Radiation Watch 2011

RADIATION WATCH 2011

The total number of days between Friday, March 11, 2011 and Saturday, November 5, 2011 is 240 days.

[color=Cyan]The radiation poisoning of we, the people, our children, pets, food, water and our land
has continued unabated - 24/7/365
[color=Chartreuse]
- for 7 months, 26 days ... which is:

• 20,736,000 seconds
• 345,600 minutes
• 5,760 hours
• 33 + weeks

This insanity must be addressed in a positive way and brought to a successful conclusion, or all life on Earth will perish - a real ELE.

We are now - more than ever - committed to sharing vital information so as to facilitate positive actions by our brothers and sisters worldwide.

The major problems, other than outright stupidity and MSM duplicity, are apathy and ignorance, or the “why worry” attitude.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by rebeldog

 

Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, yep!
If you lived here you'd understand why it's spelled that way.

No, i cannot say i have seen the radiation levels here.
Same question though, Are the Japanese dead or dying by the thousands yet?
Until "Ground Zero" starts showing troubles, why worry?
Heck, why worry at all, we have a huge kelp farm in between us and the problem.
Why is everyone mongering the fear of something that has shown no teeth yet?

No comment.

Perhaps, we need to just settle down and read a good book to put things in perspective and realize we are not alone in our desire to live nuclear-free.

Nuclear Roulette: new book puts a nail in coffin of nukes

• In 2000 alone, civilian reactors in the U.S. produced enough [color=5CB3FF]plutonium -- the most dangerous substance in the known universe -- to make [color=Chartreuse]34,000 nuclear bombs.

What were they for?

Wasn't the cold war over, and had not a Democrat been in the White House for almost two complete terms?

'An average 1,000 MW reactor contains approximately 16 billion curies of radioactive material -- the equivalent of 10,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Tritium, krypton, xenon-135, iodine-131 and iodine-129 (with a radioactive half-life of 16 million years) are routinely vented into the air, contaminating downwind rivers, land and residents.'

So, just exactly how much plutonium is that?

...However, this weak logic is clear when the waste dilemma and warhead issues are considered -- not to mention a Chernobyl or a Fukushima.

And the financial, insurance and net-energy issues with nukes are incurable. So Nuclear Roulette: The Case Against the 'Nuclear Renaissance' is a solid attempt to build on the post-Fukushima momentum (at least in some countries) to defeat the resurgent pro-nuclear forces.

The Fukushima disaster should have done the job many times over, but activists and citizens cannot rest.

The uneconomic nature of nuclear power, and the lack of energy gain compared to cheap oil, are two huge reasons for society to quit flirting with more nuclear power, never mind the catastrophic record and certainty of more to come.

[color=Cyan]Somehow the evidence and true track record of dozens of accidents and perhaps 300,000 to nearly 1,000,000 deaths from just Chernobyl, are brushed aside by corporate media and most governments.

So, imaginative means of helping to end nuclear proliferation are crucial, the most careful and reasonable-sounding ones being included in summary form in Nuclear Roulette.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have today’s “nuclear excursion” headlines not on MSM.

3 November 2011
Japan Times: It is now a “grave situation” at Fukushima — “Plutonium fission” mentioned for first time — “Criticality is very likely to have occurred”

Tepco announced Wednesday that, according to the Times, “There is the possibility that criticality, a sustained nuclear chain reaction, had occurred ‘temporarily’ and ‘locally’ in the No. 2 reactor.”

During it’s testing, Tepco has detected xenon-133 and -135, “Products of uranium or plutonium fission.”

3 November
CNN: Tepco’s claim of ‘spontaneous’ fission is an “improbable phenomenon” says nuke professor — Strange that such a “rare” event was detected almost immediately after sampling began?

“A rare type of radioactive decay, not a renewed chain reaction, appears to have produced the radioactive xenon gas,” reports CNN.

According to the report, on Thursday Tepco said “it believed the gases were produced by ‘spontaneous fission’ of uranium, since the shorter-lived isotope persisted after the use of boric acid”.

3 November 2011
Ch. 4 UK: Now there are concerns that Fukushima is worse than authorities believe — New fission “shows there are still considerable problems” says top nuke expert

Regarding the detection of xenon, TEPCO has “played down the find, saying there was no evidence of a ‘criticality’ in the reactor,”...

“It shows there are still considerable problems. It’s concerning because it shows they are not in total control of the nuclear processes in the plant – and even a small amount of fission is a concern because it can become a large amount of fission ...”

3 November 2011
Cesium-137 hotspot detected in Seoul, South Korea — Emitting 1,000% normal background radiation — 1,200 km from Fukushima

“South Korea’s Institute of Nuclear Safety says it has discovered a patch of pavement in Seoul is emitting radiation at levels 10 times higher than normal,” according to Voice of America News.

And some good news:

[color=EAC117]BBC: Belgium agrees to end nuclear power

Thankfully, we who care about life on our only home, our fragile Planet Earth, are not alone.

Resources for many readers here in America’s Being Nuked:

NIRS Southeast
POB 7586
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
USA

Telephone: +1-828-675-1792 Email: [email protected]

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]

I really think it's time that governments and corporations learn how to live with constant fear and uncertainty the way people have to.

Oh great, another spam-tastic thread.

One big hole in it though .... light water reactors make both Pu-239 and Pu-240, but only one of these isotopes, Pu 239, can be use in a weapon while the other isotope, Pu 240, has the tendency to undergo spontaneous fission and cannot be used in a weapon. While Pu-239 and Pu-240 can be separated, the process to do so is far more expensive and difficult then uranium separation .. meaning commercial nuclear waste is very difficult to convert into weapons grade material and no nation processes spent nuclear fuel for weapons grade material because the alternatives are so much cheaper, easier and the processes are very well known.

Additionally, plutonium is not “the most toxic substance on earth”. There are many substance that are far more chemically toxic on a mass basis (caffeine for example) and more radiotoxic (americium-241).

Thank you for bringing this up again and helping keep this in our minds.
I apologize for not focusing on it more as I should.

Just to help people get an idea of what we could be dealing with here, I will do a little math and see what we can come up with.

- for 7 months, 26 days ...
which is:
• 20,736,000 seconds
• 345,600 minutes
• 5,760 hours
• 33 + weeks

Background radiation in most places is roughly between approximately .3 and .7 uSv per hour, according to the NRC, wikipedia, EPA, etc etc. This fluctuates depending on various natural conditions, elevation, local mineral deposits, etc.

Many easily located youtube videos will reveal that throughout the USA, people are sometimes able to get readings between .6 (somewhat normal) and 2 uSv per hour (quite startling and potentially dangerous) .

At an average background rating of .6 uSv/h for 5,760 hours, this equates to roughly 3456 uSv.
However at 1.8 uSv/h for that duration, it equates to approximately 10,368 uSv.

So as you can see, even a slight increase in radiation levels can end up creating significant danger in the long term situation. Of course in reality all locations exhibit fluctuations in the radiation readings, and so these numbers are merely hypothetical that will help us grasp the potentials a little better.

Fukushima fallout is part of the 'back-ground' radiation now, and has been detected globally according to dozens of media reports from many nations over a wide range of geographic locations.

Many people will ignorantly exclaim "I don't see anyone dropping dead!" but this is entirely misleading, and they exhibit a complete misunderstanding of what the biological effects of radiation are on organic cellular structures and fail to grasp how it damages the DNA or RNA molecules.

Here is a link to Jefferson Laboratory's website section describing how ionizing radiation can damage organic structures. Radiation's Biological Effects

Essentially ionizing radiation will cause a complex molecule to fall apart, because when one of the atoms within that molecule becomes 'ionized' it's chemical properties change and it may no longer be able to retain it's bond with other atoms that are within the molecule, thus causing molecular collapse.

Organisms have mechanisms where this type of damage can be repaired, and this is where the real problems begin to become visible, as I will explain. Often times the repaired molecule will be repaired improperly, causing mutations or cancerous effects, as opposed to higher levels of radiation that are irreparable. High levels of radiation will simply kill a cell completely, whereas moderate levels will result in moderate damage to molecules and thus create higher incidence rates of cancer or other deformity.

So what is going on world-wide right now?
Well due to the slightly higher background radiation rates detected, there is a higher rate of molecular damage and thus, a higher rate of cancerous or mutated cellular growth will be expected.

This will take months to years to decades to really begin to see the true effects, as the process is relatively slow and incredibly difficult to detect in it's early stages.

However over the next 10 years, we will almost certainly be seeing much higher rates of birth defects, deformities, cancers, etc. I personally find this highly unacceptable and simply dumbfounding because every single human is at risk here.

reply to post by SirMike


I am not sure where you are going with the discussion about Plutonium isotopes and it's relevance to creating nuclear weapons? Care to explain how that relates?

Also, please keep in mind that the fallout detected from Fukushima reveals dozens of different types of radioactive isotopes including Americium 241, Curium 242, 243, 244 , Plutonium 238, 239, 240, Strontium isotopes, Cesium, Xenon, etc etc. The list goes on.

Also many of these readings (especially in Fukushima Prefecture) can skyrocket from 100x normal readings to 1000x normal readings.

I don't see how that could be good for anything, especially considering how each of these isotopes can accumulate in different areas of plants or animals, and cause different types of effects and damages.

If you don't believe me that those isotopes have been detected, do some googling. You will find countless sources for this information, and TEPCO among other institutions has even provided much of this data for public consumption.

Cancer and birth defects don't happen over night. It can take months to years before any noticeable effects will be come apparent.

Also remember what Professor Kodama said? Often times cancer in cells will have several triggers involved, whereas the first triggers will happen immediately, but the last trigger may take 20-40 years before it actually occurs and then the cancer forms. I am not sure the specifics on how this happens, but we could easily email scientists of that stature and ask them for their educated opinions on how exactly this may occur.

reply to post by thorfourwinds

This insanity must be addressed in a positive way and brought to a successful conclusion, or all life on Earth will perish - a real ELE.

Thats BS and fear-mongering. Even if all the worst claims of anti-nuclear activists come true, there will be no such thing.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Sir Ramblesmuch, the OP, started the discussion out with plutonium production in LWR’s and how this is a “bad” thing. Why its “bad” is anyone’s guess. Maybe if he keeps saying plutonium and nuclear power over and over again, it will spark some kind of spontaneous correlative in people’s minds that this is the greatest tragedy in the history of the world .. or something.

Human beings are far more resistant to radiation then regulatory agencies give us credit for, but a decision was made a long time ago to agree that the LNT exposure model was the gospel truth, even when epidemiological data may contradict it.

The city of Ramsar Iran hosts some of the highest natural radiation levels on earth, and over 2000 people are exposed to radiation doses ranging from 1 to 26 rem per year. Curiously, inhabitants of this region seem to have no greater incidence of cancer than those in neighboring areas of normal background radiation levels, and preliminary studies suggest their blood cells experience fewer induced chromosomal abnormalities when exposed to 150 rem “challenge” doses of radiation than do the blood cells of their neighbors.

reply to post by SirMike


Some other links:

Correlation between background radiation and cancer

Radiation hormesis

reply to post by Maslo


Radiation Hormesis, hmm...

Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the United States National Research Council,[26] or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.[27] In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report:[28]

The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as “hormesis”) has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect. The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.[30]

I would have to side with the assessment that it is an unacceptable model due to many of the criticisms brought forth.

Here is an interesting source:
nap.edu
Another:
NCRP
And one more:
UNSCEAR

reply to post by muzzleflash


Science is evidence, not consensus. No matter how hard they argue that the LNT is valid, they cant quite clear the small hurdle of it having absolutely not empirical data to buttress it. Its philosophy at this point, not science.

If they took the LNT model as seriously as they claim, they would shut down commercial aviation and relocate everyone to the coast.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Science is evidence, not consensus. No matter how hard they argue that the LNT is valid, they cant quite clear the small hurdle of it having absolutely not empirical data to buttress it. Its philosophy at this point, not science.

If they took the LNT model as seriously as they claim, they would shut down commercial aviation and relocate everyone to the coast.

If that's your best argument than I am sorry you aren't very convincing.
The risks of Tsunamis or floods near the coast far outweigh the risks of a difference between .4 and .6 uSv / h which is negligible at best.

And last I heard it was each individuals personal choice if they could take an airplane flight or to pick where they want to live at. It's their choice to take those risks.
The government is not in a position to arbitrarily relocate people over such a small differentiation in background radiation. That's quite tyrannical and unreasonable.

The consensus of these institutions is derived from actual science, no matter how much you dislike that it is a fact.

In my perspective, it is a form of cognitive dissonance to continually deny the 1000s of empirical studies conducted over the last 60 years and to instead promote silly theories such as hormesis which have very little data backing them up.

What should reasonable people do? Side with international scientific bodies and many volumes of study?
Or side with very limited and flimsy data?

Also it is important to remember that the majority of the world's top radio-physicians do not support such claims either, and they are the ones working with victims of radiation exposure daily.

Also I have to say that the pro-hormesis crowd tends to ignore the actual statements made in order to promote their false strawman based arguments.

They keep acting like LNT theory is a solid and immutable measure, and that there are no exceptions.

Read closely from the UNSCEAR report:

Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

Also it is ignoring statements made by many prominent radio-physicians where they point out time and time again that :

We now know, thanks to genome science, the entire sequence of DNA. However there are 3 million locations on the DNA that are different from person to person. So today, it doesn't make sense at all to proceed as if humans are the same.
The basic principal should be the "personalized medicine" when we look at internal radiation - which DNA is damaged, and what kind of change is taking place.

I believe it is totally ignoring these very important points completely.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You speak of these 1000’s of studies as if they are relevant to the debate, they are not. While there are many studies on high level exposure, there are no epidemiological studies of low dose radiation exposure (under 100 rem) that supports the LNT … that’s zero, nada, zip, zilch … none. As I stated this debate centers around a philosophical approach to radiation exposure, not a scientific one.

No matter how many times you talk about science and evidence, you cannot escape this simple fact.

reply to post by thorfourwinds


This is fear mongering.

An ELE

That's nonsense.



It's no where close to being such a threat.

You need to get real if you want people to take you seriously.

No sensational fear mongering is necessary.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

You speak of these 1000’s of studies as if they are relevant to the debate, they are not.

Yes they are indeed relevant. That's quite the cop-out.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, NAS BEIR VII was an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature and writes, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses".[4]

So the NAS BEIR report is citing non-existent peer reviewed literature I suppose.

^ NAS BEIR VII Phase 2 Executive Summary retrieved 8 October 2008

BEIR VII Phase 2

This study must not exist in your world:

A 2007 study of Swedish children exposed to fallout from Chernobyl while they were fetuses between 8 and 25 weeks gestation has found that the reduction in IQ at very low doses was greater than expected, given a simple LNT model for radiation damage, indicating that the LNT model may be too conservative when it comes to neurological damage

Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund, Mårten Palme, "Chernobyl's Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden" August 2007, NBER working paper 13347,

The NCRP evaluated these criticisms and still supported it anyways.

the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress).[10] endorsed the LNT model in a 2001 report that attempted to survey existing literature critical of the model.

Report 136

UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses. page 160, paragraph 541

UNSCEAR report

I can easily dig up plenty more reports and may do so, but I have some simple refutations to add upon this as well. In the next post.

Hormesis claims that low level radiation does affect organisms, but postulates that instead of predominantly negative effects it's effects are predominantly positive in the long-run, this is extremely unlikely and I will explain why in simple terms.

Review all of the potential DNA repair mechanisms.

# 1) Since ionizing radiation can damage any type of molecule through ionization, than it would be apparent that not only the DNA is damaged, but all of the mechanisms for it's repair are also hindered to some extent through ionization damage of molecules.

So the repair mechanisms would be deterred at the same time that the DNA molecules were being damaged.

# 2) Also, the more instances of DNA damage that occur, the more instances of repair are required. This increases the probability of mutations or genetic defects as a direct result.

No matter which way you slice it, it is improbable that increased ionization could be good for organisms in the long-run. It will only lead to accumulation of damage of all molecules.

# 3) Also I believe that this hormesis theory fails to account for the presence of hot particles which has been detected as a result of Fukushima.

For example, a hot particle embedded in an organ (such as lung) results in a very high dose in the cells directly adjacent to the hot particle, but a much lower whole-organ and whole-body dose. Thus, even if a safe low dose threshold was found to exist at cellular level for radiation induced mutagenesis, the threshold would not exist for environmental pollution with hot particles, and could not be safely assumed to exist when the distribution of dose is unknown.

Hot particles embedded within the organism give high doses of radiation to all of the cellular tissues surrounding it, so the low-level radiation benefits argument simply becomes untenable in such a circumstance and therefore is not applicable to this debate.

Even if hormesis had some sort of value as a theory, it doesn't even matter because of the presence of 'hot particles' which are gaining entry into the food chain and into organisms bodies.

As pointed out above, hot particles expose nearby cells to 'high levels of radiation', and therefore it's not even relevant to bring up hormesis in the first place when discussing Fukushima fallout risks and dangers.

Can you address this in any reasonable manner or will you admit that logical reasoning and scientific evidence nullifies it as a legitimate point of discussion in this context?

Hi.

I came across this link a while ago and I wonder how these two items of discussion can be combined...

relative to cell damage/mutation?

I fancy the idea that these 'new' particles are meant to 'diffuse' all this wreckery we've done.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Its not a cop out, it’s a simple fact, these studies are not relevant to the LNT debate as they do not make the link you are suggesting they do. The Swedish study, for example, was perfromed by three economists, and was not an epidemiological survey.

The NAS BEIR and all other governmental studies recognize the absence of data on low level exposure, regardless of how they try to justify their hypothesis.

ISRN:

The absence of discernable effects in the epidemiological studies hitherto conducted does not mean that the existence of risks to living beings can be dismissed. Further research is essential. To identify these biological and/or pathological risks [1], complicated and necessarily long research needs to be carried out in a combination of epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies. Only diverse but complementary approaches will provide further knowledge.

Epidemiological data doesn’t support the LNT theory.

Low Level Ionizing Radiation and Human Mortality: Multi-regional Epidemiological Studies: A Preliminary Report

This preliminary work suggests that any health effects of background radiation on the diseases studied do not exceed in magnitude those of environmental chemicals. It also suggests that models implying important long-term deleterious effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on humans may be invalid.

Couldn’t be more clear … they have no evidence, only a hypothesis without the data to support it. You can whip this horse all you like, but it aint gonna make it rise from the dead.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Can you address this in any reasonable manner or will you admit that logical reasoning and scientific evidence nullifies it as a legitimate point of discussion in this context?

Evidence does not equal data. The conclusion of an untestable hypothesis is not a metaphysical certainly ... and "hot particles" pose no greater risk then any other form of ionizing radiation:

There is little human data with which to address the issue of a possible hot particle enhancement factor for carcinogenesis. The limited data on lung cancer mortality following occupational inhalation of plutonium aerosols, and the incidence of liver cancer and leukaemia due to Thorotrast administration for clinical diagnosis, does not support a significant hot particle enhancement factor.

In-vivo animal studies have largely failed to show any appreciable carcinogenic enhancement factors for hot particles compared to uniform exposures. On the contrary, in general, at doses in excess of ~ 10cGy, evidence supports a significant reduction in carcinogenicity for hot particle exposures for alpha, beta and x-ray exposures. The majority of experiments, where direct comparisons between uniform and non-uniform exposures can be made, are for rodent lung and skin and involve acute and chronic exposures. Such data can be usefully applied to some environmental occurrences of radioactive particles where potential organ doses may be comparable with ICRP dose limits. As one might expect, there are no experimental data at mean organ dose levels that are comparable with, or within an order of magnitude of, natural radiation background levels.