Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Rob A. Bank

NUCLEAR GINZA : A look inside Japan’s nuclear industry

After watching this half hour Channel 4 investigative documentary from 1995, you'll understand why TEPCO sent workers without dosimeters into a radioactive environment, its the normal practice in Japan's nuke industries !

Rather than train workers properly about the dangers of radiation poisoning and provide safe systems, they instead hire homeless people and slum dwellers to perform the yearly maintenance work inside the reactor cores, then pay hush money when they grow sick or die. When you hire the homeless and the illiterate, most of them simply don't have the wherewithal to sue when they grow weak and sick from radiation, a very convenient cost/benefit ratio for the Japanese nuclear industry

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92fP58sMYus

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJeiwVtRaQ8

Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgLUTKxItt4

jwt

Note bold is my emphasis

Malty_T wrote: »

Regarding safety limits. These levels are not used as a baseline for when exactly something becomes hazardous, they are usually set at a level well below the level where the substance becomes a threat to human health. Obviously having a safety level based right on the limit of harm to humans would be silly and impractical.................

You're right but from a perception point of view it looks bad. after all if the previous limit was well below is the new limit a good bit below or maybe a little bit below or even just below a hazardous limit.

Then you have the definition of hazardous, is it hazardous if its lots of exposure for a small amount of time or low exposure over a longer period? Is it hazardous to a 19 year old male in the prime of life fighting fit versus a newborn female?

its all relative and the media seem to be unable to relate the levels of radiation to meaningful understandable examples such as being on a plane at 30,000 feet, standing beside a crate of bananas as random examples.

so if it was reported that the eu increased the limit from its current limit which is equivalent to 30 minutes on a plane at 30,000 feet (no idea if thats accurate, just making an example up) and now the limit is the same as 60 minutes on a plane at 30,000 feet which is still less than the 0.4 mSv you get in one year from natural food you eat.

At least then people would have something to relate to

Cathaoirleach

Video of the planned Chernobyl sarcophagus

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2011/apr/19/novarka-chernobyl-reactor-arch-video

vibe666

novarock wrote: »

Everyone knows that radiation "Can" cause cancers.. I dont understand your motivations behind what you post..

maybe he got banned from the tin foil hat forum and he's got nowhere else to post?

Run_to_da_hills

Radioactive milk found in breast feading milk of Japanese mothers.
This is extremely serious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8465248/Radioactive-iodine-found-in-breast-milk-of-Japanese-mothers.html

Rob A. Bank

The US National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.”

The US Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer … any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.”

So do you believe the experts or the pro-nuclear apologists here ?

novarock wrote: »

Everyone knows that radiation "Can" cause cancers.. I dont understand your motivations behind what you post..

Its simple really...They all say there is no safe level of radiation.

(Is english your first language ?)

:rolleyes:

Rob A. Bank

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Radioactive milk found in breast feading milk of Japanese mothers.
This is extremely serious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8465248/Radioactive-iodine-found-in-breast-milk-of-Japanese-mothers.html

Agreed... a horriffic turn of events.

:mad:

geetar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Radioactive milk found in breast feading milk of Japanese mothers.
This is extremely serious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8465248/Radioactive-iodine-found-in-breast-milk-of-Japanese-mothers.html

not as extremely serious as you make it out to be. honestly if you just read your link youd actually see thats its just media scaremongering.

it says

Four of these women were found to be contaminated, with the highest reading of 36.3 becquerels of radioactive iodine per kg

However, the breast milk readings were below the safety limit 100 becquerels per kg of of tap water consumption by infants under one year of age and no radioactive cesium was found

so thats only four women who have milk thats one third the safe quantity of radiation allowed for infants under one. its not really a story at all.

and certainly not a horrific turn of events by any means.

Rob A. Bank

geetar wrote: »

...so thats only four women who have milk thats one third the safe quantity of radiation allowed for infants under one. its not really a story at all.

and certainly not a horrific turn of events by any means.

So four out of nine women tested had radioactive iodine in their breast milk and that's just fine and dandy ?

REALLY ?

:rolleyes:

andrew

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

So four out of nine women tested had radioactive iodine in their breast milk and that's just fine and dandy ?

REALLY ?

:rolleyes:

It is when the level of radiation found is harmless.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

It is when the level of radiation found is harmless.

Is it 'harmless'? It's interesting that you can state that with such certainty when scientific studies show that there is no safe dose of radiation.

And wouldn't the tap water limit for infants not assume that 1) the baby consumes very little tap water, and 2) that the baby is not also receiving an additional quantity of radiation from contaminated breast milk? You're probably aware that breast milk comprises the vast majority of the diet for babies, right?

PeakOutput

Coles wrote: »

Is it 'harmless'? It's interesting that you can state that with such certainty when scientific studies show that there is no safe dose of radiation.

you are dosed with safe levels of radiation every single day of your life

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Is it 'harmless'? It's interesting that you can state that with such certainty when scientific studies show that there is no safe dose of radiation.

And wouldn't the tap water limit for infants not assume that 1) the baby consumes very little tap water, and 2) that the baby is not also receiving an additional quantity of radiation from contaminated breast milk? You're probably aware that breast milk comprises the vast majority of the diet for babies, right?

Yes, for all intents and purposes it is harmless. This whole 'there's no safe dose of radiation thing' I think comes from a misinterpretation of the exact language used when communicating statistics, and people's definition of safe. 'There's no safe dose' means that any exposure to radiation statistically increases your chances of developing cancer. For a statistical result to be relevant, though, it needs to be relevant both statistically and practically. In this case, small doses of radiation are not practically significant. Small radiation doses are only linked with very very very very tiny increases in cancer, and so are what would be generally considered safe.

As an example, even the large amount of radiation to which a baby is exposed to during a full body CT scan leads to a small 0.18% increase in lifetime cancer rates. That is, if you took 10,000 babies and gave all of them a CT scan, statistically, about 18 of them will develop cancer (though it could be more or less). So, do CT scans cause cancer? Well, statistically, yes. Are CT scans safe? By the 'no safe exposure to radiation' definition of 'safe,' no, they're not. But this conclusion is at odds with the practical reality that if you got a CT scan as a child, there's only a 0.18% chance you'll get cancer from it; a vanishingly small chance, lower than the chance you'll die in a car crash, and certainly low enough that doctors and parents wouldn't hesitate to give a child a CT scan if it needed one, and low enough that CT scans are a commonly used diagnostic technique (the statistics are lower for adults BTW).

The reality is that everything we do has an associated risk of death attached to it. Flying, driving, walking down the street, swimming, and being outside all increase the chance that you'll die; there's no safe level of radiation, but in exactly the same way, there's no safe level of driving, or of going outside, or of swimming, or of being exposed to cigarette smoke. What's important then is not the fact that any dose of radiation can cause cancer - it's whether it's likely to do so. As the above example indicates, even large doses of radiation aren't likely to do so. The level of radiation found in the breast milk are even less likely to do so. And so while the chance is indeed non-zero, it is small enough that I can state, with certainty, that it's harmless.

Coles

PeakOutput wrote: »

you are dosed with safe levels of radiation every single day of your life

Until I die, right? Have you ever noticed that nobody has ever survived the 'safe levels of radiation'?

PeakOutput

Coles wrote: »

Until I die, right? Have you ever noticed that nobody has ever survived the 'safe levels of radiation'?

Nobody has ever completely survived anything

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Until I die, right? Have you ever noticed that nobody has ever survived the 'safe levels of radiation'?

So everyone would live forever were it not for background radiation eventually killing everyone?

PeakOutput

andrew wrote: »

So everyone would live forever were it not for background radiation eventually killing everyone?

FACT

Coles

andrew wrote: »

Yes, for all intents and purposes it is harmless. This whole 'there's no safe dose of radiation thing' I think comes from a misinterpretation of the exact language used when communicating statistics, and people's definition of safe. 'There's no safe dose' means that any exposure to radiation statistically increases your chances of developing cancer. For a statistical result to be relevant, though, it needs to be relevant both statistically and practically. In this case, small doses of radiation are not practically significant. Small radiation doses are only linked with very very very very tiny increases in cancer, and so are what would be generally considered safe.

As an example, even the large amount of radiation to which a baby is exposed to during a full body CT scan leads to a small 0.18% increase in lifetime cancer rates. That is, if you took 10,000 babies and gave all of them a CT scan, statistically, about 18 of them will develop cancer (though it could be more or less). So, do CT scans cause cancer? Well, statistically, yes. Are CT scans safe? By the 'no safe exposure to radiation' definition of 'safe,' no, they're not. But this conclusion is at odds with the practical reality that if you got a CT scan as a child, there's only a 0.18% chance you'll get cancer from it; a vanishingly small chance, lower than the chance you'll die in a car crash, and certainly low enough that doctors and parents wouldn't hesitate to give a child a CT scan if it needed one, and low enough that CT scans are a commonly used diagnostic technique (the statistics are lower for adults BTW).

The reality is that everything we do has an associated risk of death attached to it. Flying, driving, walking down the street, swimming, and being outside all increase the chance that you'll die; there's no safe level of radiation, but in exactly the same way, there's no safe level of driving, or of going outside, or of swimming, or of being exposed to cigarette smoke. What's important then is not the fact that any dose of radiation can cause cancer - it's whether it's likely to do so. As the above example indicates, even large doses of radiation aren't likely to do so. The level of radiation found in the breast milk are even less likely to do so. And so while the chance is indeed non-zero, it is small enough that I can state, with certainty, that it's harmless.

So a CT scan kills 1 in 550 children from cancer? A 'vanishing small chance', eh? Of course a CT scan is chosen when it is necessary in an attempt to save a child's life, but it is a very long way away from 'harmless'.

And that has nothing to do with radiation is breast milk. You didn't answer any of my questions either, and your conclusion that something is harmless when it's not, is clearly flawed.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

So everyone would live forever were it not for background radiation eventually killing everyone?

Do you honestly think so? That sounds very unlikely.

Does the 'safe level of radiation' cause cancer?

PeakOutput

Coles wrote: »

Do you honestly think so? That sounds very unlikely.

Does the 'safe level of radiation' cause cancer?

that is what you implied with your response and no it dosnt

Coles

PeakOutput wrote: »

that is what you implied with your response and no it dosnt

Have you thought it through?

Here's a good link (Energy News) It's worth reading up on before you commit yourself to defending a flawed argument.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

So a CT scan kills 1 in 550 children from cancer?

A 'vanishing small chance', eh? Of course a CT scan is chosen when it is necessary in an attempt to save a child's life, but it is a very long way away from 'harmless'.

Not exactly. It means that statistically, if you give 550 identical children a full body CT scan age an age of 1, and they were to all have an identical exposure to radiation subsequently, then 1 of those children will probably die of cancer attributable to the scan.

I used CT scans as an example because they represent the absolute highest amount of radiation which most people will ever be exposed to, and even then, CT scans on vulnerable children only increase the cancer risk by 0.18%. And yes, I'd say that's pretty much harmless. If you gave me those odds on anything I'd take them.

And that has nothing to do with radiation is breast milk. You didn't answer any of my questions either, and your conclusion that something is harmless when it's not, is flawed.

Well it does have to do with the breast milk; the radiation exposure those kids are getting is thousands of times lower than what'd they'd get from a CT scan. Since the chance of a baby dying due to CT induced radiation is low, we can conclude that their exposure from the breast milk is even lower, low enough to be essentially harmless. To answer your question more directly, breast feeding babies get all of their hydration from the breast milk, so it wouldn't be combined with possibly contaminated water.

Coles wrote: »

Do you honestly think so? That sounds very unlikely.

Well your post implied that that was the case, so perhaps you could clarify your point?

PeakOutput

Coles wrote: »

Have you thought it through?

Feel free to spell it out for me so I can explain exactly why you are wrong

amacachi

Coles wrote: »

Is it 'harmless'? It's interesting that you can state that with such certainty when scientific studies show that there is no safe dose of radiation.

And wouldn't the tap water limit for infants not assume that 1) the baby consumes very little tap water, and 2) that the baby is not also receiving an additional quantity of radiation from contaminated breast milk? You're probably aware that breast milk comprises the vast majority of the diet for babies, right?

You're right, there's no safe level of radiation. Where are you btw? I should give you a heads-up before I move from here because it will increase the radiation level where you are if I move toward you.

SECRET: I just moved 2 metres towards all 4 points of the compass so it's already happened. Gonna sue me?

Coles

PeakOutput wrote: »

Feel free to spell it out for me so I can explain exactly why you are wrong

Here's a good starting point. It's quite a general link but you should be able to follow the references. It's worth reading up on these things before you commit to defending a flawed argument.

Coles

amacachi wrote: »

You're right, there's no safe level of radiation. Where are you btw? I should give you a heads-up before I move from here because it will increase the radiation level where you are if I move toward you.

SECRET: I just moved 2 metres towards all 4 points of the compass so it's already happened. Gonna sue me?

Yeah, good lad.

amacachi

Coles wrote: »

Yeah, good lad.

I'll take that as a no then.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Here's a good starting point. It's quite a general link but you should be able to follow the references. It's worth reading up on these things before you commit to defending a flawed argument.

No one has denied that the cancer risk does increase with radiation exposure. It does. It's just that that increase is insignificant. Maybe not for you, since you appear to be very very risk averse, but for people in general it is. Does your risk aversion extend to other aspects of your life, and if not, why are you averse to the risks posed by radiation specifically?

ScumLord

The other thing to note is that these radiation levels at their worst will only be bad for humans with their long life spans (if they choose to live their whole lives there). Chernobyl is a great wildlife preserve at the moment. They have no problem living in that toxic wasteland because their lifespans are too short to be affected.

PeakOutput

Coles wrote: »

Here's a good starting point. It's quite a general link but you should be able to follow the references. It's worth reading up on these things before you commit to defending a flawed argument.

I figured that is what you were trying to say and it is incorrect. Radiation form your mobile phone antenna for example has been scientifically proven to be unable to cause cancer as it is 7 orders of magnitude too weak to start the process that can finish in the creation of cancer cells

here is an article on it although it is not the paper itself it should be sufficient

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now

so there is one example of radiation that can not possibly cause cancer and unfortunately you categorically stated that there is no safe level of radiation and therefore all that is required to prove you wrong is one case, and check it out, there it is.