Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

    Originally posted by Detonate
    At least our local economy is seeing some benefit in jobs from alternative energy.
    ....
    Which is a good thing!

    IMO, putting our energy eggs into a few giant eggs at a few locations is asking for disaster or attack. Worse, it puts us at the mercy of giant corporations who would be glad to meter a natural resource.

    Over the last 30 years there has been taking place a depopulation of the rural areas of the MidWest as small 320 and 640 acre corn farms become uncompetitive against giant 6,400 acre, and larger, corporate farms. The equipment is getting larger so that more rows of crops can be processed in a single pass, and operations run 24/7 during certain parts of the growing cycle. Whole towns which once held hundreds or even a few thousand people have almost disappeared. With 2 or 3 farms, or more, on every section of land the support industries (farm implement businesses, barber shops, grocery stores, auto sales and repair facilities, entertainment, etc...) flourished. As the economy worsened in the 1980s farmers were encouraged by bankers to farm from the edge of the road to the edge of the road, but that wasn't enough to stave off collapse in an industry where corn prices were determined by commodity price manipulations by the giant agri corporations. Just about the time farmers were hauling their freshly harvested corn to their coops, the agri corporations would start dumping millions of bushels of their stored grain onto the market to depress prices. Farmers had to sell because the bankers held their notes, which had due dates. They sold at barely a profit or none at all, as the corn prices remained around $2.45/bu for several decades, while the agri corp's corn flakes boxes rose in price from below $1 a box to over $3 per box, and the boxes got smaller. Forced to sell out, the agri corps or their subsidiaries bought the farms. Fences were torn down and gravel roads plowed up to increase the planting areas.

    It would be nice if some still existing rural bankers financed 10MW Solar Power Towers, or similar systems, on a section of land still owned by small farmers. The farmers could switch from farming corn to farming electrons. Most are already mechanically and electrically trained or inclined, and the technology is not rocket science. Ancillary support would build up around the SPT's just like it built up around the John Deer tractor. SPTs could revitalize rural communities and move populations back out into the country, where small truck farms could appear and feed produce to the city markets.

    "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
    – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

    Comment


      #62
      Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

      The news keeps getting worse...
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/...yl-levels.html

      Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986.
      ...
      In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 10^18 becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.

      Similarly, says Wotawa, caesium-137 emissions are on the same order of magnitude as at Chernobyl. The Sacramento readings suggest it has emitted 5 × 10^15 becquerels of Cesium-137 per day; Chernobyl put out 8.5 × 10^16 in total – around 70 per cent more per day.
      To put that into perspective, the amount of radiation one receives standing 1 meter from 1 gram of Radium is 3.7 X 10^10 becquerels per second, which is 1 Curie.

      In 10 days Fukushima has released an amount of radioactive Iodine-131 equal to that released by 23.4 million grams of Radium, half the Chernobyl amount. It has released about the same amount of Cesium-137, which is equivalent to 135,000 grams of Radium. Diluted or not, that is NO small amount, and it will be around for as long as the plant continues releasing it, plus 280 days.


      There is a video map showing the spread across the Pacific. A large could is just off the coast of California. Personally, IF i lived anywhere in California or on the West coast I'd start taking KI tablets.
      "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
      – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

      Comment


        #63
        Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

        Woodsmoke,
        You might find this report from the German gov KIKK study of the relationship between childhood cancers and low-level radiation leaking from nuclear power plants informative:
        http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2007/1...n-cancer-data/
        The German gov source of the report is here.

        That report also shows some rare graphs about incidents of cancers in children living near nuclear plants and some about the recent dramatic rise in cancers in the Chernobyl (Minsk) children.

        The results of a unique longtime study (called “KiKK“ which is 337 pages long) which shows higher (blood) cancer rates of children living next to German atomic power plants, were made public on December 10th 2007 in Germany, by the Federal Agency for radiation protection (BfS.de). The study itself is scientific and without a visible mistake. The study is the 3rd of a row of appropriate examinations of the Children Cancer Register. BfS President König said, that this is the first time that in a so called Case-Control-Study exact statements about the distance between a living area and an atomic reactor, as well as for ill as for not ill children, could be done. The result fits to similar examinations which are made worldwide, said König. In 2007, also a Meta-Analysis was made in which all studies till now which summarize and evaluate cancer of children in the surroundings of atomic power plants – this analysis also remarked a connection between atomic power plants and children cancer. The new study was accompanied by a expert-team of twelve people. All of them share all significant results of the study.

        With no doubt the BfS, the experts and the order-taker are in agreement about the results. The Environment Confederacy of Germany was instructed by the Environmental Minister of Germany to examine the results of the KiKK study, two weeks ago.

        Also in the opinion of other experts the design of the study fits the level of science. The study itself is worldwide the most methodical, the most costly and comprehensive examination. The question for the connection between the distance of the living area to an atomic power plant and the risk of becoming ill is unequivocal answered for Germany.

        Since the use of atomic power is seen critical by the public, there are discussions about higher cancer rates in the surroundings of atomic power plants. 1987 (one year after the Chernobyl accident) and 1989 British studies reported of a significant rising appearance of children blood cancer in a 10 miles-neighborhood around atomic power plants in England and Wales. 1992 in a analogous carried out study of the German Children Cancer Register (DKKR) between the time from 1980 till 1990 cancer of children below the age of 5 in the 5 kilometer-zone was observed. The result: The rate of blood cancer has grown statistical higher.

        How was the study carried out?

        All to the DKKR reported cancer ill children which were living around the 16 German atomic power plants (below the age of 5) were considered (1,592 children). For every child of these 1,592 there were controls determined, for those who were living in the same area. So, 4,735 controls were determined. The distance to the next atomic power plant for all 6,327 children was defined (average) as 25 meters. So, it was possible to compare, if the the cancer ill children are living nearer as the average to an atomic power plant of the region, as there respective controls.

        Here is another report on the relationship between nuclear power plants and childhood cancers:
        http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publica...von-Hippel.pdf

        Most of the websites that report this relationship are sponsored or funded by the nuclear energy industry. They always try to mask the effects of nuclear power plants by bringing in insignificant radiation sources or misrepresenting others. For example, they will list the 30,000 beq that the Americium-241 in the smoke detector emits. What they don't say about that is that the Americium-241 in that smoke detector emits that radiation as alpha particles, which are stopped by a single sheet of paper. Specifically, Americium-241 emits 5.5 MeV Alpha particles that have a range of ONLY 4 cm in dry air. That LESS than 2 INCHES. The Americium-241 in the smoke detector is in a stainless steel can with baffles to block any escape of alpha particles outside the can. The smoke particles in the air passing through the steel can are electrically ionized (not made radioactive) by the alpha particles (which are nothing more than fast Helium ions which steal electrons from the smoke particles and are converted to uncharged Helium gas), and the ionized smoke particles pass between two electrically charged plates. The positively charged plate repels, the other attracts, and the flow of charged smoke particles between the two plates constitutes an electric current, which is measured by the electronic circuits in the detector. A current above a certain level triggers the buzzer. BUT, at NO TIME are any alpha particles radiating any people near by. Even IF the Americium-241 were NOT in a steel can and the cover of the smoke detector, which by itself alone is enough to block Alpha particles, were not on the detector, the Alpha particles would travel no farther than two inches from the Americium-241.

        Many of the other "sources" of environmental radiations that are used in these bogus reports by the nuclear industry, AND our government I'm sorry to say, to swamp the radiation contributed by nuclear plants are similarly gamed. The gov regulatory agencies have the same revolving door policy with the nuclear industry that the FDA has with big pharma, the SEC with Wall street, etc...

        "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
        – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

        Comment


          #64
          Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

          Thanks GG, very informative.

          woodsmoke

          Comment


            #65
            Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

            I ran across a site by the National Cancer Institute which plots all cancers (or breaks them out) by county, state or economic district from 1950 to 1994, with the ability to set the year range and cancer type by county.
            The following link shows the Thyroid cancer rates between 1970 and 1994 for white males. White females are even worse:
            http://cancercontrolplanet.cancer.go...s=CA&rt=0&dd=c

            Off hand, it would be interesting to compare Thyroid cancers/100,000 (Iodine-131) with the location of nuclear reactors around the country. When you change settings it takes a few seconds for the site to fetch the data and redraw the graph. You can also compare two charts (but not at the county level).

            For grins I looked at the counties in Eastern Penn (Three Mile Island). Downwind from that plant is a disaster area, confirmed and confirmed again.

            Doing a google search on "thyroid cancer clusters" reveals many clusters all around the country ... Indian Point nuclear plant, three mile island, Las Alamos, etc...
            "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
            – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

            Comment


              #66
              Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

              Thanks for the links GG I will watch for more studies.

              BTW....

              I NEVER expected that this thread would be so self-sustaining...uh oh...bad pun!

              Ummm I NEVER expected that so many people would post!

              woodsmoke

              Comment


                #67
                Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                Well, to become a "chain reaction" each post has to generate more than one other post.

                But, threads always die out. So, I wonder what would be a good way to calculate the growth rate or half-life of a thread? Posts/Day ?



                "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                  Just to increase the half-life of this thread...

                  Germany held two state elections last weekend and now boasts its first head of a federal state from the the Green Party, namely a certain Mr. Kretschmann in a state which was solidly conservative for the past fifty odd years.
                  Once your problem is solved please mark the topic of the first post as SOLVED so others know and can benefit from your experience! / FAQ

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                    I noticed that he was/is a chemistry & biology teacher. Teachers in those fields are generally pro-environment, as apposed to pro-exploitation.

                    In preparation for the first Earth Day, Wednesday, April 22, 1970, I took my video camera to the West side of town and documented a meat packing plant dumping raw waste water into Beaver Creek. It was full of blood and body parts and created a stink that went for miles down wind. Everyone knew about the stink and where it came from. I followed the creek for over a mile with the camera rolling to show that the pollution had been going on for a long while and it wasn't just an accidental spill or leak. The sanitation plant was allowing excess sewage to flow into the creek when the plant couldn't handle the flow.

                    During the regular Wednesday assembly faculty members presented topics of interest. I introduced that Wednesday as the first Earth Day and described its purpose and then showed my video without comment. The students were impressed. The administration was not. A couple weeks later I was informed that the college was having "financial difficulties" and that I was being RIF'd. (Reduction In Force), even though they had no one else qualified to teach the science courses I was teaching, which included Microbiology, Chemistry, Anatomy & Physiology and Physics. I moved on to another teaching position and they "found the money" to hire another science teacher. At my second teaching position I moved to a house out in the country five miles from the school I taught at. Across the road was a barn. The farmer who lived a mile down the road from me rented the barn and put a bunch of pigs in it. Within day the North wind made living at our house an trial. The next time I saw him I asked if there was anything he was willing to do about the stink. His reply was "It smells like money to me". My next act was going to be putting a bucket full of pig crap on his front porch so he could enjoy his "money smell" even more, but he sold the pigs before I had an opportunity to do it.

                    While I am not anti-capitalist, I am anti-crook, anti-greed, anti-repressive and anti-irresponsibility, which seems, these days, to aptly describe most who pass themselves off as capitalists. Most seem to be Socialists when it comes to costs but Capitalists when it comes to profits. Especially aggravating are those who cloak themselves in Green with their PR but exhibit no other Green virtues.
                    "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                    – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                      Woodsmoke,
                      I found this interesting time-lapsed video showing all the 2,035 nuclear testing between 1945 and 1998, by month for all countries around the world. At the end all of the detonation locations are shown by markers. It was really stunning to learn how the USSR spread their detonations all round their country.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfpQN...layer_embedded
                      "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                      – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                        Originally posted by GreyGeek
                        While I am not anti-capitalist, I am anti-crook, anti-greed, anti-repressive and anti-irresponsibility, which seems, these days, to aptly describe most who pass themselves off as capitalists. Most seem to be Socialists when it comes to costs but Capitalists when it comes to profits. Especially aggravating are those who cloak themselves in Green with their PR but exhibit no other Green virtues.
                        GG, I agree with that statement completely!

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                          It looks like Tokyo Electric has given up on trying to save the 6 nuclear reactors for continued production of electricity. They have asked for the remote concrete pumps. These are 70 meter long tubes which can pump 210 cubic meters per hour of concrete and be controlled remotely. When Japan is finished encasing the plants in a concrete tomb the pumps will be left on site because they will be too radioactive to use any where else.

                          The world’s largest concrete pump, deployed at the construction site of the U.S. government’s $4.86 billion mixed oxide fuel plant at Savannah River Site, is being moved to Japan in a series of emergency measures to help stabilize the Fukushima reactors.
                          ...
                          “Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete,”
                          Obviously the pumps haven't been used in a similar situation at the Savannah River Site, or they wouldn't be movable, but it begs the question as to why such a pump would be needed there, since they appear to be too big to use indoors. The SRS has been the home for processing Uranium bullets into Plutonium for bombs since the early 1950s. At least 5 Chernobyl type un-contained, graphite moderated Uranium ("L-type") reactors were used from 1954 for about the next 30 years. The contamination around that site has been horrendous. It was scheduled for clean up, to be concluded by 2040, but that has been moved up to 2025, even though a $4.3 Billion MOX plant (nuclear reactor fuel) is being built there. The DOE document outlines some stunning contamination. But, there are proposals to allow high level radioactive waste to remain on that site! It is being opposed, even though radioactive waste is piling up there.

                          "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                          – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            The Jumpers into the reactors.

                            GG that was kind of a stunning thing. I wonder if it, like the totally wrong theories of Lysenko, they banned the theory of Genetics from Mendel because he was one of those "religious" people... , they had a theory that by spreading it around the half life would go down and the original contamination would be so thin that it would'nt hurt as many people...dunno......

                            The title of my post here is "the Jumpers"...people who are being paid thousands of dollars to work for a few minutes and leave.

                            The theory might be that put a thousand people in there for five minutes each as opposed to a hundred people for two hours.

                            I actually have a former student who is a "nuclear power plant repair welder". And there is a very large subculture of welders who specialize in this.


                            He lives on a farm with his folks, he has his own house now, and is about 30 completely paid off. they used to call him and he would do a written log. Now it is on a cell phone with a GPS. when they call and he accepts the job, he is gps ttracked to when he leaves the farm, travels to an airport, stays in a motel waiting for a flight flies to new yourk, flies to france or wherever, stays in another motel, goes to the reactor and is paid like 50 dollars an hour for that whole time. All expenses paid. He then gets into a anti-radiation lead powder suit, goes into the reactor, the equipment to weld is there by robot arms and welds for like ten minutes and then leaves. For this he is paid like a thousand dollars. He has the monitors etc. then spends a few days in a motel travels, you name it(his expense) but still being paid, and and then does it again, for ten minnutes. he then returns home in the same manner.

                            There are hundreds of other people who do the same thing so at the end of the required time many hours have been spent welding and the job is done.

                            His total "work time" for a year is maybe one eight hour day.

                            He is regularly "tested" in a variety of ways which he doesn't discuss and the last time I visited with his dad there have been on "ill effects". another rather courious thing is that he referred rather obliquely one time to a program that is government, business run etc. that if a prson gets even within a certain percentage, not the whole way, of radiation exposure, that the person can't work doing it for like a couple of years and that an "unemployment program" kicks in so that he can at some time in the future go back to the work and in the interim he basically takes it easy or if there is some kind of "effect" then it is treated.

                            All very.....off the radar as it were....the whole thing...

                            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42376837...s-asiapacific/

                            woodsmoke

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                              From a previous post in this thread:
                              Through the mid and late 1940s there existed a persuasive idea, without any evidence, called the "Threshold hypothesis". It theorized that if the radiation dose were low enough cell repair would take place as fast as the damage would accrue, and there would be no resultant damagee. But, by the time the Chalk River Conference, in Nov of 1949, took place most of those in the Health Physics field (from Canada, the US and GB) realized that there was NO safe level of exposure. Dr Morgan explained that any level of radiation is unsafe because it is a matter of chance if an Alpha, Beta, Gamma ray or Neutron comes close to or hits the DNA of a cell, causing changes.

                              The Health Physicists developed the "Linear Hypothesis", which means that you can predict the number of cancers you will get from a given amount of radiation. It doesn't matter if you get the radiation in high doses over a short time or low doses over a long period of time. You can expect one cancer for every 1000-persons-rem of radiation. I.e., one case of cancer will appear in 1000 people who get a total of 1 rem of radiation, or, if 1 person gets 1000 rems of radiation. One case of cancer will appear if 500 people accumulate 2 rems, or if 10,000 people receive 1/10th of a rem apiece. High levels of radiation often kill the cells outright, or the victim, so they can't mutate. Low levels of radiation don't kill the cell or the individual, but cancers develop according to the Linear Hypothesis rate of formation.

                              In the 1980s the health physicists had more long term data on radiation exposures and corresponding cancer rates. They developed the "Supralinear hypothesis", which says there really is a difference between 500 people who get 2 rems and 10,000 who get 1/10th of a rem. More damage will occur among the 10,000 who got a lower dose.
                              I haven't been keeping up with Nuclear Health Physics for a while. It seems that Health Physicists have improved on the SupraLinear Hypothesis and developed the Linear No-Threshhold Hypothesis (LNT). An opinion piece in the Health Physics News, Volume XXX III Number 8, For Specialists in Radiation Safety, August 2005, discusses the LNT, but raises questions in a subtly phrased attack:

                              Given the knowledge that increased frequencies of cancers are observed in exposed populations once individual doses are high enough, somehow, we have to implement controls on practices or in circumstances when radiation exposure of the public is possible.
                              "...increased frequencies of cancers are observed ... once individual doses are high enough" suggests no long-term delayed development of cancer is observed, and ignores the data in the longest running radiation exposure experiment ever conducted -- the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Much of the data collected by the Army's ABCC stations in those two cities did not conform to their beliefs in the "Threshold Hypothesis" prevalent at the time. That data had been suppressed until recently, and some still is.

                              To assess the significance of a radiation dose we need to make some assumptions about the relationship between dose and effect on health. The model widely used is the linear no-threshold model (LNT) and this continues to be recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). It follows that any given incremental dose can be considered independently of other doses—something that would not be easy with any other model, for example, one with a threshold or with a non-linear response relationship. Indeed, it is a practical model; one where the greater any particular incremental dose, the more attention is paid to it.
                              The "No Threshold" model allows doses to be considered independently from other doses? Hardly.

                              The Supralinear states that more damage will occur among the larger population that receives the lower dose. The LNT states that there is NO threshold below which cancer cannot be caused. Recent LONG TERM studies of thyroid cancers in children living near nuclear power plants, which I cited in another post in this thread, supports the Supralinear or LNT Hypothesis. Nuclear proponents claim that no radiation, or "insignificant" amounts of radiation leak from nuclear power plants, which the latest data has proved is patently wrong.

                              Our model, though, presents us with hypothetical incremental risk at any incremental dose, however small. If
                              we apply the LNT model logically and consider collective dose as well as individual doses in estimating, for example, the consequences of a release of long-lived radionuclides to the environment, we can end up with an estimated finite number of hypothetical additional cancer includes all effects on health.
                              A fair summary of the LNT. Now watch him attack it.

                              Clearly, in this “trans-science” region such views have to be speculative. It follows that, if one were to take as a protection criterion a broad measure of impact on health (such as “years of life lost”) reflecting both
                              negative and positive impacts on health, there may be an effective threshold in dose below which the
                              value of the measure is zero or less.
                              Note that, with this model, the incremental cancer risk is not necessarily zero below the thresh-old—the LNT model can still apply to radiation-induced cancer.
                              ...
                              Although in recent draft recommendations the ICRP downplays the role of collective dose considerations (protection of individuals has primacy over the utilitarian principle), it is not easy to sweep away the implications of collective dose if one follows the LNT model. However, this agonizing over collective dose is in the context of risk from radiation carcinogenesis. The discussions may be missing a broader context.
                              Here is where the attack against the LNT and the idea that there is NO safe level of radiation begins.

                              We really don’t know what might be the actual effects on health of a few micrograys or even a few milligrays of radiation dose added to our normal annual radiation doses. It is a reasonable conclusion that the carcinogenic effects of radiation, observed to increase in likelihood with dose for doses above 50 mGy, do not just drop to zero at all lower doses. In this sense, for radiation protection purposes, LNT is a reasonable model for the detriment to health from radiation-induced cancers. Arguments, on these pages and elsewhere, for a dose threshold (or even a hormetic effect) in radiation carcinogenesis have not been persuasive.
                              The Hiroshima experiments have provided ample evidence of long term health effects on all ranges of exposure, from being 230 meters away from the epicenter (but in a heavy concrete bank building), to the low doses received miles away or walking through Hiroshima months and years later. Initial ABCC data and other studies of Hiroshima, and of nuclear accidents since then, are what led to the LNT and the statement by Dr. K.Z. Morgan that there are NO safe limits of radiation exposure.


                              Each radiation event in the body is physically damaging, but the ultimate consequence of any particular initial ionization damage depends on many variables and their interactions. Although one radiation event can leave a residue of genomic damage that is a step along a path to malignancy, there can be stimulatory influences on cells and tissues; an adaptive response, for example.

                              Single radiation events seem sufficient to trigger such multicellular reactions, higher acute doses being no more effective. The influence of extent, are not well defined. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that there may well be stimulatory, positive effects on health from submilligray doses as well as the negative carcinogenic effects. For small increments in dose above natural background, the net detriment, which is certainly small, may then be zero or even slightly negative (that is, an improvement in overall well-being) if what we call detriment includes all effects on health.
                              Sure, nuclear radiation can be good. I'd rather the dentist X-ray me to locate invisible cavities than let the bad tooth rot to the surface before it is discovered, but it is an informed risk that I am willing to take. Random leakage from a nuclear repository or power plant, operated by people with little or no formal education in nuclear physics and managed by bean-counters working for corporations which put the bottom line above the health of people isn't a risk I am willing to take.

                              Clearly, in this “trans-science” region such views have to be speculative. It follows that, if one were to take as a protection criterion a broad measure of impact on health (such as “years of life lost”) reflecting both negative and positive impacts on health, there may be an effective threshold in dose below which the value of the measure is zero or less. Note that, with this model, the incremental cancer risk is not necessarily zero below the threshold—the LNT model can still apply to radiation-induced cancer.
                              How nice. There is a role for the LNT, where it doesn't matter. The Mafia Don always kissed the fellow he put the hit out on.

                              We are left with many questions. Do stimulatory effects on cells from incremental small doses of radiation
                              actually affect the health of exposed individuals? At what dose and dose-rate combination does the risk of radiogenic cancer start to outweigh the contribution of any stimulatory effects to overall health outcome? In other words, what magnitude might an effective threshold for net detrimental effects be—and how does it relate to natural background? What time patterns of radiation events are effective? (Suppose someone’s just
                              had a hefty medical diagnostic dose of radiation . . .) We don’t have the evidence yet to be able to give answers; we have mainly just descriptions of phenomena. We need quantitative insights applicable to protection—a challenge to experimentalists and epidemiologists.

                              Explorations along these lines, with the applied aim of defining a more general model for protection, may be more productive than those focusing just on radiation carcinogenesis and could lead to a more satisfying (but more complicated) regulatory approach to protecting the public. Not least would possibly be an effective counter to the idea that estimates of impacts on health in large populations from small increments in annual doses are meaningful if based just on the nominal risk coefficient for radiation-induced cancers.
                              While he wants to ponder questions about how to "more accurately compute health effects" (which allows the sources of nuclear radiation to continue) I have a better plan. Let's avoid the debates about which health model is better, or how any of them can be "improved" by limiting further damage. Dismantle the plants, move the waste to a cave one or two miles deep beneath a granite mountain in the remotest region of the biggest desert in the US. Cover the waste with fused Boron powder and fill the access tunnel with concrete to within 250 feet of the surface, fill in that hole with sand up to the soil horizon C, reconstitute the soil, and remove all surface traces of the site and access to it. Penalize all further processing or enrichment of Uranium-235.

                              Yes, I know I have said that there is no place on Earth where radioactive material can be safely stored. But I say that in the context of the idea that nuclear reactors can be continued to be used because we can store the spent rods and radioactive waste in "safe" repositories. IF we stop using nuclear power we still have to store the waste in some location with the least weather, lowest water table, farthest away from human activity in our country. It may leak, but at least we won't have to keep it open until we "fill it up" and then look for another, less safe spot, to continue storing freshly made spent fuel rods.
                              "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                              – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

                                http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/e...still-seep-out
                                So far, officials from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency have maintained that these explosions caused no "major breach" to any of the reactor vessels or drywells. But the discovery of radioactive water throughout the power plant's grounds indicates that something, somewhere is leaking. And according to Theofanous's research, if some of the nuclear fuel melted in the first days of the emergency, a major release of radiation is still possible.
                                What I suspected and what we've feared may have happened.

                                No matter what has happened, cooling will have to be maintained at Fukushima for a long time. As an example, Lahey says it takes five years of immersion in water before the decay heat from a fuel rod freshly removed from a reactor is low enough for air cooling. “It’s not an event that goes all that fast,” he says.
                                The problem remains that IF the reactor cores have melted, and despite Tokyo Electric's denials it looks like they have, and that blobs of melted corium lie at the bottom of the drywells, constantly emitting clouds of radioactive gases. This explains why the 70 meter long concrete injectors are being flown in tp be remotely controlled to pour Boron concrete over the entire complex. It is just too lethal for humans to get any closer.
                                "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                                – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X