Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Options
1…156157159161162…175

Comments

  • Options
    #4742
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    andrew wrote: »
    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 what's the affect of giving CT scans to day old babies? If the risk of cancer increases from 1 year olds to older children, then it is likely that it also increases from day old babies to one year old infants, right? That's a fair assumption? But still you'll try to equate applying a 'safe level of radiation in tap water' for infants to breast milk for babies despite the fact that babies only drink breast milk and are at a more sensitive phase of their development?



    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.
    A bizarre argument. You're arguing in favour of giving radiation to babies, right?


    Well your post implied that that was the case, so perhaps you could clarify your point?
    No. I just questioned if there was such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation'. Just to help move this on a bit I think we can all agree now that there's not, right?


  • Options
    #4743
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Coles wrote: »
    No. I just questioned if there was such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation'. Just to help move this on a bit I think we can all agree now that there's not, right?

    And again, just to be clear, there's always some radiation. So while no level is "safe", such a level is purely theoretical and has never been measured or observed by human. Just to be clear. :)


  • Options
    #4744
    geetar
    Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭geetar


    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?

    harmless? yes. it is harmless, it is inherently harmless since it does the babies no harm. :eek:

    everyone knows theres "no" good amount of radiation, but c'mon!? you do know that pretty much everything is radioactive? its better to not have it, but there are certianly safe levels of it too. i think youd also be startled to see the radiation levels in our water supply. :rolleyes:

    and yes i do know babies drink milk, do you know how those figures work? you cant combine the two sources and double the danger it not how it works. they are both seperate. if a baby drinks a diet of 100% safe water.... or 70% safe milk and 30% safe water...guess what!?...
    its still safe!


  • Options
    #4745
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Coles wrote: »

    No. I just questioned if there was such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation'. Just to help move this on a bit I think we can all agree now that there's not, right?

    No we cannot :rolleyes: an increased risk is not the same as unsafe


  • Options
    #4746
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Coles wrote: »
    I just questioned if there was such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation'. Just to help move this on a bit I think we can all agree now that there's not, right?
    You emit radiation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4747
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    andrew wrote: »
    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?
    How much cancer risk is appropriate to burden upon a new born baby?


  • Options
    #4748
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Also just to be clear, in terms of imports etc. the levels are usually set so as to make a guideline for what should and shouldn't be searched. On a completely arbitrary scale say 50 is safe but way above normal, it would be a sensible place to put a "limit" so that customs would see anything above that as suspicious. All that's happened is that what's "normal" has changed so their import and customs rules have changed but the (basically safe) level of radiation has barely changed.


  • Options
    #4749
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Coles wrote: »
    How much cancer risk is appropriate to burden upon a new born baby?

    Well anyone in the Northeast should have moved away from here 3 years before getting someone pregnant/getting pregnant before the last Sellafield incident and even moreso since it happened.


  • Options
    #4750
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Coles wrote: »
    And what's the affect of giving CT scans to day old babies? If the risk of cancer increases from 1 year olds to older children, then it is likely that it also increases from day old babies to one year old infants, right? That's a fair assumption? But still you'll try to equate applying a 'safe level of radiation in tap water' for infants to breast milk for babies despite the fact that babies only drink breast milk and are at a more sensitive phase of their development?

    The younger the child, the more harmful exposure to radiation is, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the levels of radiation in the breast milk are still tiny, even for a sensitive infant

    A bizarre argument. You're arguing in favour of giving radiation to babies, right?

    Ah, I misinterpreted your original post regarding tap water. I have no idea what the tap water limits assume. For all we know they assume that the baby's getting 100% hydration from the water.
    No. I just questioned if there was such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation'. Just to help move this on a bit I think we can all agree now that there's not, right?

    Define (and I'm being serious here) what you mean by 'safe'


  • Options
    #4751
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Isn't sunlight radiation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4752
    Hal Emmerich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭Hal Emmerich


    Clicks "unfollow thread" button.


  • Options
    #4753
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Isn't sunlight radiation?

    Yep, the radiation from a flight above the clouds is massive, must try to find a study about it. Think an hour above the clouds gives about the same radiation dose as one of those new x-ray scanners in the airports.


  • Options
    #4754
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    No we cannot :rolleyes: an increased risk is not the same as unsafe
    Oh right. Newspeak.


    Sydney Morning Herald article
    Ionising radiation is a known carcinogen. This is based on almost 100 years of cumulative research including 60 years of follow-up of the Japanese atom bomb survivors. The International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC, linked to the World Health Organisation) classifies it as a Class 1 carcinogen, the highest classification indicative of certainty of its carcinogenic effects.
    In 2006, the US National Academy of Sciences released its Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (VII) report, which focused on the health effects of radiation doses at below 100 millisieverts. This was a consensus review that assessed the world's scientific literature on the subject at that time. It concluded: ". . . there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced."


  • Options
    #4755
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    amacachi wrote: »
    Yep, the radiation from a flight above the clouds is massive, must try to find a study about it. Think an hour above the clouds gives about the same radiation dose as one of those new x-ray scanners in the airports.
    Good for a second there I thought all life on earth that ever existed was just cheating because there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation, sure the radiation from the big bang still lingers around I thought all us living things would have to show our bluff and die.


  • Options
    #4756
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Coles wrote: »
    Oh right. Newspeak.


    Sydney Morning Herald article

    very simple question which I would love a very simple answer to

    do you consider driving or flying to be safe?


  • Options
    #4757
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    amacachi wrote: »
    Yep, the radiation from a flight above the clouds is massive, must try to find a study about it. Think an hour above the clouds gives about the same radiation dose as one of those new x-ray scanners in the airports.
    And do you ingest radionuclids when you get an x-ray? Or a CT scan? Or a trans polar flight? Or a f*cking suntan? Seriously guys, you've had too much Kool-Aid.

    The information is available.


  • Options
    #4758
    dennyma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭dennyma


    Why something good are not easy to sharing on internet? but bad stuff are anywhere?


  • Options
    #4759
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Good for a second there I thought all life on earth that ever existed was just cheating because there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation, sure the radiation from the big bang still lingers around I thought all us living things would have to show our bluff and die.
    The big bang? Sure that's all just tired light. The Earth was created 6015 years ago.
    Coles wrote: »
    And do you ingest radionuclids when you get an x-ray? Or a CT scan? Or a trans polar flight? Or a f*cking suntan? Seriously guys, you've had too much Kool-Aid.

    The information is available.
    What?

    And thanks but luckily for me I'm not in the US where Kool-aid is so which is getting SO MUCH MORE radiation than Europe. :)


  • Options
    #4760
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Coles wrote: »
    And do you ingest radionuclids when you get an x-ray?
    I just googled them and they're in my fire alarm. I'm going to spend the next half an hour running around the room screaming "we're all going to die" then I should go to bead.


  • Options
    #4761
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I just googled them and they're in my fire alarm. I'm going to spend the next half an hour running around the room screaming "we're all going to die" then I should go to bead.

    Burn the fcukers, see how they like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4762
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    andrew wrote: »
    The younger the child, the more harmful exposure to radiation is, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the levels of radiation in the breast milk are still tiny, even for a sensitive infant
    Link please.


    Define (and I'm being serious here) what you mean by 'safe'
    No attributable harm that was otherwise avoidable.


  • Options
    #4763
    geetar
    Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭geetar


    Coles wrote: »
    Oh right. Newspeak.


    Sydney Morning Herald article

    did you know the limit is 100 becquerels not milliserviets for the water?
    so this doesnt really apply at all.

    also that is a hilarioiusly biased article...

    it was written by an anti-nuclear lobbyist.
    Dr Peter Karamoskos is a nuclear radiologist and a public representative on the radiation health committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-be-fooled-by-the-spin-radiation-is-bad-20110407-1d63z.html#ixzz1KOuoIIgl


  • Options
    #4764
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Coles wrote: »
    No attributable harm that was otherwise avoidable.

    How do you define "otherwise avoidable"? Someone standing closer than necessary to you on a train is a rise in the radiation you're exposed to that could be avoided.


  • Options
    #4765
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    amacachi wrote: »
    Burn the fcukers, see how they like that.
    I'm too hysteric to work a lighter I'm just going to throw them at people coming home from the nightclub while screaming about radiation.


  • Options
    #4766
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    geetar wrote: »
    did you know the limit is 100 becquerels not milliserviets for the water?
    so this doesnt really apply at all.

    also that is a hilarioiusly biased article...

    it was written by an anti-nuclear lobbyist.

    No, you're wrong, only the people who aren't actively campaigning against nuclear power are biased!


  • Options
    #4767
    Coles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I just googled them and they're in my fire alarm. I'm going to spend the next half an hour running around the room screaming "we're all going to die" then I should go to bed.
    Did you eat your smoke alarm? Or cough it into your lung?

    Google 'ingest'


  • Options
    #4768
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm too hysteric to work a lighter I'm just going to throw them at people coming home from the nightclub while screaming about radiation.

    Good, the radiation from the lighter would fcuk you up before you could get near the alarm. Better to burn the house down while you run away. Don't use a phone to call a fire brigade though.


  • Options
    #4769
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Coles wrote: »
    Did you eat your smoke alarm? Or cough it into your lung?

    Google 'ingest'

    are you just going to keep ignoring all the reasonable questions you are being asked because you have no reply that does not contradict your position?


  • Options
    #4770
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    are you just going to keep ignoring all the reasonable questions you are being asked because you have no reply that does not contradict your position?

    Expecting someone to answer a question with logic is a clear sign that someone is a pro-nuclear shill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4771
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Coles wrote: »
    Did you eat your smoke alarm? Or cough it into your lung?
    Well obviously, nobody told me I shouldn't.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement