Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sat 29 Feb 2020, 16:43:25

Tanada wrote:Watch this as many times as necessary for you to understand what it means.

https://youtu.be/HB22cREdBqw
YouTube


The complete defamation of nuclear power in the west is something that could not have originated naturally. Basically nobody in the west aside from the Cold War era veterans was exposed to nuclear radiation from testing done in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The hate is all based on cheeseball shlock movies, the no safe dose lies, and fear of nuclear war. In other words, propaganda. I would not be surprised if some oil industry money was not involved in defaming nuclear power. It had the potential to substantially eat into oil consumption and that would be a no no. We know that the US and Canadian electrified urban rail networks and trolley bus systems were deliberately destroyed in an actual conspiracy to push diesel buses. This benefited big oil together with GM and friends. The same meddling was likely staged to poison public perceptions of nuclear power.

Chernobyl was not responsible for this.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sat 29 Feb 2020, 21:21:36

I've been watching the Fukushima situation unfold for the past 9 years and my reaction to the aftereffects can be adequately summed up as, "There now ... that wasn't so bad, was it?"

Where are the giant muto chicken babies crawling through the streets of Tokyo croaking, "Kill me ... kill me."?

Where are the corpses stacked like cordwood?

Why is pacific seafood still cheap and available in my local grocery? I thought the pacific was supposed to be dead.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby jedrider » Sat 29 Feb 2020, 22:31:07

diemos wrote:I've been watching the Fukushima situation unfold for the past 9 years and my reaction to the aftereffects can be adequately summed up as, "There now ... that wasn't so bad, was it?"

Where are the giant muto chicken babies crawling through the streets of Tokyo croaking, "Kill me ... kill me."?

Where are the corpses stacked like cordwood?

Why is pacific seafood still cheap and available in my local grocery? I thought the pacific was supposed to be dead.


There are still approximately 450 nuclear reactors left in the world. Are you sure it is Pacific seafood and not 'seafood' from a coastal farm that you're eating?
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3054
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 11:14:27

jedrider wrote:
diemos wrote:I've been watching the Fukushima situation unfold for the past 9 years and my reaction to the aftereffects can be adequately summed up as, "There now ... that wasn't so bad, was it?"

Where are the giant muto chicken babies crawling through the streets of Tokyo croaking, "Kill me ... kill me."?

Where are the corpses stacked like cordwood?

Why is pacific seafood still cheap and available in my local grocery? I thought the pacific was supposed to be dead.


There are still approximately 450 nuclear reactors left in the world. Are you sure it is Pacific seafood and not 'seafood' from a coastal farm that you're eating?


Is FUD the best you can do?
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/c ... gs-reports
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby shortonoil » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 11:45:06

Why is pacific seafood still cheap and available in my local grocery?


Because there is still enough stupid people remaining to eat it. Your chances of developing cancer are directly proportional to your life time radiation exposure. A mouthful of Fukushima irradiated tuna is not likely to increase your odds. The northern Pacific has now been so polluted with radioactive waste the only thing it will be growing in the future will be three eyed fish, and mold. Those radioactive waste accumulates in the food chain. The photo plankton of the northern Pacific has already fallen to almost nothing. You may already be dying from it; a liver cancer doesn't come with a label on it, "developed from a hot particle complements Fukushima "!
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 12:35:08

shortonoil wrote:
Why is pacific seafood still cheap and available in my local grocery?


Because there is still enough stupid people remaining to eat it. Your chances of developing cancer are directly proportional to your life time radiation exposure. A mouthful of Fukushima irradiated tuna is not likely to increase your odds. The northern Pacific has now been so polluted with radioactive waste the only thing it will be growing in the future will be three eyed fish, and mold. Those radioactive waste accumulates in the food chain. The photo plankton of the northern Pacific has already fallen to almost nothing. You may already be dying from it; a liver cancer doesn't come with a label on it, "developed from a hot particle complements Fukushima "!


I see your knowledge of radiation and dilution affects is limited. Sad to be you. Even sadder to welch on a bet but you do you.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 15:22:59

Anyone who claims the anti-nuclear hysteria in the west is rational is a moron or a malicious actor. France is being pressured by German green nutjobs that have forced the closure of nuclear power plants using the non-relevant Fukushima as a pretext, to also shut down its nuclear plants. These "green" nutjobs have resulted in Germany burning more coal which directly affects human mortality and not just CO2 emissions. I hope France does not bend to these freaks and proceeds to revamp its nuclear power plants with new generation designs.

Never take anyone spouting in public how they believe this and that. They have to prove it by their actions. And the self-anointed "greens" are moronic Luddites who would rather see the planet burn than have nuclear power do its job. Such rabid activists should be chucked on the pyre they light themselves.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 15:44:31

shortonoil wrote:Because there is still enough stupid people remaining to eat it. Your chances of developing cancer are directly proportional to your life time radiation exposure.


Lie. Many things cause cancer, radiation is just one of them. 5.5% per Sv excess mortality is the usual number quoted from the LNT model on top of the already 30% rate from all causes.

shortonoil wrote:A mouthful of Fukushima irradiated tuna is not likely to increase your odds. The northern Pacific has now been so polluted with radioactive waste the only thing it will be growing in the future will be three eyed fish, and mold.


Lie. The Cs-137 levels have been measured and they're smaller than they were during the atomic bomb testing era of the 60's. They've been going down ever since then with a tiny blip from Fukushima. The ocean did not die.

shortonoil wrote:Those radioactive waste accumulates in the food chain. The photo plankton of the northern Pacific has already fallen to almost nothing.


What accumulates in the food chain is Mercury which comes from burning coal. The body processes cesium through the same metabolic pathways as potassium so the Cs-137/K ratio will be the same in the fish as in the plankton as in the water. (I won't call this a flat out lie as bio-accumulation is complicated and depends on what element we're talking about.)

shortonoil wrote:You may already be dying from it; a liver cancer doesn't come with a label on it, "developed from a hot particle complements Fukushima "!


I am certain that I will die ... sooner or later ... of something or other. If it's cancer it won't come with a label that says, "the nitrates in your bacon" or "the red dye #2 in your M&Ms" or "the plane flight you took" or "a cosmic ray that passed through you" or "the chromium they dumped in your water supply". And so, whenever anyone gets cancer you're free to blame your favorite boogey-man for it and no one will be able to prove you wrong.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 12 Nov 2020, 19:28:21

Boston Dynamics’ Robot Dog is Now Sniffing Out Radiation Levels in Chernobyl

Boston Dynamics' iconic robot dog, Spot, has gained a new job: sniffing out toxic radiation levels at abandoned nuclear power plants near Chernobyl. He's currently being employed by UK researchers at the University of Bristol to measure radiation and help map out heat zones in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and surrounds.

Chernobyl's Exclusion Zone has long been a place of scientific fascination since the nuclear disaster of 1986 that rendered the city of Pripyat an irradiated ghost town.

In the decades since the accident, teams of scientists have visited the site to understand more about how nuclear radiation impacts genetics and the natural environment. It's also become a popular site for disaster tourists curious about the morbid nature of the incident.

Spot's job kicked off in late October, when it was sent into Pripyat to analyse the surrounds alongside a crew of other manned drones. The robot is designed to traverse rugged terrains and can use a 360 degree vision to map environments. Unlike humans, it also has a natural resistance to radiation, making it one of the few devices able to complete a task like this safely.

In addition to mapping the environments around Pripyat, Spot the robot dog will also be used to test how robotics react in extreme environments.


https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techands ... r-BB1aVn69
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4681
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 12 Nov 2020, 20:35:46

I'm curious as to why a robot made in the USA is being used by a UK team to collect information in the former USSR? Who is paying for it and what do they hope to find out?
I could see the Ukrainians hiring the US robot but how did the UK get involved? And to what end?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14071
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby jedrider » Thu 12 Nov 2020, 23:23:49

vtsnowedin wrote:I'm curious as to why a robot made in the USA is being used by a UK team to collect information in the former USSR? Who is paying for it and what do they hope to find out?
I could see the Ukrainians hiring the US robot but how did the UK get involved? And to what end?


Scientists usually cooperate independent of borders. They bring back information and knowledge helpful to their respective countries as well.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3054
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Fri 13 Nov 2020, 21:04:36

vtsnowedin wrote:I'm curious as to why a robot made in the USA is being used by a UK team to collect information in the former USSR? Who is paying for it and what do they hope to find out?
I could see the Ukrainians hiring the US robot but how did the UK get involved? And to what end?


Scientist who are interested in the environmental effects of nuclear accidents exist all over the world. They can either go to Chernobyl or Fukushima to do their work. They'll get equipment from wherever they can to do the work they want to do. The boston dynamics robots are excellent at navigating chaotic terrain which lets them easily enter and maneuver around buildings.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 18 Jun 2021, 22:32:12

New report, unfortunately behind a pay wall. Here is the teaser which is free to view.
Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accidentGenomics of radiation-induced damage

The potential adverse effects of exposures to radioactivity from nuclear accidents can include acute consequences such as radiation sickness, as well as long-term sequelae such as increased risk of cancer. There have been a few studies examining transgenerational risks of radiation exposure but the results have been inconclusive. Morton et al. analyzed papillary thyroid tumors, normal thyroid tissue, and blood from hundreds of survivors of the Chernobyl nuclear accident and compared them against those of unexposed patients. The findings offer insight into the process of radiation-induced carcinogenesis and characteristic patterns of DNA damage associated with environmental radiation exposure. In a separate study, Yeager et al. analyzed the genomes of 130 children and parents from families in which one or both parents had experienced gonadal radiation exposure related to the Chernobyl accident and the children were conceived between 1987 and 2002. Reassuringly, the authors did not find an increase in new germline mutations in this population.

Science, this issue p. eabg2538, p. 725
Abstract

Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation after the accident. Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987–2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs relative to the results of previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs, regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal [mean = 365 milligrays (mGy), range = 0 to 4080 mGy] or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0 to 550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation. Thus, we conclude that, over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact from transgenerational genetic effects.


Those with subscription or who are willing to purchase access can find the web page HERE!
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16740
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 19 Jun 2021, 15:33:00

Tanada wrote:New report, unfortunately behind a pay wall. Here is the teaser which is free to view.
Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident[b]Genomics of radiation-induced damage

Those with subscription or who are willing to purchase access can find the web page HERE!

Thanks for the reminders, over time, Tanada, to try to look at radiation rationally -- which far too many people don't.

As you point out over time, it CAN be handled and dealt with quite safely, re policies. But humans, short term thinkers re cost savings and thinking only of short term profits, often DON'T do what is needed to handle it safely. (Example, Japan, and the way they stored the radioactive waste in the reactor buildings, instead of safely encased in glass and stored somewhere else or buried in a deep, safe place).

Perspective and data are very much "things".

I used to worry just a bit about dental X-rays, since my mother did. Then I read a piece on the wall on the dentist's office one day, waiting on him to come and check my teeth. It pointed out that a dental X-ray (bitewing) causes roughly the exposure of a few hours in flight on an ordinary jet on a long trip. (Turns out that was a bit low -- but still significantly lower than ONE DAY of normal background radiation at sea level.)

Then I thought about how little you hear about jet pilots dying early from cancers likely induced by all their exposure to extra radiation, after a CAREER of spending over a THOUSAND hours a year at altitude, on average.

So that's round numbers, maybe 10,000ish dental X-rays of "extra" radiation. And I might get 50ish dental X-rays in my life (just sizing in big round numbers for a sense of scale).

A good reason to get a decent education, even if that means paying attention and doing the work in K-12, and maybe doing some additional reading / thinking, if college is financially impractical, is so simple thinking like the above is possible, to evaluate simple data in perspective.

https://www.dentistryforchildren.com/x- ... -colorado/

I did a quick internet search to verify and check my memory. Note that the first hit I found was an explanation suited for CHILDREN.

The state of adults in the US, re irrational fears, even when the science / statistics is objectively pointed out, doesn't say much for the supposedly "superior" Americans, re rationality.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10032
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 03 Aug 2022, 22:11:27

Radiation and human health – separating scientific facts from urban myths

This festive period Three Wise Women from the Faculty of Medicine will be giving us the gift of wisdom.

Our first is Professor Gerry Thomas, a leading authority on the health impacts of radiation, who tells us why we should focus on the facts.

I was born in the 1960s and grew up believing that the word ‘radiation’ meant something that was infinitely dangerous. Back then, we were led to believe that nuclear weapons would lead to the extinction of our species, and that to be bitten by a radioactive spider would confer supernatural powers! I was therefore sceptical about the use of nuclear power. It wasn’t until 1992, when I started to study the health effects of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986, that I began to question whether my understanding of the health effects of radiation came more from science fiction than scientific fact.

I have spent 21 years running the Chernobyl Tissue Bank in order that my research group, based at Imperial for the last 12 years, and others around the world, could have access to ethically sourced, high quality human samples to understand the mechanisms that underpin the development of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents.
Let’s start with some facts

We are a successful species inhabiting a naturally radioactive world and must have evolved protective mechanisms to deal with the effects of natural radiation – or we wouldn’t be here. All of us will be exposed to between 2 – 3mSv – millisievert is the unit for whole-body radiation dose – for each year of our life from our natural environment.

Individuals seem to accept the use of higher levels of radiation when they can associate it with a direct beneficial effect – such as the use of radiation in medical diagnostics and therapies, particularly cancer treatment. However, there appears to be less acceptance of the risk associated with any radiation level when the possibility of exposure to often much lower doses results from emissions from the nuclear industry.

So, where does our evidence come from?

Most of our understanding of the effect of radiation on health stems from epidemiological studies of history’s worst radiation incidents. This includes studies of the survivors of the atomic bombs that landed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1940s, to cohorts of workers who were exposed to radiation in the workplace, such as the radium dial painters in the early years of the 20th century – also known as the “Radium Girls”, and, more recently, the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Each of these is a slightly different scenario, involving different types of radiation and different routes of exposure – factors which we now know influence health effects.

Many things can affect our health; many agents in our environment can lead to the development of cancer. Compared with many other things, radiation is a pretty weak carcinogen, particularly at low doses. To put this into some context, there have been 17,803 cancers in the Japanese survivors of the 1945 atomic bombing, of which only 941 are attributable to radiation exposure.

The Chernobyl accident may well eventually result in a total of 16,000 excess thyroid cancer cases, of which only 1% would be predicted to be fatal. Although initial estimates predicted 4,000 excess cancer cases (other than thyroid cancer) in the cohorts that were involved in cleaning up the accident at Chernobyl, the data so far suggests that there have not been any that are attributable to the radiation.

Herein lies a problem

Our epidemiological evidence shows that the effect of radiation exposure on public health is dwarfed by the effects of everything else that affects our health. It is rather like looking for the needle in a haystack. Even in the largest studies, it has been difficult to produce good data to categorically show the health effects of radiation at individual doses below 100 mSv.

All toxins, including radiation, show a relationship between the dose to which we are exposed and the magnitude of their effect on health. Working out the dose delivered to a particular tissue in someone exposed to radiation is complicated and requires an understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. The physical half-life of a radioactive isotope determines how much radioactivity will be released over a period of time.
Tipping the balance

Our bodies exist in equilibrium with our environment; we are constantly taking in and releasing chemicals. The amount of time an individual chemical substance, such as a radioactive isotope, stays within our bodies is termed the biological half-life. This is governed by the chemistry of our bodily tissues – some of our tissues have developed biological pumps to concentrate particular chemical entities within a tissue and mechanisms to store complexes of these chemicals.

In general, where biological half-life is greater than physical half-life, the dose of radiation to a given tissue will be higher, and therefore the health effects are likely to be greater. The doses from the isotopes with longer physical half-lives are much lower than our unconscious biases would lead us to think. The dose from Caesium-137 isotope to 6 million residents living in the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was 10mSv over about 20 years – the same as a whole-body CT scan.

Radiation fears may be exaggerated

The health effects of low-dose radiation exposure have been exaggerated by some, and the resulting fear of radiation may be leading us to decide energy policy based on urban myths rather than scientific facts. There is evidence from Germany that ditching nuclear and increasing renewables results in an increase, not a decrease, in carbon emissions.

I think that propagation of opinion and belief rather than evidence-based science is becoming a serious issue for society – you only have to look at the effects of social media and pseudoscience on the uptake of the measles vaccine to see the potential societal effects. Misinterpretation of health risks related to radiation has potential planetary consequences. By rejecting nuclear power as a source of low-carbon energy, because of our lack of perspective on its real risk, we expose ourselves to the much greater health risks posed by climate change which threatens all life on this planet, not just our own species.

Professor Gerry Thomas is a Chair in Molecular Pathology at Imperial’s Department of Surgery and Cancer and Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank. She was awarded an OBE in 2019 for services to Science and Public Health.

Professor Gerry Thomas will be speaking at the next AHSC seminar on Wednesday 22 January 2020 at St Mary’s Hospital, titled: Challenging the myths and misconceptions of radiation

Imperial College London
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16740
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Doly » Thu 04 Aug 2022, 14:35:20

The boston dynamics robots are excellent at navigating chaotic terrain which lets them easily enter and maneuver around buildings.


I remember at the beginning of the Fukushima accident they sent a robot or two to look at the accident area, but it was still very problematic because high radiation wreaks havoc on electronics.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 04 Aug 2022, 15:31:44

Doly wrote:
The boston dynamics robots are excellent at navigating chaotic terrain which lets them easily enter and maneuver around buildings.


I remember at the beginning of the Fukushima accident they sent a robot or two to look at the accident area, but it was still very problematic because high radiation wreaks havoc on electronics.

Well they will just have to build some robots with shielded electronics to take it. Much easier then making humans radiation resistant.
And besides if you burn up your robo dog in a hot area all you have to do is call Boston Dynamics and send then a pile of cash and they will send you two replacements ASAP. No funeral or letters to parents needed.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14071
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron