and all health data collected from smokers?!
Not at all! Instead, a competent researcher corrects for confounding factors like smoking so that any effect from a putative carcinogen can be detected with better confidence. This is so basic that it could be called “Epidemiology 101.”
You seriously have know idea how radiation protection standards work, do you?!
First of all, current radiation protection standards rely on the linear no-threshold model, which means that, for regulation purposes, there is no designated dose of radiation below which no cancer can be caused.
Next, in almost all situations, the whole-body dose limit is the most conservative. That is, the regulatory limits for specific parts of the body (the extremities and specific organs) are higher than the whole body, because these parts of the body don’t have major blood-producing and vital organs.
Contrary to your claim, applying a dose received by a specific body part to the whole body does not buy you anything. Almost always, you take a penalty.
Oh, jeez. You’re not also one of those depleted uranium conspiracy theorists, are you? Why am I not surprised?
In most of the points your statements make it sound like you believe one can link individual cancer cases to a specific cause. That is a fallacy. You can never look at one individual and figure out that his specific case of cancer is cased by specific factor x.
What you can do is to look at a group of people exposed to a suspected carcinogen and see if the frequency of cancer (or some specific form of cancer) has increased or decreased compared to a similar group not exposed to the same substance.
Very few claim that radiation below a certain threshold doesn’t cause cancer. The general ASSUMPTION that any dose down to zero can cause cancer with a probability linearly proportional to the dose is the whole foundation of the LNT model that is used in regulation.
Now the problem here is that low dosages, according to the LNT, has such a low probability of causing cancer that it is close to impossible to see it statistically. If 10 000 people are exposed to 100 mSv each one would expect about 50 extra cases of lethal cancer if the LNT is correct, but this should be compared to the about 3000 lethal cancer cases one normally sees with a standard deviation of about 50. So if one notices 3050 cancer cases it is still well within natural variability. In the case with an individual exposure of 100 mSv you would need 40 000 such exposed people (and an equally large control group that lives in a pretty identical manner) to even have a chance to show with 95% confidence any effect of radiation. This is the “problem” with low dose radiation, the risk it poses is so trivially small that it is almost impossible to even check if the risk exists at all.
For example, the studies that have been done comparing populations in zones with low background radiation and people in zones with high background radiation has not seen any statistically significant increases in cancer rates.
[…] aber was ist mit der Solartechnik, die in 30 oder 50 Jahren zur Verfügung stehen wird? Es gilt Unterschiede und Entwicklungen im Auge zu behalten, und für Zukünftiges offen zu sein! Dieser Eintrag wurde veröffentlicht in Politik und […]
[…] Aber halt… gegen welche Art von Kernenergie eigentlich?! […]