Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Moderator: Tanada

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 17:27:08

Yes, and those people dying of cancer in their 50s due to exposure to fallout, were just fine when they were younger.

That's the old logical fallacy, "Nothing's happened yet, so nothing can or will happen." Well guess what, those fallout babies are now dying in their 50s because of what we did.

As for nuclear power, because running a nuclear power plant is highly specialized, there are few who can maintain them.

We already have seen we can't even get close, even with robots, when there has been a meltdown, we can do nothing about the corium.

You can't just flip a switch and shut a nuclear plant down, then walk away. The plant needs to be manned and maintained even afterwards.

With a societal collapse, those people aren't going to stick around. Each plant then becomes an inevitable disaster.

You people are only worried about your current comfort. Your shortsightedness is criminal. Fukushima demonstrated you can't fix it if something goes wrong. And something will always go wrong in time.

You put on a face like these arguments are without merit, when in fact they are the true risks, now fully demonstrated in Fukushima.

We are not required to just accept the consequences of your risks and shortsightedness. Because those are real people suffering for it. In real life.

Back in the day we were promised nearly free limitless electricity. It's never lived up to it's promise. Profit and greed run these plants, and safety only comes through regulation. These people will take the money and run, leaving radiation spewing hell-holes in their wake.

P.S. I am not a Democrat. I was an Eisenhower Republican. I have, most of my life been an Autarkist and a Taoist. And I sometimes rise up to fight the evil men do. Try to fit that into your binary thinking. Some of us don't fit into your cubby-holes.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby jupiters_release » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 09:47:11

Don't remember, (don't want to remember), but roughly 600 tons of plutonium in the Daiichi reactors/pools.

OLO @ 8 day half lives.

Unless you live in Japan or eat many Japanese exported foods GW, peakoil, TPTB will probably kill you first.
Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish opinions.
jupiters_release
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 10:14:06

Just had a high level scientist talk on cancer causes. She said only about 10% were from genetics. The rest were from environmental/behavioral causes--basically carcinogenic chemicals and exposure to radiation. The talk happened to focus on the chemical side, which did seem to predominate. But most people don't really realized how much cancer is a self inflicted disease on humans (or rather an industry-inflicted disease on citizens). And exposure to radiation from various sources is definitely part of that.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 11:35:21

dohboi wrote:Just had a high level scientist talk on cancer causes. She said only about 10% were from genetics. The rest were from environmental/behavioral causes--basically carcinogenic chemicals and exposure to radiation. The talk happened to focus on the chemical side, which did seem to predominate. But most people don't really realized how much cancer is a self inflicted disease on humans (or rather an industry-inflicted disease on citizens). And exposure to radiation from various sources is definitely part of that.


Thank you for having an open mind. I never said radiation was perfectly safe as an absolute, just that radiation is not nearly the threat most people believe it is because of the Hollywood effect.

IMO and the opinion of many experts in the field chemical damage is a much larger threat to your health than radiation. Try the articles at this thread,
study-lists-dangerous-chemicals-linked-to-breast-cancer-t69696.html
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13886
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 19:49:14

Thanks for the link.

I would just point out for now that 'larger threat' can be interpreted in more than one way.

Carcinogenic chemicals are now widely distributed throughout the human and natural environment, often at quite high concentrations. And the effects they have when interacting with each other are still largely unknown. So yeah, they are right now given their current ubiquity a larger threat to most humans.

But that is a different claim than saying that any particular chemical at a particular dosage would be a greater threat to health than a particular radioactive element in the same dosage. That would be a different and more complex definition of 'larger threat' and I don't know how deep into the weeds we want to get to discuss such comparisons.

The larger point is that there are all sorts of things giving us lots and lots of cancers, and--whether chemical or radioactive element--we don't need more such carcinogens in our environment, or in places where historical events may suddenly bring them in large quantities into our environment.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 01 Nov 2016, 20:55:23

Doubtless we would be better off without all of the following in our environment:

1) The burned effluents of oil, coal, and natural gas.
2) Toxic chemicals from manufacturing.
3) Trace pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides in our food.
4) Runoff fertilizers stimulating toxic algae in lakes and river deltas.
5) Toxics leaching out of landfills.
6) Being exposed to radiation in airplane flights, medical and dental x-rays, and airport screenings.
7) Radioactive Radon gas filling basements and crawl spaces.
8 ) The radioactive isotopes spewed out of coal power plant stacks.
9) Etc. etc. etc.

In fact, we know so much about the great many causes of cancer and other diseases that it is seldom possible to determine the cause of any individual case, we can for the most part only assign statistical probabilities to such.

We also know that nuclear power is by far, the safest form of energy production:
Image

http://www.myscience.fi/index.php?id=516
and
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2cd754fc49d2

You must decide whether you like and favor nuclear energy because it produces the most power for the least number of human fatalities, or if you favor coal because it kills more of the overshoot population of humans than all other sources of power.

Up until a couple of days ago, I would not have included the comment about coal, but I have recently been exposed to the opinions of members who feel that anything that kills humans is good for the planet. I find such a viewpoint abhorrent in the extreme, but you get to make your own choices on this topic.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 02 Nov 2016, 02:12:55

Ah, nothing like bogus stats to make your case! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Over 1000 people died in the evacuation of Fukushima and in the following mayhem.

Unless one is taking the absurd position that not one person should have been evacuated from this historic disaster area, you have to count those as deaths from nuclear power production.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 02 Nov 2016, 06:51:24

The Tsunami caused the fatalities, the evacuation, and the mayhem. It is a natural disaster of seldom equalled significance in the modern world.

Nor are your stats correct:
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故 Fukushima Dai-ichi (About this sound pronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko?) was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, following the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011.[6][7] Although it was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[8] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines, there were no casualties caused by radiation exposure.

A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. Furthermore, at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Workers involved in mitigating the effects of the accident do face minimally higher risks for some cancers.[9]

Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged[10] in the academic literature from none[11] to hundreds.[12] On 16 December 2011, Japanese authorities declared the plant to be stable, although it would take decades to decontaminate the surrounding areas and to decommission the plant altogether.[13]

The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed over 15,000 people from effects unrelated to Fukushima.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

That's from reliable sources. Nobody died there who would not have died if the same location was a dairy farm rather than a nuclear power plant. No radiation casualties. Two power plant workers with radiation burns to the feet who missed three days of work. One worker who was welding a large water tank fell to his death. Several cardio events in older people wearing radiation suits in Summer heat.

Even the radiation statistics above in the Wiki article are suspect since they are based on the known-to-be-incorrect LNT theory of radiation exposure. Such exposure limits are regularly exceeded by airline flight crews and cabin crews numbered in the tens of thousands world-wide, with cancer stats lower than the populace at large.

I know, to people like you, you would rather refer to your prejudices from decades of Hollywood movies than to Science. I expect such behavior from those who cry "the World is warming!" constantly.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby sparky » Wed 02 Nov 2016, 07:40:37

.
Wood burning smoke is like tobacco smoking a strong emitter of carcinogenic fumes and substance
since about one million years humans have gathered around hearths , inhaling all those dangerous stuff

there is a fantasy about bad stuff giving one horrible death ,
the truth is that babies are saved and live which wouldn't some decades ago ,
instead of living up to fifty if lucky and dying , people now experience heart attacks , senile dementia and cancers .
the more people live..... the more they will die , that's the deal .
sometimes people die young , that's either accidents , bad genes or violence
every day one get to see a sunrise is a victory of sort against a long list of natural laws .
people have the privilege today of considering death from new causes ,
don't worry , the old causes are not gone , they just wait around the corner
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 09:32:54

sparky wrote:.
Wood burning smoke is like tobacco smoking a strong emitter of carcinogenic fumes and substance
since about one million years humans have gathered around hearths , inhaling all those dangerous stuff

there is a fantasy about bad stuff giving one horrible death ,
the truth is that babies are saved and live which wouldn't some decades ago ,
instead of living up to fifty if lucky and dying , people now experience heart attacks , senile dementia and cancers .
the more people live..... the more they will die , that's the deal .
sometimes people die young , that's either accidents , bad genes or violence
every day one get to see a sunrise is a victory of sort against a long list of natural laws .
people have the privilege today of considering death from new causes ,
don't worry , the old causes are not gone , they just wait around the corner


The detail you are missing is that that the chemical profile of wood smoke is not the same as that of gasoline and diesel engine exhaust. Humans are adapted to the carcinogens in wood smoke but not from industrial and transport emissions. So your attempt to generalize is a total fail.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 10:45:05

dissident wrote:The detail you are missing is that that the chemical profile of wood smoke is not the same as that of gasoline and diesel engine exhaust. Humans are adapted to the carcinogens in wood smoke but not from industrial and transport emissions. So your attempt to generalize is a total fail.

Talk about fail. 8O You just trapped yourself in a logical leghold. You have two choices diss: to chew your leg off or admit your mistakes.

hint: how does a species adapt to something that causes cancer? Would the tumor evolve into a useful appendage? And if humans have adapted (somehow) to one particular carcinogen, why not to another? Like radiation.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26063
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 11:48:33

Evolution tells us one thing about every organism's ancestors. Whatever their nature, it was "good enough" for the ancestor to reach adulthood and reproduce.

Since organisms inherit their traits from their ancestors it's likely that the descendants traits will also be "good enough" to allow them to reach adulthood and reproduce.

Most human's enjoy good health during their youth and early adulthood up until around 40 to 50 when things start falling apart. Enjoying good health till you're 40 is "good enough" to produce some kids and have them reach adulthood and start producing kids too.

So it doesn't really make any difference to "evolutionary fitness" if human's die after they've lived long enough to produce a few kids.

So yes, we are "evolved" to deal with wood smoke and radiation and etc. etc. The adaption is that it generally holds off killing us until after child rearing age.
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 13:54:02

pstarr asked the (intended to be rhetorical?) question: "how does a species adapt to something that causes cancer?"

You do know that oxygen is a carcinogen, right?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 14:52:19

dohboi wrote:pstarr asked the (intended to be rhetorical?) question: "how does a species adapt to something that causes cancer?"

You do know that oxygen is a carcinogen, right?

The study you reference (altitude connection) is tenuous. Higher elevation could just as easily benefit from increases ultraviolet radiation or gamma rays as reduced O2.

Try again :)
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26063
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Tue 08 Nov 2016, 18:46:58

pstarr wrote:
dissident wrote:The detail you are missing is that that the chemical profile of wood smoke is not the same as that of gasoline and diesel engine exhaust. Humans are adapted to the carcinogens in wood smoke but not from industrial and transport emissions. So your attempt to generalize is a total fail.

Talk about fail. 8O You just trapped yourself in a logical leghold. You have two choices diss: to chew your leg off or admit your mistakes.

hint: how does a species adapt to something that causes cancer? Would the tumor evolve into a useful appendage? And if humans have adapted (somehow) to one particular carcinogen, why not to another? Like radiation.


OK, smartass, let's see your infinite wisdom in action. Different organic (aka carbon containing, not health food store remedies) molecules have different chemical properties. The profile of organics from wood smoke is not the same as from IC engine exhaust. Period. All you one-parameter, silver-bullet "theoreticians" are full of shit. Fruit have formaldehyde which goes on to from formic acid, a carcinogen. Yet nobody runs around claiming fruit are bad for you. The key is that fruit has hundreds of other compounds that form a chemical system and affect humans and animals unlike formaldehyde would by itself. You can see this silver bullet retardation in the wiki page for aspertame. They fob off the risk from aspertame by invoking fruit. Using your smarmy approach, one could say that they have just "proven" that formaldehyde is harmless. Total and utter BS.

Wood smoke has phenols (which IC engine exhaust does not) and other compounds that act in concert together that limit the uptake of PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), the serious carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens. Studies conducted on smoked meats have demonstrated a low PAH uptake. This is fact number one.

Fact number two is that not all PAHs are really the same when it comes to their action inside animal cells. Evolution is clearly at play, since PAHs have been around in the environment since the beginning from biomass burning. Any organisms with a sensitivity to these PAHs (like the ones in wood smoke) would have been selected out over millions of years. Cellular machinery involves complex molecules and their enzyme-like interactions. PAHs disrupt these metabolic pathways, but there is enough slack (from the complexity of the organic compounds involved) that structural changes in the proteins and active sites on enzymes can reduce the impact of the ambient PAHs. But evolution can only occur through exposure and IC engine exhaust has not been an exposure factor for most of biological history and is a recent development.

To claim that we have not evolved to deal with the chemicals in wood smoke is simply absurd. By definition all stress factors that affect the chances for procreation and success induce an evolutionary response. This does not mean some spiral to god like characteristics, but it means that teratogens have had their effect on our DNA.

Now we come to the epic idiocy of comparing radiation to chemical damage. Jesus H. Christ is this a moronic comparison. In the case of chemicals such as PAHs, there can be structural adjustment to reduce their impact. In the case of simple molecules and chemistry such adjustment is not possible without introducing new chemical factors. But for complex organics there is an extra degree of freedom. Radiation damage is like a shotgun blast at the molecular level. Only in fantasy sci-fi mutations can some "shielding" be developed to minimize the damage. But even in the case of radiation, there has been evolutionary adjustment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

PAHs clearly are more effective at disrupting cellular metabolism than the random damage from radiation. But our resistance to wood smoke proves that we have adapted to them too.

(To all you twits who love to wave off anything you don't like: why did the US aboriginals who lived in tipis with open fires vented out the top not all die from cancer and have serious birth defects? This was serious amount of wood smoke exposure.)
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 15 Nov 2016, 05:46:08

Cancer Pandemic: Reaping the Seeds of Nuke Tests
The warnings about fallout from nuclear tests six decades ago often noted that cancers from the radiation would probably not begin appearing in large numbers for many years. But that time is now – and medical experts are wondering whether the surge in some cancers is a result.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission doused the entire United States with thyroid cancer-causing iodine-131 — and 300 other radioisotopes — by exploding atomic and hydrogen bombs above ground. To protect the dirty, secretive, militarized bomb-building industry, the government chose to warn the photographic film industry about the radioactive fallout patterns, but not the general public.

In 1951, the Eastman Kodak Company had threatened a federal lawsuit over the nuclear fallout that was fogging its bulk film shipments. Film was not packed in bubble wrap then, but in corn stalks that were sometimes being fallout-contaminated.

By agreeing to warn Kodak, etc., the AEC and the bomb program avoided the public uproar — and the bomb testing program’s possible cancellation — that a lawsuit would have precipitated. The settlement kept the deadliness of the fallout hidden from farmers and the public, even though the government well knew that fallout endangered all the people it was supposed to be defending.

This staggering revelation was heralded on Sept. 30, 1997, in the New York Times headline, “U.S. Warned Film Plants, Not Public, About Nuclear Fallout.” The article began, “While the Government reassured the public that there was no health threat from atmospheric nuclear tests…” The fallout’s radioactive iodine-131 delivered thyroid doses to virtually all 160 million people in the U.S. at the time.

According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland, which discovered the cover-up, children were especially affected and received higher doses because they generally consumed more milk than adults and since their thyroids are smaller and growing more rapidly. The “milk pathway” moves radioiodine from grass, to cows, to milk with extreme efficiency — a fact known to the government as early as 1951.

Ingested iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid gland where it can cause cancer. Average doses to children averaged between 6 and 14 rad, with some as high as 112 rad. Prior to 1997, the government claimed that thyroid doses to children were 15 to 70 times less.

The National Cancer Institute disclosed in 1997 that some 75,000 thyroid cancer cases can be expected in the U.S. from just 90 — out of a total of 235 — above-ground bomb tests and that 10 percent of them will be fatal. That year, the NCI said, about 70 percent of the thyroid cancers caused by iodine-131 fallout from those 90 tests had not yet been diagnosed but would appear years or decades later.

The 14-year NCI study also said the 90 bomb blasts produced more than 100 times the radioactive iodine-131 than the government had earlier claimed. The NCI estimated that they dispersed “about 150 million curies of iodine-131, mainly in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957.”

The study reported that all 160 million people in the country at the time were exposed to the iodine-131 (the only isotope out of more than 300 that were dispersed by the bomb blasts that it studied). Children under 15, like Steve O’Neil and all the Baby Boomers, were particularly at risk. High doses of fallout were spread nation-wide. Wind patterns and local rainfall caused “hot spots” from Montana and Idaho to South Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri and beyond.

he National Cancer Institute’s 1997 study said about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed in the U.S. annually, and that 1,230 would die from the disease. This estimate turned out to be a gross under-statement.

Today the NCI reports that 60,220 new cases of thyroid cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. this year, and that 1,850 of them will be fatal. The thyroid cancer “balloon” is with us because the nuclear weapons complex under Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy attacked the very people it was said to be defending. Yet, it gets worse.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation says that iodine-131 doses comprise only two percent of the overall radiation dose from weapons testing. Ninety-eight percent of our fallout dose is from 300 other isotopes produced by the Bomb.

It is not idle speculation to suggest that the cancer pandemic afflicting the people of the U.S. has been caused by our own government’s deliberately secret and viciously reckless weapons program.

link


According to the National Cancer Institute in 1992, about 150 million curies of radioactive iodine was released in open air from nuclear testing in Nevada, causing heavy contamination of the nation's milk supplies from the early 1950's to the early 1960's. This is more than 20 times the amount estimated to have been released by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. At the time of open air testing, millions of children were drinking this contaminated milk. In the early 1950's when radioactive fallout was over-exposing film in cardboard made with contaminated straw, the Eastman Kodak company secretly complained and was given routine warnings by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The public was never warned by the U.S. government about the dangers of consuming milk it was contaminating in its quest to amass a nuclear arsenal.

After the ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established "Protective Action Guides" for Iodine-131 that triggered removal of dairy products from human consumption following nuclear accidents. Had these limits been in place during the open air nuclear testing in the 1950's and early 1960's, the NCI study indicates that milk supplies would have had to be removed from the markets for months at a time. The NCI admitted in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 1998, after an investigation by the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, that it suppressed this study for 5 years. The NCI also conceded this may have caused as many as 212,000 excess thyroid cancers.

link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 15 Nov 2016, 05:57:33

Strontium-90 is concentrated in milk and has a half-life of over 30 years. These particles just don't go away, they are concentrated in bone, substituted for calcium, and affect the bone marrow.(blood cell production)

If a limited nuclear war happened between 1951 and 1962, and the largest number of detonations occurred in the last 5 years resulting in a total 390 nuclear blasts, 205 in the US, you would be far more concerned.

The fact that they occurred "peacefully" makes no difference.


The byproducts of these blasts reached the stratosphere and dispersed globally raining down fallout for years afterwards.

It has existed in the dust you inhale ever since. Some isotopes have half-lives measured in millions of years. On human-scale terms, forever.

Bioaccumulation happened in water, sediments, fish, waterfowl; it accumulated on grasses, ingested by cows and goats, concentrated in their milk and and made it to your grocery shelf.

The US decided in 1963 it would be too costly to the economy to try to prevent the milk from reaching your refrigerator.

6.16 As to long-lived radionuclides such as strontium-90 the Council notes that processes for the removal of radionuclides from milk developed jointly by the Department of Agriculture, the Public Health Service, and the Atomic Energy Commission are now being evaluated for the feasibility of full-scale production for possible use in an emergency.

6.17 However, in the Council's judgment, major national programs directed at removing strontium-90 from food supplies would not contribute to the national welfare. Even if the strontium-90 levels in human bone reached those corresponding to the Radiation Protection Guide, the removal of strontium-90 from foods would not necessarily be in the best interests of the nation.

The Council would have to consider whether the health risk would be great enough to justify the total impact of such a program on the economy and the necessary allocation of national resources
in relation to the health benefits that might be achieved through feasible reduction in strontium-90 intake.

link

And the electability of certain Congressmen and Senators should the public be informed.

All casualties of this 'peaceful' nuclear war are the result of late and early expression cancers. The ones dying now are the late ones.

Remember all those bald headed children in the commercials in the late 60's and 70's urging you to fight childhood leukemia? Those were the early expression cancer casualties.

All of those deaths shall not go unacknowledged.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 21 Nov 2016, 20:06:38

7.4 magnitude quake prompts tsunami warning for Fukushima

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ?CMP=fb_us

How bad could this get?

The feed says:
2h ago Fukishima cooling system has stopped operating


but it also says the tsunami warning was downgraded 30 minutes ago, but it doesn't say from what to what.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby clif » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 22:29:14

Highest radiation reading since 3/11 detected at Fukushima No. 1 reactor

The radiation level in the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant has reached a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour, the highest since the triple core meltdown in March 2011, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. said.

Tepco said on Thursday that the blazing radiation reading was taken near the entrance to the space just below the pressure vessel, which contains the reactor core.

The high figure indicates that some of the melted fuel that escaped the pressure vessel is nearby.

At 530 sieverts, a person could die from even brief exposure, highlighting the difficulties ahead as the government and Tepco grope their way toward dismantling all three reactors crippled by the March 2011 disaster.


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/0 ... JScF7YrIUG

and they KNOW reactor number two melted down, they have pics of the hole under the reactor.

Tepco also announced that, based on its analysis of images taken by a remote-controlled camera, that there is a 2-meter hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. It also thinks part of the grating is warped.

The hole could have been caused when the fuel escaped the pressure vessel after the mega-quake and massive tsunami triggered a station blackout that crippled the plant’s ability to cool the reactors.


But don't worry they will fix it all IF THEY CAN;

The government and Tepco hope to locate the fuel and start removing it in 2021.


hope to locate the fuel????????

that certainly don't sound good.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 22:42:48

Some of it is congealed inside the reactor pressure vessel.

Some of it is congealed on the equipment below the reactor pressure vessel.

Some of it is burned through the walkway grating and fell to the concrete basemat inside the primary containment.

Whether some penetrated the primary containment and entered the secondary containment is still to be determined.

Whether any penetrated the concrete of the secondary containment and came into contact with the ground is still to be determined.

The actual situation needs to be determined before a decommissioning plan can be put into place.
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests