Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

This guy is an acupuncturists, your seriously getting worried over his uneducated opinion? Thats like asking a plumber to fix the roof on your house. When an actual nuclear scientist sais there's a problem and people need to worry then i'll get "ZOMG I'M SUPER SCARED" like the rest of you.

reply to post by Gorman91


I am afraid you don't know much about microwave ovens. Microwave ovens are not nuclear.

How do microwave ovens work?

In a microwave oven, food is cooked by exposing it to microwave radiation. Most household microwave ovens operate on a frequency of 2450 megahertz (MHz or million cycles per second) in a continuous wave (cw) mode. Larger ovens used for industrial applications sometimes operate at 915 MHz.

The source of the radiation in a microwave oven is the magnetron tube. The magnetron, basically, converts 60 Hz powerline electric current to electromagnetic radiation of 2450 MHz. The high voltage (typically 3,000 to 4,000 volts) which powers the magnetron tube is produced by a step-up transformer rectifier, and filter which converts the 120V AC (alternating current or 60 Hz line voltage) to 4 kV DC (direct current).

The microwave energy from the magnetron is transferred to the oven cavity through a waveguide section. A mode stirrer spreads the microwave energy more or less evenly throughout the oven.

The microwave radiation produces heat inside the food in the oven. Heat is produced when the water molecules in the food vibrate (at a rate of 2,450,000,000 times per second) when the food absorbs the microwave radiation. The movement of the molecules produce friction which causes heat. This heat cooks or warms up the food.

Microwave Ovens

The worst things that could happen is that some of your more sensitive organs may heat up and possibly be damaged due to prolonged exposure of microwave radiation. However, unless your using a very old and out-dated microwave, that is not going to happen either.

Of course, if you have a pacemaker, there is always a risk there with any microwave.

Be Well

reply to post by Bishop2199


no man. Microwaves create individual super heated particles, usually water obviously, that can sometimes act like free radicals, bouncing everywhere at super heat. Not all radiation comes from a molecule with over 100 protons. Many types of radiation are simple everyday things, and not to mention something we absorb everyday. Not to be comedic, but xkcd radiation chart was pretty accurate.

wasn't there a study about the increase of multiple sclerosis and leukemia along the usa jet stream from the original, above ground nuclear tests, held in nevada several decades ago? i think that would probably be a good thing to research, primarily because it would shed some light on how many "hot" particles would have to be in the air/jet stream, to negatively impact people. for example, the people who lived on the border of nevada, in a small utah town, had a generation of related illnesses. as you move away from there, following the jet stream, the incidences of these related illnesses, should necessarily decrease. and that should give you a good idea of how much radio active particles would be dangerous, vs. distance from the source of the radio activity.

I'm betting we are subjected to more radiation daily from our surroundings (microwave ovens, cell phones, power lines, etc.) than any of us will EVER get from that Japanese plant (even if you're in Japan or Hawaii).... Sounds like alarmist BS to me. We do have a benchmark, just look at the area affected by Chernobyl, etc. and recall it was a worse disaster.

reply to post by Gazrok


i would think above ground nuclear bomb tests (how many were there again? i think there were alot before it was taken into underground testing) would be the most accurate guide for this considering: 1) that they travelled in the jet stream, 2) that we have a body of medical research on the subject to study, and 3) because multiple nuclear bomb tests above ground, where the particles were being put into the jet stream on a pretty constant basis (comparatively), would drive home just how MUCH is too much, and how distance and concentration plays a role in that

Originally posted by Mdv2

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

(insert hugely raised eyebrows and sound of extreme skepticism here) "PRESTIGIOUS DOCTOR???" The man's an accupuncturist that nobody has ever heard of, and the newspaper is a tabloid.

And the other doctors who he is supporting? Well, they looked at the same CDC reports (this is Morbidity and Mortality Weekly) that I did. That'd be this one here


So let's have a look at this. They're using the data from just 8 cities: (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley)

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 – 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 – 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)
This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007.

Just so we're on the same page, tbhe formula to calculate percentage of increase is: (Amount of increase/Initial value) * 100 -- that's (125-37)/37 or (88/37) --and comes out to be 237.8%

"TWO HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN!!!????"

Well, yes. If you count two and a half times as many deaths in the second batch (one was 4 weeks one was ten weeks) then guess what -- you'll see more deaths.

Continued below...

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm betting we are subjected to more radiation daily from our surroundings (microwave ovens, cell phones, power lines, etc.) than any of us will EVER get from that Japanese plant (even if you're in Japan or Hawaii).... Sounds like alarmist BS to me. We do have a benchmark, just look at the area affected by Chernobyl, etc. and recall it was a worse disaster.

What I have been reading indicates that the Fukushima disaster has surpassed the Chernobyl disaster in amounts of radiation released, and it is not over by a long shot. Add the plutonium from the MOX fuel used and stored there and it seems that is a whole different ballgame.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is time to hunker down in a bomb shelter in the US for fear of radiation, just that Fukushima needs to be seen for what it is, and nothing less... a huge ecological disaster!

Originally posted by butcherguy
What I have been reading indicates that the Fukushima disaster has surpassed the Chernobyl disaster in amounts of radiation released, and it is not over by a long shot. Add the plutonium from the MOX fuel used and stored there and it seems that is a whole different ballgame.

wouldn't our own above ground tests be a clearer indicator? i mean we were blowing up nuclear bombs on a regular basis, above ground in nevada, for quite some time.

anybody?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Nothing they can do??? How about stop the release of particles? How about they actually do something? How about they release truthful info so people could know how to protect themselves and prepare?

There are lots of things they could do about it.

That said I doubt most of this story is true. I would say if you are in Japan or relatively close to Japan you should be concerned, but probably not so much in the US.

Should fall in nicely with there planned extermination of the population.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by butcherguy
What I have been reading indicates that the Fukushima disaster has surpassed the Chernobyl disaster in amounts of radiation released, and it is not over by a long shot. Add the plutonium from the MOX fuel used and stored there and it seems that is a whole different ballgame.

wouldn't our own above ground tests be a clearer indicator? i mean we were blowing up nuclear bombs on a regular basis, above ground in nevada, for quite some time.

anybody?

edit on 21-6-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

Not really. The particles coming from a bomb are not as long lasting, nor are they consistently replenished.

Unlike in this case, where there are more types of particles, many of which have very long half lives (iodine is the least of them).

A drastic increase in radiation can kill you - ala bomb. Longer term effects can persist with increase background radiation. (Solar radiation is also background)

This is not the same thing as having particles which accumulate in your organs. You start to carry sources of radiation round inside yourself. These particles are cumulative - you can't just walk into your house and experience a decrease in exposure.

So the nuclear bomb experiments surely have some value in understanding what is happening. What it won't give you is any idea what happens when you experience an increase in your exposure and accumulation of a variety of radiation sources inside yourself inside of multiple organs. It won't give you an idea what that means when those particles are still being created and put into the environment for an extended period of time.

reply to post by Aeons


well didn't they use more than one kind of nuclear bomb in their tests? if so, that would mean more than one kind of radioactive substance was being put into the jet stream in massive amounts, all at once, repeatedly (over the course of the program's above ground tests). so instead of constant low level streams, it would be massive streams, which would go around the world, and be reinjected with new massive fallout by new tests, a bit later. to me it sounds even worse. and since it was directly on usa soil, that means it should be a very good indicator of just how much is too much for human life. particularly as it relates to distance from the source (seeing as how it was directly on our continent).

Scare tactics and bad math

Let's look at the REAL raw data. I'm gong to "bless" their first statistics -- 4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 – 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)

So... March 20 to April 20, then =

---------------------3/25/11---------4/1/11------4/8/11----4/15/11----4/22/11
Boise-------------(none) ------------1--------------1----------1---------(none)
Seattle-------------- 2 ---------------6--------------3-------(none)--------7
Berkeley-------------1--------------1----------------3--------(none)-------1-
Portland----------(none)------------2-----------(none)---(none)--------1
Santa Cruz---------2------------(none)----------1-----------1---------(none)
Sacramento--------2---------------2--------------1-----------2------------5
San Francisco-----2--------------2-------(not reported)-1---------(none)
San Jose------------2---------------2---------------1-----------1------------2

So we see that Seattle has the highest infant mortality rate and at this point I would be curious about the population and culture (drug users, number of indigent poor, population mix, causes of death.

But a 33% increase? No, we're not seeing that. I'd bet that if we looked further we could see that some cities on this list (Seattle) tend to have higher infant mortality rates than others. And if you look at the next month, you don't see across the board 2 more deaths per week reported consistently.

This most recent issue shows
Boise - 2
Seattle - 1
Berkeley - (none)
Portland - 1
Santa Cruz - (none)
San Francisco - 3
San Jose - 1

If there'd been a 33% incrtease, we would have seen 3-4 in each of those cities for the past 2 weeks.

I think the reporter has NO clue about statistics and the two people writing the report need to be hauled back to the classroom, smacked with their epidemiology books, and have someone stand over them with a big stick until they prove that they can understand data, significance, population, and trending.

(personal opinion from someone who has had to DO those stats on mortality rates)

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
That said I doubt most of this story is true. I would say if you are in Japan or relatively close to Japan you should be concerned, but probably not so much in the US.

A close look at the numbers shows you're correct. Haven't seen mortality stats for Japan but it'd be a better indicator to check their mortality statistics after Hiroshima.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Aeons

 

well didn't they use more than one kind of nuclear bomb in their tests?

Nope. U235 was the only thing they were using back then.

reply to post by Byrd


not to mention how a bad economy effects mortality rates, as people without work tend to have various issues, such as depression related issues and nutrition related issues (pregnant women are supposed to eat well but if they don't have money or access to programs that allow them to buy proper food (such as the wic program)) that may effect infant mortality rates

reply to post by Byrd


thanks for that info. what is the difference between it and say the stuff
coming out of fukishima?

reply to post by Byrd
The 'Fat Man' bomb used at Nagasaki, Japan at the end of WWII was an implosion-type plutonium bomb.

I believe that there were a lot of above ground tests done with plutonium fission bombs, not to mention hydrogen (fusion) type bombs tested later.

Source: wiki- United States nuclear tests

Edit to add: Check out the Plumbbob series of tests and the notes about it...

One of the most controversial test series, release more radiation to continental U.S. than any series. Close proximity of troop exercises to shot "Smoky" produced significantly increased levels of leukemia among exposed soldiers.

There were 29 shots done on that series of tests!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Byrd

 

The 'Fat Man' bomb used at Nagasaki, Japan at the end of WWII was an implosion-type plutonium bomb.

I believe that there were a lot of above ground tests done with plutonium fission bombs, not to mention hydrogen (fusion) type bombs tested later.

Source: wiki- United States nuclear tests

okay, now i'm getting confused. we need to have a consensus on data here so we have some idea if the guy in the OP is exaggerating for some ulterior motive or if the thing is seriously that bad!