SUBHEAD: The elite fear rejection of atomic energy because it would crash the global economy relying on it for energy.
By Juan Wilson on 31 December 2013 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/12/its-time-for-shutdown.html)
Image above: Illustration by Victor Juhasz for Rolling Stone From (http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2729).
Today I received a comment this morning on an article A Brief Radiaition Spike on Kauai 12/27/13. That post has been the most widely read on this site in the four years of its existence (over 5,000 reads).
Mt response was as follows.
There are plenty of reasons to worry about elevated background low level radiation. As is commonly understood for regular "low level" radiation tests for mammograms; the diagnostics are more dangerous to health than the risk of the disease.
With Fukushima we are going to be dealing with ever increased levels widespread dispersal of low level (cesium and iodine) and high level (uranium, plutionium) radio activeelements. The former persist in the environment for centuries and the former for millennia.
More to the point, the failure of Tepco to get control of the continued dispersal of new radioactive elements into the atmosphere and ocean means the dispersal itself may not end for centuries or millennia.
The bottom line is that no radiation health professional has any way of knowing the long term risks to the biosphere from Fukushima (and other nuclear power plant failures). I work on the assumption that they are likely bad to current species of flora and fauna on the planet.
It seems to me that the industrial nations, along with their corporations and military don't want a panic. They fear rejection of atomic energy because it would crash the global economy relying on it for energy. They certainly don't want a collapse of the current electric grid dependent consumer economy.
I say FUCK THEM!
It's time a real cleanup and a worldwide shutdown!
Note: this is a followup to my response above:
.
Hey, Speculative Measures, thanks for your analysis.
By Juan Wilson on 31 December 2013 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/12/its-time-for-shutdown.html)
Image above: Illustration by Victor Juhasz for Rolling Stone From (http://eon3emfblog.net/?p=2729).
Today I received a comment this morning on an article A Brief Radiaition Spike on Kauai 12/27/13. That post has been the most widely read on this site in the four years of its existence (over 5,000 reads).
From Speculative Measures |
Mt response was as follows.
|
There are plenty of reasons to worry about elevated background low level radiation. As is commonly understood for regular "low level" radiation tests for mammograms; the diagnostics are more dangerous to health than the risk of the disease.
With Fukushima we are going to be dealing with ever increased levels widespread dispersal of low level (cesium and iodine) and high level (uranium, plutionium) radio activeelements. The former persist in the environment for centuries and the former for millennia.
More to the point, the failure of Tepco to get control of the continued dispersal of new radioactive elements into the atmosphere and ocean means the dispersal itself may not end for centuries or millennia.
The bottom line is that no radiation health professional has any way of knowing the long term risks to the biosphere from Fukushima (and other nuclear power plant failures). I work on the assumption that they are likely bad to current species of flora and fauna on the planet.
It seems to me that the industrial nations, along with their corporations and military don't want a panic. They fear rejection of atomic energy because it would crash the global economy relying on it for energy. They certainly don't want a collapse of the current electric grid dependent consumer economy.
I say FUCK THEM!
It's time a real cleanup and a worldwide shutdown!
Note: this is a followup to my response above:
|
Hey, Speculative Measures, thanks for your analysis.
4 comments :
Hi Juan,
Wow, never knew there'd be so much interest in the subject.
First a disclaimer: My comments represent my personal opinion and in no way are made in a professional capacity. In other words I am speaking on my own bahalf here and I'm not representing past or present employers, only myself.
"The bottom line is that no radiation health professional has any way of knowing the long term risks to the biosphere from Fukushima (and other nuclear power plant failures)."
While we do not know everything about Radiation exposure, it is very well studied and we do know A LOT about it. Muck like atomic physics, what we know vastly outweighs what we are not certain of. We can break exposure down into two broad categories: (we could also discuss
Acute (High) Exposures:
Acute meaning high dose rates in a short period of time. We know what happens at which exposure levels and can predict with accuracy what will happen to a small population size. We can even employ measures to enable someone to sustain higher exposure levels by having them ingest certain compounds that offset radiological damage mechanisms in the body. You may be away of the Potassium Iodine pills that protect a person's thyroid from a radioactive plume. NASA also pre-treats astronauts with compounds that create a greater concentration of hydrogen radicals in the body which is a useful countermeasure.
Low Level Exposure:
Low level radiation is controversial for a number of reasons.
1) Some folks want a nuclear free world and cite the threat of low level exposure as one reason to eliminate all things nuclear.
2) Low level effects are difficult to measure.
3) The body responds counter-intuitively to low level exposure.
I will touch on #2 & 3 since it's the source of most controversy.
Low levels effects are difficult to measure
We know for certainty that the chemical Benzene is a "known carcinogen" and repeated exposure to it will definitely increase cancer rates in a population. We know Benzene is present in Gasoline. A question for everyone reading this board is; How many people did you give cancer to by virtue of driving your car (and exhausting benzene) last week?
Imagine attempting to build a scientific study to ascertain the above - very difficult.
Many readers might say the amount of Benzene in fuel exhausted to the atmosphere are way below limits for occupation exposure and they would be correct. There are epidemiological studies that derived these occupational levels. However it is difficult to say with certainty that driving your car did NOT increase the cancer risk to any persons exposed. In short, it is difficult to "prove the negative" or to prove that something did not occur. It is the same with low level radiation studies.
Whenever I see some headline touting a new and dangerous low level radiation effect I am both curious and skeptical. Scores of times I have traced the study behind the headline and found in nearly every instance the conclusion is a postulation based an effect observed in a cell that is then extrapolated to an effect on the entire body. Alternatively I have seen the biological effects observed in high level acute exposures back calculated to to much lower exposures used as a basis to imply a low level effect.
The problem is our bodies do not respond holistically the same as a single cell responds, nor do low level exposures affect us the same way as high level exposures.
The body responds counter intuitively to low level exposure
In population study after population study there has been found to be a *positive* response to low level radiation exposure. In other words, general health (including cancers) has been shown to improve with an increase in radiation exposure. Before you run me off as some "industry shill" or covert agent for "the nuclear-industrial complex" wait a moment. I'm not saying it's all roses but there is a known, observable positive effect from low level exposure that includes decreased cancer rates and a more robust immunological system in recipients. This source summarizes much of what is known on the subject: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/
I know it’s considered heresy, but those studies are real and many. Think about it, life has evolved for ~3 billion years on a planet with plenty of naturally occurring background radiation. Much like exposure to sunlight, low level radiation exposures are not observably harmful in populations. In fact there is substantial evidence that shows otherwise. However, like too much sun exposure, too much radiation exposure can cause problems.
Fukushima has created real damage to the environment and to public health. But it has also created a bow-wave of fear mongering designed to sell newspapers or increase clicks. It saddens me that regular people are made to feel this anxiety just so a media outlet or political group can get attention. I certainly don't intimate that Fukushima is a good thing, but just keep that in mind when you hear headlines a wave a death on its way over from Japan.
The SM guy above is full of baloney. The best and brightest are pulled into a lull of grey matter in the ego trip of turning matter into energy.
Some low level radiation, like the potassium in our own bodies, is not particularly harmful, and repair mechanism seem to work. But no, the hormesis lie, is a lie. Here is some backup on that.
And internal radiation, cesium and don't forget the strontium, and of course the transuranic stuff is particular bad as heavy metals that also irradiate.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/hormesis-is-lie-radiation-that-does-not.html
Stock, you're casting aside 70 years of exhaustive peer reviewed science in favor of dubious blog entries.
Have you read any of the peer review studies on the subject? Which aspect of any of the studies do you find objectionable?
Many times people reject the reams of evidence on this topic simply because it runs counter to a preconceived mental construct. Galileo faced similar objections from the clergy when he dared postulate that the Earth was not the center of the Solar System. For some, radiation, particularly radiation associated with man-made activities can only be bad all the time. There are real safety and public health issues surrounding atomic testing, nuclear power and nuclear medicine. The simple fact that our bodies in most cases respond favorably at lower levels of exposure does not eliminate the host of other dangers associated with radioactivity and other nuclear issues. However when you argue against well clear evidence and established science you end up discrediting yourself and ultimately your cause.
The link to the research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/
Post a Comment