• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fukushima nos. 5 & 6 flooded: Announcer cries

Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You

...TV reporters and journalists, and, consequently, most Americans believe that low doses of radiation are harmful. People have "radiophobia" — the fear that any level of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, is dangerous. Why? For one thing, the news media fosters it because fear sells. Scary stories about the dangers of radiation keep people tuned in. Another reason, which lies deeper in the collective psyche, is that this phobia expresses the deep-seated sense of revulsion that Americans feel over the devastation and loss of life caused by the atomic bombs that its country dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. A third, more correctable reason is that the relationship between radiation dose and its biological effects is believed to conform to the "Linear (No-Threshold) Hypothesis," or "model." Regulators use this model to predict the number of cancer deaths that low doses of radiation are assumed to cause and then cite these predictions to justify their draconian radiation safety standards.

This is how the linear hypothesis works: After America developed the atom bomb, tested it, and dropped two on Japan investigators learned that 600 rem — 600,000 mrem — of radiation constitutes a lethal dose (it is 100 percent fatal), and 50 percent of people exposed to 400 rem will die of radiation sickness. Signs and symptoms of radiation sickness — such as vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, sore mouth, weakness, and hair loss — begin to appear when a person receives 75 to 100 rem. This hypothesis assumes that there is no threshold beneath which the deleterious effects of radiation cease to appear. Even very small doses will cause cancer in some people, if a large enough group is exposed. It predicts, for example, (in a simplified form) that 0.0625 percent of people exposed to a 500 mrem dose will die from radiation-induced cancer, a rate extrapolated in a linear fashion from the mortality rate observed at higher doses. Although this is a very low rate for a dose of this amount, when applied to a large group of people it gets scarier. For a population of one million people who are exposed to 500 mrem of ionizing radiation, the linear model predicts that 625 people will die from radiation-induced cancer. If 10 million people, in a city like New York, are exposed to this dose, 6,250 deaths are assumed to occur.

Regulators acknowledge that a prediction like "there will be 62,500 deaths in 10 million people exposed to 500 mrem of radiation" is an assumed risk. It is based on the assumption that "any exposure to ionizing radiation carries with it some risk," as the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) regulation puts it. Known and documented health-damaging effects of radiation — radiation sickness, leukemia, and death — are only seen with doses greater than 100 rem. The risk of doses less than 100 rem is a black box into which regulators extend "extrapolated data." There are no valid epidemiologic or experimental data to support linearly extrapolated predictions of cancer resulting from low doses of radiation. (Proponents argue that some studies support this model, but they "capriciously misrepresent" the data in those studies and apply the linear hypothesis in an a priori fashion to make the data fit, ignoring data that does not.)

Contrary to what is perceived to be true, the actual truth is that ionizing radiation in low doses does not cause cancer (or genetic defects). It, in fact, has a beneficial effect on one's health. There are epidemiological studies and scientific data on health effects from low to moderate doses of ionizing radiation that show it decreases the risk of cancer. Government authorities and regulators — including the news media — ignore this data...
 
Americans are exposed to an average 200 mrem of natural and medical radiation per year. Natural background radiation comes from cosmic rays, isotopes of uranium and thorium in the bricks, plaster, and concrete of buildings, and radioactive potassium. Radioactive potassium in our bodies generates about 25 mrem of radiation per year — more than the EPA safety limit. It comes from potassium-40, a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of potassium. People that suffer from radiophobia and think that they would be better off without that source of radioactivity in their bodies can take comfort in knowing that organisms grown in the laboratory consuming only non-radioactive potassium-39, with no potassium-40 in their diet, develop severe growth defects. The radiation that potassium-40 in our cells provides is vital for our health.

People who live in Ramsar, Iran, a resort on the Caspian Sea, are exposed to natural background radiation of 79,000 mrem per year, 5,266 times more than what the EPA's 15-mrem/year radiation safety standard allows. The local river and its streams have a high concentration of radium, which is 15 times more radioactive than plutonium. Its 2,000 residents do not have an increased incidence of cancer, as the linear hypothesis would predict, and their life span is the same as that of other Iranians. Fortunately, for that resort, EPA regulations don't apply there, or to people in Guarapari, Brazil, who get 17,500 mrem of radiation per year with no ill effects.

One place with high background radiation where EPA regulations do apply is a park in Santa Fe, Fountainhead Rock Place. It has radioactive rock of volcanic origin that emits 760 mrem of gamma radiation, 14 times the allowed amount. Regulators, however, have chosen to make an exception here and have not closed the park off to the public.

A process known as radiation hormesis mediates its beneficial effect on health. Investigators have found that small doses of radiation have a stimulating and protective effect on cellular function. It stimulates immune system defenses, prevents oxidative DNA damage, and suppresses cancer.

Accordingly, atom bomb survivors in Nagasaki who received 1,000 to 19,000 mrem of radiation have had a lower incidence of cancer, especially with regard to leukemia and colon cancer, than the non-irradiated control population. And it is turning out that Japan's atom bomb survivors are living longer. They have a death rate after the age of 55 that is lower than matched Japanese people not exposed to radiation.

cancer-ratio.gif


Another important epidemiological study has tracked the cancer mortality in people exposed to radiation from a thermonuclear explosion in 1957 in the former Soviet Union (in the Eastern Urals). Investigators followed 8,000 people who lived in the area for the next 30 years. The group exposed to 12,000 mrem (120 mSv) had a substantially lower cancer mortality compared with a non-irradiated control group, exposed only to a normal 100 mrem of natural background radiation. The group that received a considerably higher dose of 50,000 mrem (500mSv) had a not quite as good but still statistically significant decrease in cancer mortality. The same thing is seen with shipyard workers. Those that work on nuclear powered ships have a lower mortality than non-nuclear workers. Investigators matched 29,000 nuclear workers (many received more than 5,000 mrem of radiation) with 33,000 non-nuclear workers. The linear hypothesis predicts that the non-nuclear workers will live longer. The hormesis model predicts, correctly, that just the opposite would happen.

The radiation hormesis model explains why residents of radon spa areas (in Japan, Germany, and central Europe) and people who live in homes that have high radon levels also have a decreased incidence of cancer. But perhaps the most impressive study that shows just how good low dose radiation can be for you is one just published in the (Spring 2004) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

cancer-radiation.gif


In Taiwan (in the early 1980s), 180 apartment buildings were built with recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with Colbalt-60. The buildings' occupants, 4,000 people, lived in them for more than 10 years before their radioactive state was discovered. The amount of radiation they received ranged up to more than 1,500 mrem per year. (Colbalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years.) The cancer mortality, over a 20-year period, in the radiated occupants was 97 percent less (3.5 deaths per 100,000 person years) than that of the general population of Taiwan (116 deaths per 100,000 person years). Even the incidence of congenital heart malformations in the children they bore was reduced. This carefully done study shows, as its authors put it, that "chronic radiation [far above EPA limits] is an effective prophylaxis against cancer."...


etc, etc, etc....
 
The waters surrounding Japan are already showing huge radiation increases, and the crisis still has no solution in sight. Hysteria won't help the situation, but the Japanese scientists in charge of the nuclear program are clearly aware that the potential for long-term catastrophe in Japanese fishing areas and perhaps around the globe most certainly exists. Japan doesn't have huge swaths of land that can remain unused and fallow, as did Chernobyl. If their relatively small island is contaminated, as much of their food and dairy products in the area have already been, this could be a disaster for their country the likes of nothing the world has seen.

The worst part is that nobody has any idea how this can be stopped... or if it can be stopped at all. This is bad. It frankly doesn't get much worse.
 
The waters surrounding Japan are already showing huge radiation increases, and the crisis still has no solution in sight. Hysteria won't help the situation, but the Japanese scientists in charge of the nuclear program are clearly aware that the potential for long-term catastrophe in Japanese fishing areas and perhaps around the globe most certainly exists. Japan doesn't have huge swaths of land that can remain unused and fallow, as did Chernobyl. If their relatively small island is contaminated, as much of their food and dairy products in the area have already been, this could be a disaster for their country the likes of nothing the world has seen.

The worst part is that nobody has any idea how this can be stopped... or if it can be stopped at all. This is bad. It frankly doesn't get much worse.

HUGE RADIATION INCREASES*

*in the 100 foot area immediately surrounded the leak.

Dilution does wonders for stuff like this.
 
HUGE RADIATION INCREASES*

*in the 100 foot area immediately surrounded the leak.

Dilution does wonders for stuff like this.


Japan Nuclear Crisis Raised To Chernobyl Level

Japanese authorities have revised the severity of the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant to the highest level possible, putting it on par with the 1986 Chernobyl accident. NPR's Richard Harris provides an update on the condition of the Japanese reactors...


Japan Nuclear Crisis Raised To Chernobyl Level : NPR



The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday that the situation in the wake of the Japanese nuclear reactor crisis is static but not yet stable.

On the day that Japan bumped up the seriousness of its nuclear accident from a Level 5 to a Level 7 priority, on par with the Chernobyl disaster, a Senate committee heard from U.S. environmental officials, scientists and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko...


NRC chairman: Reactor situation in Japan is static but not stable - CNN.com


What we have here is a level 7, on-par with Chernobyl disaster taking place in a crowded island nation with no land to spare, not a huge rural zone easily set aside to rot for 1,000 years as Chernobyl was fortunate enough to have.

This disaster is also ongoing, with no end in sight and has potential catastrophic affect for Japan, because its evacuation zone is continuing to grow, as is the zone of food, livestock, and product contamination. Their local fisheries are in jeopardy as radioactive water continues to contaminate the ocean surrounding them.

I think if the scientist in charge of Japan's entire nuclear program finds the situation dire enough that he breaks down in tears, the rest of the world should not be dismissing the potential catastrophe this country faces as basically no big deal. It may not be a very big deal to most of the world, but it is a very big deal... a huge deal... for the Japanese, and may be for generations to come.
 
Last edited:
McFly! Your Computer is emitting radiation! Run, Man, RUN!!!!!!

Here's the main caveat that I think you're neglecting :

Your body can cope with EXTERNAL radiation... how this disaster is different is that this radiation is contaminating the food chain.

First, the areas that have higher levels of background radiation : The people living there have been living in those areas for generations, if nothing else life has a tremendous capacity to adapt to this, still low-level higher radiation levels. In brick houses as you point out, the radiation is emanating from the brick itself, but contained WITHIN that brick, in other words, it acts like asbestos, which causes cancer, but once it's set then there's no danger unless you start shaking it around and getting it into the air.

Second, you're not taking into account the ways in which this contamination from these reactors works its way up through the food chain... If an area of the sea is contaminated, first small fish will be exposed and then eat contaminated algae or whatever... so they get a higher dose, THEN the bigger fish get a dose and eat more and more of these contaminated fish so they get the extra dose, and in this way the contamination works its way up the food chain.

Just like cows will eat contaminated grass, then they will process that into the milk that you drink.

Finally, there's also a difference between external exposure and internal exposure. Your body will absorb any radiation and it will radiate you from the inside until your body is able to process it, if your body can process the toxin at all.

It's not about alarmist panic, it's about realizing the reality of the situation that must be coped with...
 
At least you concede to be arguing from a position of ignorance... no point in asking the other questions like How many people died directly in the explosion at chernobyl versus how many people have died from the resulting radiation?

Is such a question necessary, since the number 1, from Fukushima, is decidedly less than whatever figure you decide is the official tally for Cherynobyl.

The Mayor isn't going to waste time belaboring the obvious.

Ya.. well, Chernobyl also happened over 25 years ago... so there's been that time to measure the human impact of that disaster. The reactor workers at this point are probably already dead-men walking, bless their courage, and even they are not dying yet.

Yes, however the fact remains that the plume of RAM in the air from Fukushima is not anywhere near as serious as the flame-driven soot-laden plume that Chernobyl drove into the stratosphere for weeks. The quantity of radiation released, so far, is a full order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl.

But we could also consider the technological improvements in areas like cancer research which will offer better chances of survival for those that will develop cancer over the coming decades.

We could, perhaps TEPCO could pony up the money. However, that's clearly a job for private donations, not the government. However, cancer research is flush with cash and additional spending is likely to do nothing more than churn the study pool and make money disappear.
 
Is such a question necessary, since the number 1, from Fukushima, is decidedly less than whatever figure you decide is the official tally for Cherynobyl.

The Mayor isn't going to waste time belaboring the obvious.

You mean the obvious things like :
- A nuke plant exploding is not the same as a 'conventional explosive'
- That you're talking about a single explosion compared to multiple explosions coming from multiple reactors. (Yes, they had containment domes around the reactors themselves, but everyone ignores the videos of the explosions, so I won't link it again)
- That it takes a period of time (more in the length of years / decades then 4 weeks) for the overall effects.

Your argument is like saying someone tossed a grenade and it didn't hit anyone so it's not fatal... but you're only counting 1 second out of the entire countdown.

But no, you don't have to belabor the point, because you've said enough to show you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and viewing this from a perspective like it's a scoreboard

Yes, however the fact remains that the plume of RAM in the air from Fukushima is not anywhere near as serious as the flame-driven soot-laden plume that Chernobyl drove into the stratosphere for weeks. The quantity of radiation released, so far, is a full order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl.

Oh I don't suppose you'd want to back that point up either... don't worry I trust in your ignorance.

We could, perhaps TEPCO could pony up the money. However, that's clearly a job for private donations, not the government. However, cancer research is flush with cash and additional spending is likely to do nothing more than churn the study pool and make money disappear.

Ya, of course... profits are privatized costs are socialized. And again, black and white perspective. You do realize that there are also costs in PERFORMING the operations and all that, right??
 
Look, what is happening at the Fukushima #1 plant is really bad; probably worse than most of us thought it would get. None of us likes the idea of extra radiation floating around in the atmosphere, even in minute quantities. However, it is overly dramatic to say that this is worse than Chernobyl. The Japanese have been far more open about this crisis than the Soviets were. We didn't know about that one until large amounts of radiation were detected in neighboring countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland among others. And keep in mind while we ARE registering minute quantities of excess radiation around the world, detection instruments are far more sensitive than they were in the mid-1980s.

I am not going to play Pollyanna and say that the Fukushima #1 plant is Disney World, but it isn't as bad as Chernobyl, either...
 
the upgrade to level 7 status wasn't based on any physical changes (in fact, the metrics are improving, as radiation coming from the Fukishima plant is decreasing), but rather on a decision to retroactively lump all 6 reactors together for measurement rather than each one individually.

this is an accounting move, for cripes sakes. the actual radiation in total that has come out of Fukishima is less than 10% of that of Chernobyl.
 
...is less than 10% of that of Chernobyl.

But but but... it's really a hand grenade that you didn't bean anyone with, and you're only counting the first second of the ENTIRE COUNTDOWN. Are you dumb?

:lol:
 
You mean the obvious things like :
- A nuke plant exploding is not the same as a 'conventional explosive'
- That you're talking about a single explosion compared to multiple explosions coming from multiple reactors. (Yes, they had containment domes around the reactors themselves, but everyone ignores the videos of the explosions, so I won't link it again)
- That it takes a period of time (more in the length of years / decades then 4 weeks) for the overall effects.

Your argument is like saying someone tossed a grenade and it didn't hit anyone so it's not fatal... but you're only counting 1 second out of the entire countdown.

But no, you don't have to belabor the point, because you've said enough to show you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and viewing this from a perspective like it's a scoreboard

Actually, the Mayor is arguing from a position of experience. How many nuclear reactors have you brought to Initial Criticality? How much reactor and secondary system maintenance have you done, and how much training have you had in the fields of reactor operations and radiological controls?

When the Mayor discusses a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima, the Mayor is drawing from profesional experience. When you express your angst, are you doing anything other than expressing the fears of an amateur?

Oh I don't suppose you'd want to back that point up either... don't worry I trust in your ignorance.

You should. The Mayor is better informed than your ignorance.

Do you see ANY of the known nuclear operators on this board freaking out over this accident? What about Utah Bill? How's his blood pressure? Hmmm?



Ya, of course... profits are privatized costs are socialized. And again, black and white perspective. You do realize that there are also costs in PERFORMING the operations and all that, right??

Yes, what people do when they can't address what was said is address what they wish was said.
 
This is horrible. I mean REALLY horrible. The Ocean will be poisoned



Poor guy - what a ****ed up business situation. You know he didn't ever want to have to do things like this - he was just making power because people demanded it. Remember when Tony Hayward said "I just want my life back" - I imagine that's how this guy feels right now and he's just trying not to let it show.

What they should do is encase the plant with concrete - infuse the fouled water with dry cement so it doesn't sluff out. And then just encase it like Chernobyl. We're smart enough to create these problems but we're not smart enough to fix them.
 
Actually, the Mayor is arguing from a position of experience. How many nuclear reactors have you brought to Initial Criticality? How much reactor and secondary system maintenance have you done, and how much training have you had in the fields of reactor operations and radiological controls?

When the Mayor discusses a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima, the Mayor is drawing from profesional experience. When you express your angst, are you doing anything other than expressing the fears of an amateur?

That's fair, but I've been following this issue quite closely, you know, since I live down wind from this disaster... excuse me for being concerned.

And my position of your demonstrated ignorance is NOT in the specific areas of the radiation, but the scope of all that's been reported on the subject, the dodging the video of the various explosions (the number 3 explosion you can see the fuel rods falling back to the ground, it was afterall where they stored the spent fuel rods), and that you are only considering the actual deaths of the actual explosion and calling all released radiation as 'safe'...

So, I'm not calling into doubt your experience, I'm calling into doubt your analysis of this event

But, let's draw on your expertise... YouTube - Flashing Blue Light Seen Above Exploded Nuclear Reactor

What's it mean when this blue light is visible outside the reactors?? There were news stories about this, but now the news has been pushed back and only blogs remain in the search list.

What is your opinion of : Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen demonstrates how Fukushima's fuel rods melted and shattered on Vimeo ??

Finally, why would the EPA (AND the european equivalent) SUDDENLY decide that 'safe' levels of radiation should be increased??

Is this to help in the cover-up, or they just got to doing that after, what is it, 50+ years of studies with radiation?

You should. The Mayor is better informed than your ignorance.

Do you see ANY of the known nuclear operators on this board freaking out over this accident? What about Utah Bill? How's his blood pressure? Hmmm?

Here's why : Every news cast since has been 'radiation ... safe', so the issue is being SERIOUSLY downplayed, much like it was initially with Three Mile Island, and like was done with Chernobyl. The people in the nuclear industry have a vested interest in downplaying the severity of this disaster because if they accept responsibility then they open themselves up to liability...

So, as with most issues, the media has served well as an opiate of the masses. Though, every so often a dose of reality slips through the cracks...

Japan nuclear crisis: evacuees turned away from shelters - Telegraph
Hundreds of people evacuated from towns and villages close to the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are being turned away by medical institutions and emergency shelters as fears of radioactive contagion catch on.

Ya, they are getting turned away because they are covered in nutritious and delicious radiation...

Yes, what people do when they can't address what was said is address what they wish was said.

You said they should pony up money for cancer research, but they aren't doing that...

I pointed out the money would be better spent funding TREATMENT of any and all that get sick because of exposure. But, give someone like say Bill Gates (named only because of massive wealth) got exposed and got cancer, if that were to happen you'd have 3 cures for cancer within the week.
 
Quote"So, this shows that what is being dumped is above the legal limit... and while the tests show the radiation emitted in the water by half a liter of water, what's being dumped is closer to 115000 liters so far... which will be contaminating the fish that swim through that water, which will disperse throughout the oceans."End Quote

The water dumped in the Ocean was quoted at 11,500 tons. That is actuallly several million gallons. That is very different from 115,000 liters, by a factor of about 35. I have a pond with two million gallons and thats a lot of water. One acre, 18 feet deep at the center. That was a very good post in my opinoion
 
What they should do is encase the plant with concrete - infuse the fouled water with dry cement so it doesn't sluff out. And then just encase it like Chernobyl. We're smart enough to create these problems but we're not smart enough to fix them.

That sounds like a fix to the Mayor. What're you expecting, that they'll be running electricity out of that facility again someday? Heck no, so the best option is the Disposal In Place. Any other option requires transporting RAM across the country side.
 
Back
Top Bottom