How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

www.guardian.co.uk

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."


After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivit

(visit the link for the full news article)

What happened was economics.

That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.

Radiation is not so bad. Three-headed cattle would be a real boon to the calves brain market. The apologists tell us a good old-fashion dose of "acceptable levels of external radiation" is not so bad and poses a minimal health risk. However, "the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe."

I don't know. Should we wait another 50 years to see. Japan has become one highly nuked nation, a dubious distinction to be sure. But their automakers along with some other high-tech gizmos have set new world standards of excellence, which all came after the nuclear strike on the nation in 1945.

I don't believe that is relevant but it is something more for the nuke apologists to toss about.



www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here I thought no one would be brazen enough to ever consider seriously disseminating the idea that "certain" levels of radiation are "acceptable" ... yet, once the Japanese crisis occurred ... there they were ....

"....no dose of radiation is safe...."

seems rather unequivocal, no?

reply to post by Maxmars


While the NAS has stated that “no dose of radiation is safe” they have no data to back this statement up. The linear threshold model is a liberal application of the precautionary principal as you cannot conduct an epidemiological study of radiation exposure at low levels of exposure and get any meaningful data. This being the case, the linear threshold model for radiation exposure is not science, it’s a philosophical argument. Taken to its extreme, anti-nuclear idiots like Caldicot should be telling people who live at higher altitudes and in mountainous regions to move as close to sea level as possible because background radiation levels in a place like Miami are a third of what they are in Denver. Not that this information is meaningful, it just tells us that an insignificant and immeasurable risk, even when tripled, is still insignificant and immeasurable.

The apologists tell us a good old-fashion dose of "acceptable levels of external radiation" is not so bad and poses a minimal health risk. However, "the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe."

Good thing we only get radiation from nuclear plants then...

Originally posted by Whyhi

The apologists tell us a good old-fashion dose of "acceptable levels of external radiation" is not so bad and poses a minimal health risk. However, "the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe."

Good thing we only get radiation from nuclear plants then...

Indeed. Some people fail to grasp the fact that we owe our very existence to radiation. Every life form on the planet is bombarded with radiation from the second it comes into being. Radiation, like everything else for that mater, is going to be harmful in excess.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by Maxmars

 

While the NAS has stated that “no dose of radiation is safe” they have no data to back this statement up. The linear threshold model is a liberal application of the precautionary principal as you cannot conduct an epidemiological study of radiation exposure at low levels of exposure and get any meaningful data. ..... Not that this information is meaningful, it just tells us that an insignificant and immeasurable risk, even when tripled, is still insignificant and immeasurable.

I suppose that the industry, along with those who are so inclined, prefer to have a statistical correlation established before they will submit to the notion that particulate-born radiation exposure, or exposure to radiation of unstable compounds is unsafe.

I am disinclined to accept that as a criteria for safety from cellular damage that might be avoidable. People also sunbathe, despite the known risk, people smoke, despite the known risk of exposure to carcinogens. People live in earthquake-prone areas, and flood zones. That is their choice.

What spurious radiation is vented or dispersed due to nuclear crisis management seems less of a choice, and therefore, the reassurances of 'no data to back it up' seems entirely unpersuasive. Somewhat more disconcerting is the flat assumption that a risk is insignificant because we can't model it statistically.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I suppose that the industry, along with those who are so inclined, prefer to have a statistical correlation established before they will submit to the notion that particulate-born radiation exposure, or exposure to radiation of unstable compounds is unsafe.

I am disinclined to accept that as a criteria for safety from cellular damage that might be avoidable. People also sunbathe, despite the known risk, people smoke, despite the known risk of exposure to carcinogens. People live in earthquake-prone areas, and flood zones. That is their choice.

What spurious radiation is vented or dispersed due to nuclear crisis management seems less of a choice, and therefore, the reassurances of 'no data to back it up' seems entirely unpersuasive. Somewhat more disconcerting is the flat assumption declaration that a risk is insignificant because we can't model it statistically.

Your argument is backwards, its not that the risk cannot be modeled, its that the results from the model, the linear no threshold dose model, cannot be observed in any meaningful way and therefore may not exist.

Let me give you an example. Average radiation exposure for an average person in the US from all sources is 360 millirem/year. Lets say you live within 5 miles of a nuclear power plant. You are going to receive about .4 millirem/year additional dose from this exposure. Now the linear no threshold model for ionizing radiation would tell us that in a population of 100,000 people there will be one additional lifetime cancer vs an equivalent population that was not exposed to the additional .4 millirem/year.

That’s what the model says.

Unfortunately, you could never construct an epidemiological study of 100,000 and expect to discern 1 additional case of cancer between the two. With a number that low (even if the number was in the 100’s) it would be impossible to account for differences in the population group that could have also resulted in that number. In other words, you could not adequately control a group of that size to see changes that small.

I am sympathetic with your desire to be able to make an informed decision about what external risks are applied to you, regardless of their severity, but my point is that the risks are so small that they are not observable and may not even exist. Like I said though, its not a scientific debate at this point, its entirely philosophical.

reply to post by SirMike


OK, I think I understand what you're saying. If such a determination is, in fact, impossible to make barring assumptions that are unscientific; does it stand to reason we should err on the side of precaution or relaxation?

Not meaning to sound facetious there, but as we are continuously discovering information about the human condition and those elements of our environment that pose cumulative (but examined individually, minor) threats, shouldn't we be less inclined to accept additional "straws on the camel's back"?

What you have said, I accept, (that we already live with a certain portion of 'bad' things, like radiation, to which we are exposed whether we like it or not.) But creating a sense of public reassurance that all is well seems as incongruent to me as raising an alarm that we are all going to get cancer and die.

Add to that the particular benefit of the position of 'all is well' to those who actually are responsible for the abatement or exacerbation of the problem. Their liability and the potential social redress issue becomes muddled by such assurances as 'all is well' as much as it is by the 'sky is falling' declarations. Ironically, if the 'sky is falling' approach is untrue... does that mean that 'all must be well'? Or is there an intermediary level of damage that we are being told to 'accept' with the flimsy assurance that "Meh, what are you gonna do?"

I am not among those who thinks this event is a harbinger of global destruction, but I am among those who will not suffer a 'produced' and 'orchestrated' public relations campaign that at times seems designed to erect a 'laugh curtain' in front of some very knowledgeable people who express something I agree with... namely, that the dangers of nuclear 'management' are real and the safety of the community can be, and at times, has been, to those 'managers,' a corporate externality.

Every message which tells us not to worry echoes of us being assured to not worry about many other catastrophes who's damage is more accurately measured by the number of victims than by the revenue losses of the institutions that were taking the 'measured' risk in the first place.

Ann Coulter: Radiation Is 'Good For You' (VIDEO)

Coulter should stick her head in a microwave.

Not too different than in the aftermath of the BP gulf oil spill that we had pundits in the MSM telling us that oil is a natural product and not so bad for you - you can even find posters here making those same claims.

Who remembers the British politician (John Gummer) feeding his grandchildren BSE burgers to show how safe it was just before mass slaughter of the countries cattle.

news.bbc.co.uk...

See any simularities with the Japanese ministers filmed drinking 'safe' water?

Originally posted by Maxmars
Here I thought no one would be brazen enough to ever consider seriously disseminating the idea that "certain" levels of radiation are "acceptable" ... yet, once the Japanese crisis occurred ... there they were ....

"....no dose of radiation is safe...."

seems rather unequivocal, no?

and as has been pointed out, completely unsupportable.

We are subjected to radiation every day - from the sun, from the burnign of coal , etc

you didn't know that burning coal generated radioactive waste??

This picture has been doign teh rounds lately - it deserves some study:

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So is it your contention that since we are always subject to radiation from various sources, we should be unconcerned about more?

No more than it is your contention that we have to immediately live underground in lead lined coffins.

Please don't put words into my mouth!

The fact is that there is a lot of radiation out there, and scaremongering about Fukushima does nothing to help anyone.

People who do suffer appreciable radiation effects have my sympathy and deserve to have all the help they can be given.

But the rest of us shouldn't have to live in fear because of sensationalist headlines that have no basis in reality whatsoever!

reply to post by Maxmars


We live with lots of bad things ... radiation, industrial pollution, toxic organic chemicals, agricultural runoff, combustion byproducts etcetera.

I view these as a tradeoff in the risk reward scheme of a modern industrial society. No human industrial activity will be completely clean. We can, and do, minimze the effects and plan for catastrophies thereby mitigating the risks to some extent, but we cannot eliminate them.

Its become passe in the deep ecology movement to say that we dont want the risks and are willing to live without the advantages of a modern industrial society and while some of the more extreme members of the deep ecology movement might beleive it, I think most are ignorant of what that really means.

The benefits I refer to are things that everyone here takes for granted: clean abundant and inexpensive drinking water (I know people think that mountain streams areclean and pure but they will change thier tune after a bout with cryptosporidium), freedom of movement with low cost transportation, going to the bathroom and not worrying about the contents coming back and giving them cholera, abundant cheap fresh food whose availability is not limited by the weather, a warm weatherproof dwelling, antibiotics, pain killers, endless information at your fingertips, creature comforts, not having to worry about a spuse dying in childbirth or a baby dying before thier 5th bithday. 100 years ago people in the "first world" died for lack of these, today we take them for granted and its all due to the resources our industrial society provides.

Its a tradeoff. The garbage and waste that an industrial society produces will shorten the lives of some but the benefits will help orders of magnitude more than it hurts. I for one appreciate the NCIU that kept my oldest daughter alive where she would have surely dies without it. I like being able to eat an orange in Chicago during January. You cannot remove one piece of the machinery and expect no consequences on the rest.

Whenever modern engineering and science pushes the boundaries there are bound to accidents some are unaviodable despite the best efforts of the people involved and some are caused by gross negligence (think BP Mocando, or Bhopal). Punish the negligent, learn from the mistakes but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

it all adds up people when will it be too much then?

continually exposed
more nuclear plant accidents
more technology that emits more radiation
weakening of the earths magnetic feild and ozone layer.

at what point will you be concerned? what dosage is the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak?

when you can't have kids from repeated exposure that some fed says is safe? no no its safe .

to repeat the cumulative effect is what will kill us all

reply to post by SirMike


IMO it's not actually much of a tradeoff at all - all the benefits you have listed vastly outweigh the "problems" that they create.

Except of course that not all the world gets the benefits, and not all the world suffers the problems - the benefits are heavily skewed in favour of the 1st world (developed countries in general), and the problems are more heavily experienced in the 3rd world (developing countries in general), and also in China.

The 1st world is energy hungry - the idea of doing without nuclear power is now preposterous - France would lsoe 75% of it's electricity, 20% of hte USA's, 16% in hte UK - and dropping from about 20% means they now have a real problem with a "power gap" between demand and capability there, the EU average is 30%, and so on - there are reactors in India, Brazil, Pakistan, Russia, China, Pakistan & a few other places, a couple of dozen countries are planning reactors.

Greenpeace hysteria aside, more people were killed in coal mine collapses in the USA & New Zealand in 2010 than directly at Chernobyl (57 for cher, 58 in 2 main mineaccidents at Upper Big Branch & Pike River) - over 300 were killed worldwide in coal mine accidents in 2010 (en.wikipedia.org...:2010_mining_disasters), since 1900 over 100,000 americans have been killed in coal mines, and mine-related lung disease affects 4,000 new people per year in the USA.

Oil spills cause more environmental damage, burnign fossil fuiels generates millions of tons of atmpsheric pollution every year - here's what hte AVERAGE 500 Mw coal fired plants puts out in a year:

-3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.

-10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

-500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.

-10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

-720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.

-220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

-170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

-225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

-114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

-from www.ucsusa.org...

The ash from coal is more radioactive than most nuclear waste

and yet people still want to burn more coal and not have nuclear power????

I'm sorry people are scared of nuclear power and I don't understand why they don't think coal is worse!

Yes, well I watched Lauren Moret's interview and she is someone I really respect from the depleted uranium issues. When that plume hit April 6th and 7th, our cowardly reptiliian leaders had moved the radiation monitors to Kamploops where it is Okanagan , semi desert, hardly rains, and obviously interior, it will have a minor reading. Where we live it rains nonstop, close to Vancouver. And the real scientists, not the cowardly lying ones working for the bloodlines took readings in San Francisco that were 18 000 X the limit in the water.

Well that must have been the day our very good water, tasted like an oily, tar factory, and my car which leaks inside, though we can't find the leak, but fogs up inside developed tar poos in the back seat floor. Now Norwegian Scientists and real scientists said when that plume hits we would be on par with Japan, in fact, as if adjacent to Fukushima, yeah. Well, I'm not feeling well. Headache for days, lymph gland swollen, heart irregularities, nose bleed, aches and pains, sore bones, and runs. Not fun. And I think its mild rad poisoning.

They're definitely not telling the truth.

Oh, and a yellow rim along the window seal, really special.

Apparently the forecast is for areas like ours on the west coast of North America, and midwestern North America to be next in line Japan for severity and for us to be chronic. Especially those with rain fall.

Also, Tokyo University and another university outdid their Gov department of science a much more professional and thorough test, and they found outside the evacuation of 30 km, that the levels were 4 X chenobyl. GEE couldnt figure that one out, 6 reactors, 4 in major meltdowns, Chenobyl was 1.

And that the levels had been breached for a massive evacuation of 1/3 of Japan, probably a permanent one.
Well, the west coast here, and midwest should also be evacuated as well, since we're on their levels.
My back yard is possibly 4 X chenobyl. I'm just thrilled. Oh, if our PM ever tipped off to these forums: You are fired. Please pack up and leave earth!

Within a year, this will cross the equator and mix with the global atmosphere, and add to the already huge amounts of depleted uranium nano dust, and nuclear testing.

The Bloodlines have been conducting an all out nuclear war on civilians under the table for years.

I also saw a vision of the land upheaving burying most of this, and people just taking the land as their own, and building eco huts in the hillsides and outer, made of earth and mudclays and gravel, so actually protecting from this in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
No more than it is your contention that we have to immediately live underground in lead lined coffins.

Please don't put words into my mouth!

The fact is that there is a lot of radiation out there, and scaremongering about Fukushima does nothing to help anyone.

People who do suffer appreciable radiation effects have my sympathy and deserve to have all the help they can be given.

But the rest of us shouldn't have to live in fear because of sensationalist headlines that have no basis in reality whatsoever!

Your offense was in your inference, not my implication. My question had a point. Namely that at some point, we have to accept the cumulative affect of everything we are exposing ourselves to. No one can say for sure that there is a particular danger specifically from Fuskushima which demands we act somehow at this moment. No one can say there isn't such a danger for sure either; "what if's" are games for philosophers and clergy.

But interestingly, you state your assumption that I, or others who may conduct a dialog about the matter are sensationalist scaremongers. I find that to be fairly obtuse. As for your "no basis in reality" we obviously do not share common ground. I feel it is high time we start having a little less faith in the establishment, and start to ask the questions some fear to "because other people might get scared."

reply to post by Maxmars


I do not consider everyone who has a different opinion from me as a sensatinalist scaremonger .

When you post stuff like

"....no dose of radiation is safe...."

seems rather unequivocal, no?

then IMO you fit the bill and I say so.

There is plenty of room for debate about nukes and Fukushima without such rubbish - by all means engage in it.