Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby DrEvil » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:33 pm

Officials: “Trillions of becquerels of radioactive material still flowing into sea” at Fukushima — Map shows nuclear waste coming up from bottom of ocean far offshore — Japan TV Journalist: “Contaminated seawater will circulate around globe… disaster like a huge cloth expanding everyday”


This is why I'm not a fan of Enenews. They tend to get pretty hyperbolic. Trillions of becquerels sounds like a lot, but it isn't (relatively speaking). For instance, a quick trip to Wikipedia shows that Hiroshima is estimated to have produced 8 yottabecquerels (8×10^24, or: 8000000000000000000000000) which is several orders of magnitude more than "trillions" (8000000000000), and that was all concentrated in a relatively small area, while the radiation leaking into the ocean from Fukushima is diluted as it spreads.

It's bad, but not nearly as bad as Enenews make it out to be.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:37 pm

DrEvil » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:33 pm wrote:
Officials: “Trillions of becquerels of radioactive material still flowing into sea” at Fukushima — Map shows nuclear waste coming up from bottom of ocean far offshore — Japan TV Journalist: “Contaminated seawater will circulate around globe… disaster like a huge cloth expanding everyday”


This is why I'm not a fan of Enenews. They tend to get pretty hyperbolic. Trillions of becquerels sounds like a lot, but it isn't (relatively speaking). For instance, a quick trip to Wikipedia shows that Hiroshima is estimated to have produced 8 yottabecquerels (8×10^24, or: 8000000000000000000000000) which is several orders of magnitude more than "trillions" (8000000000000), and that was all concentrated in a relatively small area, while the radiation leaking into the ocean from Fukushima is diluted as it spreads.

It's bad, but not nearly as bad as Enenews make it out to be.


Yes, it's bad.
Hiroshima was a one off event.
Fukushima has been releasing (at least) this amount every day for the last four years and there is really no end in sight.

It should be noted that the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is seriously considering seriously upping the 'safe' limit for non-nuclear workers (i.e. the likes of you and me).

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation."

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0010

So, in future, you will have even less recourse to the law when the next dirty bomb goes pop in your backyard.

That fallout, it's good for you, drink it up and wash it down with teh koolaid.

"The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off" ... to quote a fellow RI'er
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby hanshan » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:33 pm

...

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/


ABOUT THIS PROJECT

The world's oceans contain many of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes, as well as the remnants of nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s. Starting in 2011, fallout, runoff, and continued leaks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant added to this baseline and sparked fears of wide-ranging impacts to the marine ecosystem and human health. Despite concerns, there is no U.S. government agency monitoring the spread of low levels of radiation from Fukushima along the West Coast and around the Hawaiian Islands—even though levels are expected to rise over coming years.

Whether you agree with predictions that levels of radiation along the Pacific Coast of North America will be too low to be of human health concern or to impact fisheries and marine life, we can all agree that radiation should be monitored, and we are asking for your help to make that happen.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has both the experience and facilities to monitor and track the spread of radionuclides released from Fukushima in the waters of the Pacific Coast of North America. The Institution and the Center for Marine and Environmental Radiation (CMER) are uniquely equipped to provide consistent, accurate assessment of both natural and manmade radiation in marine samples and is hosting this site to make this information readily available to everyone in a timely manner.

- See more at: http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/#sth ... FY3ET.dpuf


All The Best, Scientifically Verified, Information on Fukushima Impacts

http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/01/all-the-best-scientifically-verified-information-on-fukushima-impacts/

wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

Linear no-threshold model


Alternative assumptions for the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose:
(A) supra-linearity, (B) linear
(C) linear-quadratic, (D) hormesis


The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a model used in radiation protection to quantify radiation exposition and set regulatory limits. It assumes that the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the dose. This allows the summation by dosimeters of all radiation exposure, without taking into consideration dose levels or dose rates.[1] In other words, radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure (response linearity).

One of the organizations for establishing recommendations on radiation protection guidelines internationally, the UNSCEAR, has recently recommended policies that do not agree with the Linear No-Threshold model at exposure levels below background levels of radiation to the UN General Assembly from the Fifty-Ninth Session of the Committee. Its recommendation states that "the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels." This is a reversal from previous recommendations by the same organization.[2]

Whether the model describes the reality for small-dose exposures is disputed. It opposes two competing schools of thought: the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the radiation hormesis model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial. Because the current data are inconclusive, scientists disagree on which model should be used. Pending any definitive answer to these questions and the precautionary principle, the model is sometimes used to quantify the cancerous effect of collective doses of low-level radioactive contaminations, even though such practice has been condemned by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.[3]

The LNT model is sometimes applied to other cancer hazards such as polychlorinated biphenyls in drinking water.[4]

Increased Risk of Solid Cancer with Dose for A-bomb survivors, from BEIR report.
The linear-no-threshold model was first expressed by John Gofman, and rejected by the Department of Energy, according to Gofman, because it was "inconvenient".[5]

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, NAS BEIR VII was an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature and writes, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses".[6]



...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby hanshan » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:58 pm

...

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/08/total-radiation-waste-dumped-into-our.html


this is a long article from nukepro
following is just an excerpt

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Total radiation waste dumped into our Oceans

this is in draft format for future build out of article, from"Grant Research"

http://www.trueactivist.com/toxic-time-bomb-abandoned-us-military-nuclear-dome-threatens-pacific-ocean/

She kindly provided a Google docs link to all the text below, it may be easier reading on the link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7PbzAzkdGjNZm5NbEpoX0lmdDA/view?usp=sharing



28 March 2011 The Radioactive Ocean Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/radioactive-ocean

Ocean Dumping

Governments world-wide were urged by the 1972 Stockholm Conference
[external link] to control the dumping of waste in "their oceans" by
implementing new laws. The United Nations met in London after this
recommendation to begin the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter [external link] which was
implemented in 1975. The International Maritime Organization was given
responsibility for this convention and a Protocol was finally adopted in 1996, a
major step in the regulation of ocean dumping.
Stockholm Conference http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1506&l=en
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/
LCLP/Documents/LC1972.pdf

The disposal of nuclear waste into the world’s oceans
By Patrick Kozakiewicz January 27, 2014 http://www.cbrneportal.com/thedisposal-
of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/

Humans have been altering the oceans for millennia. Up till now, five critical
environmental issues have affected the oceans: over-fishing, chemical
pollution and eutrophicaion, habit destruction, invasion of alien species and
global climate change. However, one of the major threats the oceans may
face in the twenty-first century is radioactive pollution.

The Wall St. Journal has recently claimed that plutonium levels are 1,000
times above normal on the seafloor 50 miles from San Francisco where
50,000 containers of radioactive waste lay at the bottom of the seafloor after
steel barrels of nuclear material were disposed of a few decades ago. They
also claimed this is globally significant and is impacting the ecosystem. This
is a first study of this kind.
After World War II, for many decades, the nuclear industries used the oceans
as a dumping ground. It was only two decades ago that dumping from ships
was internationally banned.

From 1946 through 1993, thirteen nuclear capable countries used the ocean
as an ends to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste. The waste materials
included industrial, medical and weapons, both liquids and solids housed in
various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or
damaged nuclear fuel.

The United States alone dumped vast quantities of nuclear material off its
coasts between 1946 and 1970—more than 110,000 containers. More
specifically, for up to 15 years after World War II, the USS Calhoun County
dumped thousands of tons of radioactive waste into the Atlantic Ocean, often
without heeding the simplest health precautions. In order to make sure the
waste-containing drums sank, the sailors would sometimes shoot them with
rifles. On top of that in the Pacific, there is an estimated 47,000 containers
which lie at the bottom of the ocean floor near San Francisco and Japan has
also disposed of a magnitude of radioactive waste into the ocean.
Russia, on the other hand, dumped some 17,000 containers of radioactive
waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including
five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively
contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two
reactors loaded with nuclear fuel. The K-27 sank in 1989 and is currently
resting on the floor of the Barents Sea, one mile deep, with its nuclear reactor
and two nuclear warheads. In total, there are now 6 nuclear submarines lying
at the bottom of the Oceans, lost as a result of failure – 4 Russian and 2
American.

In Europe alone, some 28,500 containers of radioactive waste were dropped
into the English Channel between 1950 and 1963 by European states, some
of which are being now discovered to have leaks. In addition, lots of
radioactive waste was disposed of off the coast of Japan and in the South
Korean Sea. In all honesty, every nuclear nation, to some extent or another,
could be possibly linked to the dumping of radioactive waste, and, most of
them to that of the oceans. Collectively the known containers from Europe, let
alone the rest of the world, translate to hundreds of thousands of tons of
radioactive waste. It is like having a tooth x-ray every time you enter your
bath – and yet that is too much.

While in Europe waste was all supposed to be disposed of in waters at least
4,000 meters deep, many of the ship log documents are inaccurate or are left,
“incomplete or unknown” in the location of the dump, sometimes dumped
even in water only 100 meters deep and only miles away from the coast.
Also, the captain’s main concerns were the safety of the crew not about the
exact location of the dump. The barrels of waste were radioactive and the
crew was getting radioactive doses. Therefore, once the radioactive safe
zone timer was up, the crew just dumped the barrels regardless of location.

The issue here is how one checks the current radioactive leakages and levels
of the waste if the locations are unknown.

NCT CBRNe Asia

It wasn’t until 1993 that nuclear and radioactive ocean disposal had been fully
banned and ratified by international treaties. (London Convention, Basel
Convention, MARPOL). Beyond technical and political considerations, the
London Convention places prohibitions on disposing of radioactive materials
at sea and does not make a distinction between wastes dumped directly into
the water and waste that is buried underneath the ocean’s floor. It also does
not exclude dumping radioactive waste through pipelines, which companies in
Europe are actually doing. Some claim that populations of humans located
near these pipelines are 10 times more likely to die of cancers. While others
state the risks are insignificant.
It seems that the general consensus is that storing radioactive waste in the
ocean is harmful to the organisms that inhabit the ocean and to humans as
well due to radiation and in addition it is a rather expensive process. Poor
insulation of the containers, leaks, volcanic activity, tectonic plate movement,
limited locations, and several other factors prove that storing radioactive
waste in the oceans has a potential of becoming a catastrophe. Yet for some,
it is more practical than alternatives such as storing it on land or launching
rockets off towards the sun.

Nevertheless, many argue that ocean-based approaches to the disposal of
nuclear waste have significant advantages. First, disposing waste at the
bottom of the ocean is hard for terrorists, rebels, or criminals to steal for use
in radiological weapons or in nuclear bombs. The world’s oceans also have a
vastly greater dilutive capacity than any single land site in the event of
unintended leaks.

In the US for example, Federal officials have long maintained that, despite
some leakage from containers, there isn’t evidence of damage to the wider
ocean environment or threats to public health. The Wall Street Journal review
of decades of federal and other records has found many unanswered
questions and evidence which proves otherwise. It is also well documented
by the scientific community, that even lose doses of radioactive exposer can
increase the rates of cancers. However, more specifically, endocrine disruptor
in form of radioactivity can cause cancer in the same manner, as it can cure
cancer.

The 1993 Treaty remains in force up until 2018, after which the sub-seabed
disposal option can be revisited, creating new opportunities for nuclear waste
disposal and a more potentially radioactively ocean. Companies are already
writing up plans to convince the public and governments about the
importance and safety of ocean-floor disposals.

Back then, and even now, many believed the ocean is fair game when it
comes to radioactive waste. Especially since the impact of radioactivity on
human health was largely underestimated. Fortunately the case is not the
same today. While radioactive and nuclear waste is no longer disposed from
ships into the oceans, great risks still remain.

Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the
Ocean
Posted on September 18, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog (Multiple in text links to
sources in online article) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/russiadumped-
19-radioactive-ships-plus-14-nuclear-reactors-into-the-ocean.html

Government Dumping of Nuclear Waste Still Poses a Threat … Decades
Later

Governments – including both Russia and the United States – have been
covering up nuclear meltdowns for 50 years and covering up the dangers of
radiation for 67 years.
Governments have also covered up dumping of nuclear waste in the ocean.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency notes, 13 countries used ocean
dumping to “dispose” of radioactive waste between 1946 and 1993.
Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by agreement through a
number of international treaties, including the London Convention of 1972,
the Basel Convention, and MARPOL 73/78.

Wikipedia notes:

According to the United Nations, some companies have been dumping
radioactive waste and other hazardous materials into the coastal waters of
Somalia [well after the treaties were signed], taking advantage of the fact that
the country has had no functioning government from the early 1990s
onwards. This has caused health problems for locals in the coastal region
and poses a significant danger to Somalia’s fishing industry and local marine
life.
Wikipedia also provides a breakdown by region:
[North Atlantic] 78% of dumping at Atlantic Ocean is done by UK
(35,088TBq), followed by Switzerland (4,419TBq), USA (2,924TBq) and
Belgium (2,120TBq). Sunken USSR nuclear submarines are not included.
***


...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby hanshan » Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:42 pm

...

again, from nukepro:

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-current-pretty-safe-rule-on.html

the link for the pdf isn't formatted correctly
(see pdf for graphs)

http://www.ianfairlie.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/US-NRC-Consultation-4-1.pdf


Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Current Pretty SAfe Rule on Radiation Protection (LNT) Versus the Lying Hormesis (Radiation is Good for You) Theory

Doctor Fairlie says nay one can use any part of this in response to NRC's push to make "radiation safe and beneficial for you", as long as you give him a citation.

Sorry for the horrible formatting, it was copied from a PDF.
http://www.ianfairlie.org/wp-content/up ... on-4-1.pdf


Dr Ian Fairlie
Consultant on Radioactivity in the Environment
LONDON
United Kingdom
http://www.ianfairlie.org
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Consultation
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... -radiation

Introduction

On June 26 2015, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated it was seeking public comments by September 8, on petitions stating that the Linear No Threshold theory of radiation’s effects was not a valid basis for setting radiation standards and that the hormesis model should be used instead.

In more detail, the NRC has received three petitions for rulemaking requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the hormesis model. (See the Appendix for details of the petitions.)

The LNT model assumes that biological damage from radiation is linearly related to exposure and is always harmful, ie without a threshold. The hormesis model assumes that exposures to low radiation levels is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation.

The NRC has stated it is examining these petitions to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking and is requesting public comments. US environmental groups are concerned that, if the NRC agreed with the petitions, it would introduce rules to weaken radiation protection standards at US nuclear facilities. On the other hand, according to two NRC staffers (Brock and Sherbini, 2012), the NRC apparently pays attention to the evidence on risks of low levels of radiation. See references at end.

Comments on Hormesis

It is true that some cell and animal experiments indicate that if small amounts of radiation were administered before later larger amounts, the damage done is less than if no previous small amount were given. (The word “tickle” is used in radiobiology lingo to denote such small amounts.) On the other hand, other cell and animal studies using different doses, durations and endpoints fail to show this effect, and there is no human evidence, ie from epidemiology. But it is true that some evidence from chemistry indicates the same effect, and there is some theoretical support for an adaptive effect in animals and plants. 2

Hormesis advocates typically argue that although radiation attacks DNA and causes mutations, DNA repair mechanisms quickly correct these. These mechanisms are certainly numerous and busy – it is estimated over 15,000 repairs per hour are carried out in each cell – but from the sheer number of repairs, many misrepairs occur and it is the misrepairs that cause the damage.

But even if the existence of hormesis were accepted, the question remains – what relevance would it have for radiation protection? The answer- as stated repeatedly in official reports by UNSCEAR and BEIR etc - is zero.

For example, do we give “tickle” doses to people about to undergo
radiation therapy, or to nuclear workers? Of course, we don’t.
And what about background radiation? All of us receive small “tickle” doses of radiation – about 3 mSv per year of which about 1 mSv is from external gamma radiation. Do these somehow protect us from subsequent radiation? How would we notice? And if it did, so what? That is, what relevance would it have for radiation protection, eg setting radiation standards? The answer is again ….none. Indeed, as we show below, increasing evidence exists that even background radiation itself is harmful.

Comments on LNT

On the other hand, the scientific evidence for the LNT is plentiful, powerful and persuasive. It comes from epidemiological studies, radiobiological evidence, and official reports. Let’s examine these in turn.

A. Epidemiological Studies

Does the available epidemiological evidence show risks declining linearly with dose at low doses? Yes, recent epidemiology studies do indeed show this, and the important new points are that these are (a) very large studies with good confidence intervals, and (b) at very low doses, even down to background levels. In other words, the usual caveats about the validity of the linear shape of the dose response relationship down to low doses are unjustified.

The most recent evidence is from a particularly powerful study by Leuraud et al (2015) which shows linearly-related risks down to very low levels (average dose rate = 1.1 mGy per year). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanha ... 0/fulltext The main findings from the Leuraud study are shown in graph 1. 3

Graph 1

Two interesting things about this study are that 5 of the 13 authors are from US scientific institutes, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, University of North Carolina, and Drexel University School of Public Health. Also that the study was funded by many international agencies, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Energy, and the US Department of Health and Human Service.

It is legitimate to ask whether the NRC is in contact with these official US agencies about its consultation.


The Leuraud et al study is merely the latest of many studies providing good evidence for the LNT model. Second is the Zablotska study after Chernobyl. Graph 2 below, reproduced from Zablotska et al (2012), shows statistically significant risks for all leukemias and for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in over 110,000 Chernobyl cleanup workers. It can also be seen that there are 6 data points showing increased risks below 100 mSv - a commonly cited cut-off point. 4

Graph 2

Third is the very recent cohort study of radiation exposures from medical CT scans in the UK by Pearce et al (2012). 74 out of 178,604 patients diagnosed with leukaemia and 135 out of 176,587 patients diagnosed with brain tumours were analyzed. As shown in graph 3 reproduced from their study, the authors noted a positive association between radiation doses from CT scans and leukaemia and brain tumours .The large dashed line showed a linear fit to the data with a 95% confidence interval shown by small dashed lines.

Graph 3 5

Fourth are the risks from background radiation – yes, even from background radiation. Kendall et al in 2012 conducted a large UK record-based case–control study testing associations between childhood cancer and natural background radiation with over 27,000 cases and 37,000 controls. Surprisingly, they observed an elevated risk of childhood leukaemia with cumulative red bone marrow dose from natural background gamma radiation. See the similar findings in a very recent study by Spycher et al (2015) discussed on page 10 below.

In graph 4 below reproduced from the Kendall et al study, the x-axis represents cumulative gamma ray doses in mGy. The red line shows not merely a linear but a slightly supralinear curve fitted to the data. The small dotted lines mark a 95% confidence interval.

Graph 4

Fifth is the final analysis of the UK National Registry for Radiation Workers (NRRW). This study of observed 11,000 cancer cases and 8,000 cancer deaths in 175,000 UK radiation workers with an average individual cumulative dose of 25 mSv and an average follow-up of 22 years. Graph 5 reproduced from the study shows the relative risks for all solid cancers with the continuous blue line representing the NRRW data, and the continuous red line the results from the US BEIR VII report for comparison – the two are very similar, as can be seen. An estimated ERR of 0.27 per Sv can be derived from this graph. 6

Graph 5

Sixth is the meta-analysis of 13 European studies in 9 EU countries on indoor radon exposure risks by Darby et al (2005). This examined lung cancer risks at measured residential Rn concentrations with over 7,000 cases of lung cancer and 14,000 controls. The action level for indoor radon in most EU countries is 200 Bq per m3, corresponding to about 10 mSv per year. (This is derived from a UNSCEAR (2000) reference value of 9 nSv per Bq·h/m3. This means that people living 2/3rds of their time indoors (5,780 h/year) at a Rn concentration of 200 Bq/m3 would receive an effective dose of ~10 mSv/year. Graph 6 reproduced from the study shows elevated risks at concentrations well below this level. The solid line is the authors’ linear fit to the data. 7

Graph 6

No evidence below 100 mSv?
It is necessary at this point to directly address the argument often raised by hormesis advocates – that there is little evidence of effects below 100 mSv. This is incorrect. Older evidence exists -see http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-100-ms ... n-effects/ for a list of studies and the newer evidence, as we have just seen, clearly shows this fact as well.

B. Radiobiological Evidence

Current radiobiological theory is consistent with a linear dose-response relationship down to low doses (ie below ~10 mSv).
The radiobiological rationale for linearity comes from the stochastic nature of energy deposition of ionising radiation. It was explained by 15 of the world’s most eminent radiation biologists and epidemiologists in a famous article (Brenner et al, 2003) as follows:

“1. Direct epidemiological evidence demonstrates that an organ dose of 10 mGy of diagnostic x-rays is associated with an increase in cancer risk.

2. At an organ dose of 10 mGy of diagnostic x-rays, most irradiated cell nuclei will be traversed by one or, at most, a few physically distant electron tracks. Being so physically distant, it is very unlikely that these few electron tracks could produce DNA damage in some joint, cooperative way; rather, these electron tracks will act independently to produce stochastic damage and consequent cellular changes.

3. Decreasing the dose, say by a factor of 10, will simply result in proportionately fewer electron tracks and fewer hit cells. It follows that those fewer cells that are hit at the lower dose will be subject to (i) the same types of electron damage and (ii) the same radiobiological processes as would occur at 10 mGy. 8

4. Thus, decreasing the number of damaged cells by a factor of 10 would be expected to decrease the biological response by the same factor of 10; i.e., the response would decrease linearly with decreasing dose. One could not expect qualitatively different biological processes to be active at, say, 1 mGy that were not active at 10 mGy, or vice versa. The argument suggests that the risk of most radiation -induced endpoints will decrease linearly, without a threshold, from ~10 mGy down to arbitrarily low doses.”

C. Official Reports

Both types of evidence (epidemiology and radiobiology) have been examined in 4 international official reviews: UNSCEAR (2008), US NCRP Report No 136 (2001), US BEIR VII (2006) and ICRP 99 (2006). These reports confirmed the LNT as being the most prudent assumption for radiation protection purposes.

For example in 2006, the chair of BEIR VII, Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston stated "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial". http://hps.org/documents/BEIRVIIPressRelease.pdf

Recently, the US-based scientist Mark Little and his colleagues (Little et al, 2009) examined the matter in considerable detail. They discussed (i) the degree of curvature in the cancer dose response within the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and other groups, (ii) the consistency of risks between the Japanese and other low-dose cohorts, and (iii) biological data on mechanisms. They concluded linearity was the best bet.

Also in 2009, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation section reviewed the matter in an influential article (Puskin, 2009). He stated “Although recent radiobiological findings indicate novel damage and repair processes at low doses, LNT is supported by data from both epidemiology and radiobiology. Given the current state of the science, the consensus positions of key scientific and governmental bodies, as well as the conservatism and calculational convenience of the LNT assumption, it is unlikely that EPA will modify this approach in the near future”.

The Importance of LNT in Radiation Protection

Regardless of dissenting views on LNT, the reality is that most concepts used in radiation protection today are fundamentally based on the LNT theory. For example, LNT underpins the concepts of absorbed dose, effective dose, committed dose, and the use of dose coefficients (ie Sv per Bq of a radionuclide). It also allows radiation doses (i) to be averaged within an organ or tissue, (ii) to be added from different organs, and (iii) to be added over time.

LNT also permits annual dose limits; optimization -ie comparison of practices; radiation risk assessment at low and very low doses; individual dosimetry with passive detectors; collective dose, and dose registers over long periods of time. 9

In fact, the LNT underpins all legal regulations in radiation protection in the US and in the rest of the world. Indeed, if the LNT were not used, it’s hard to imagine our current radiation protection systems existing at all. However this statement should not be misconstrued to mean that the LNT is used just because it’s convenient: the LNT is used because the scientific evidence for it is comprehensive, cogent and compelling.


Statistical Significance

It is necessary to discuss the vexed issue of statistical significance, as hormesis advocates (eg http://atomicinsights.com/leukemia-and- ... d-by-sari/) often dismiss studies stating they show “no significantly” raised risks at low levels, or that excess risks are “not significant” at low levels, or similar phrases.

Let’s examine these phrases because they can mislead readers into incorrectly thinking that the reported increase is “unimportant” or “irrelevant”. The word “significant” is a specialist adjective used in statistical tests to convey the narrow meaning that the likelihood of an observation being a fluke is less than 5% (assuming a p = 5% test was used). It does not mean important or relevant.

Secondly, such phrases are often glibly used by hormesis advocates without explaining that the test level used is quite arbitrary. There is no scientific justification for using a 5% or any other test level: it is merely a matter of convenience. In other words, it is quite possible for results which are “not significant” when a 5% test is applied, will become “significant” when a 10% test is used. For this reason, good epidemiologists nowadays have stopped using the words “significant” or “significance” altogether. Instead they use confidence intervals: hormesis advocates should follow suit.

There is a third reason why these phrases shouldn’t be used. Scientifically speaking, it’s bad practice to dismiss results (or to imply this) just because they do not meet a statistical test. This is because the probability (ie p value) that an observed effect may be a fluke is affected by both magnitude of effect and size of study (Whitely and Ball, 2002). This means statistical tests must be cited with caution, as the use of an arbitrary cut-off point for statistical significance (often p = 5%) can lead to incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis - ie that there’s no effect (Sterne and Smith, 2001). This is called a type II error in statistics, and it often occurs in studies due to low numbers1 of observed cases (Everett et al, 1998) rather than lack of effect. In other words, the rejection of findings for statistical reasons can often hide real risks (Axelson, 2004; Whitley and Ball, 2002).

1 It should be borne in mind that low case numbers are not the fault of researchers but often due to the fact that many conditions are rare (eg child leukemia) and very large numbers of exposed people are needed to pick up the few observed cases.

So what should hormesis advocates do with a study having positive findings which do not meet their self-selected 5% test? First of all, they should NOT reject the findings. Instead they should report the observed increase and add there’s a greater than 5% possibility this could be a chance finding. And then they should discuss 10

whether their interpretation would change if a slightly less strict 10% test were chosen (as is increasingly used nowadays). And they should discuss the confidence interval so that readers can make up their own minds. For example, they could say that the relative risk was, say, 1.55 with a 90% confidence interval of 1.01 to 1.98. This would mean that the observed relative risk was 1.55 and that we are 90% sure that the real value lies between 1.01 and 1.98. The key point is that the loaded words “significant” or “significance” are therefore avoided.

Conclusions

(i) the debate

The validity or otherwise of LNT and hormesis have been the subject of hundreds of scientific articles and debates over several decades. Unfortunately, much of the literature on hormesis or adaptive response is based on faulty science or on misconceptions, or on misinterpretations, or on all three. This is particularly the case with several US and UK journalists who write with confidence on how radiation risks are exaggerated. Their knowledge and experience of radiogenic risks are limited to say the least, but these journalists, almost on a weekly basis, misinform and mislead the public about radiation risks, so the existence of the US petitions is perhaps unsurprising.

However real scientists are increasingly standing up and opposing the poor science used by hormesis advocates. Very recently, four Swiss scientists from the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Bern; the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel and the University of Basel published a study which revealed that exposure to high rates of background radiation resulted in increased cancer risks to children (Spycher et al, 2015). http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408548/

In reply, 17 scientists (Siegel et al, 2015) mostly from the US, some of whom were members of a hormesis pressure group “Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information” objected to these findings. They alleged that the government would have to evacuate children living in higher radiation areas and relocate them to lower radiation areas. They stated that studies like this should not be taken seriously without public health policy implications being examined. (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1510111/)

The Swiss scientists in turn responded (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1510111R/) that the proposed evacuation was “nonsensical” in view of the very low numbers involved. In a spirited rejoinder, they refuted the poor science cited and added that “the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information a priori exclude the possibility that low-dose radiation could increase the risk of cancer. They will therefore not accept studies that challenge their foregone conclusion”.
(ii) the petitions

After briefly examining the three US petitions, my conclusion is that they do not merit serious consideration. It seems that the petitioners, who may or may not have axes to grind about radiation risks, have seized on the possible phenomenon of hormesis 11

to make ill-considered claims that radiation is protective or even good for you. In other words, the petitions appear to be based on preconceptions, or even ideology, rather than the scientific evidence which points in the opposite direction.

The petitions should not be used by the NRC to justify weakening regulatory standards at US nuclear facilities. A question remains whether the NRC should have accepted the petitions for review. Presumably the NRC has discretion not to review or to refer back spurious, mischievous, or ill-founded petitions.

The NRC should seek guidance from the five US scientific agencies and Government departments mentioned above whose scientists have published evidence on the matter.


...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby zangtang » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:14 am

do we have any clarity on sailor johnny's claim that the whole ocean is 'dead',
or has he been safely neutralised because he's not actually a marine biologist?

I can almost see a massive campaign to hide a complete absence of fish, but er....
menus, resaurents, waiters, refrigerated trucks drivers, fishgutting factories, fish markets, trawler fleets, fishermen by the presumabubble thousands.......
hmmmn, tricky.

Has everyone on the west coast stopped eating fish because they dont believe what they're told.....yet?
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby DrEvil » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:18 am

smoking since 1879 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:37 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:33 pm wrote:
Officials: “Trillions of becquerels of radioactive material still flowing into sea” at Fukushima — Map shows nuclear waste coming up from bottom of ocean far offshore — Japan TV Journalist: “Contaminated seawater will circulate around globe… disaster like a huge cloth expanding everyday”


This is why I'm not a fan of Enenews. They tend to get pretty hyperbolic. Trillions of becquerels sounds like a lot, but it isn't (relatively speaking). For instance, a quick trip to Wikipedia shows that Hiroshima is estimated to have produced 8 yottabecquerels (8×10^24, or: 8000000000000000000000000) which is several orders of magnitude more than "trillions" (8000000000000), and that was all concentrated in a relatively small area, while the radiation leaking into the ocean from Fukushima is diluted as it spreads.

It's bad, but not nearly as bad as Enenews make it out to be.


Yes, it's bad.
Hiroshima was a one off event.
Fukushima has been releasing (at least) this amount every day for the last four years and there is really no end in sight.


Let's say Fukushima has produced 10 trillion becquerels every day for four years.
That's 10 trillion x 1460 days = 14600000000000000, which is still orders of magnitude less than what one small nuke produced.

Fukushima is a clusterf**k of epic proportions, but not nearly enough to wipe out 1/3 of the planet (the Pacific). If that was the case the French should have accomplished it years ago.

As I said, I think it's bad, I just don't think the kind of doom-porn coming out of sites like Enenews is very useful.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:46 am

DrEvil » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm wrote:
smoking since 1879 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:37 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:33 pm wrote:
Officials: “Trillions of becquerels of radioactive material still flowing into sea” at Fukushima — Map shows nuclear waste coming up from bottom of ocean far offshore — Japan TV Journalist: “Contaminated seawater will circulate around globe… disaster like a huge cloth expanding everyday”


This is why I'm not a fan of Enenews. They tend to get pretty hyperbolic. Trillions of becquerels sounds like a lot, but it isn't (relatively speaking). For instance, a quick trip to Wikipedia shows that Hiroshima is estimated to have produced 8 yottabecquerels (8×10^24, or: 8000000000000000000000000) which is several orders of magnitude more than "trillions" (8000000000000), and that was all concentrated in a relatively small area, while the radiation leaking into the ocean from Fukushima is diluted as it spreads.

It's bad, but not nearly as bad as Enenews make it out to be.


Yes, it's bad.
Hiroshima was a one off event.
Fukushima has been releasing (at least) this amount every day for the last four years and there is really no end in sight.


Let's say Fukushima has produced 10 trillion becquerels every day for four years.
That's 10 trillion x 1460 days = 14600000000000000, which is still orders of magnitude less than what one small nuke produced.

Fukushima is a clusterf**k of epic proportions, but not nearly enough to wipe out 1/3 of the planet (the Pacific). If that was the case the French should have accomplished it years ago.

As I said, I think it's bad, I just don't think the kind of doom-porn coming out of sites like Enenews is very useful.



I'd agree to some degree about your enenews point, they do rather hype things somewhat.

I can't fault your math, but regarding the 8 yottabecquerels figure, wikipedia gets that number from here:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=CJqcq2C792UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

from the book:
Screen Shot 2015-08-23 at 17.28.19.png


I must say that I have to doubt the claimed figures.
8x10^24 for Hiroshima (one small nuke) compared to 5x10^15 of years and years of above ground testing (with devices far more powerful) seems absurd to me.
[EDIT: oops, the second figure is only for carbon... ho hum, must learn to read...]

As to whether Fukushima is sufficient to wipe out the Pacific, I suppose time will tell, although I'm very pessimistic .
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby Twyla LaSarc » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:47 pm

Thanks for the quote still smoking. :)

I think anymore that sig is to remind myself of what is going on and continues. Nothing like a reminder to never inhale the dust in one's house too deeply if one can at all help it.

Is any of fukushima still leaking out into the air? That tends to come down with rain and concentrate in fresh water supplies.
“The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off”
User avatar
Twyla LaSarc
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: On the 8th hole
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:19 pm

Twyla LaSarc » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:47 pm wrote:Thanks for the quote still smoking. :)

I think anymore that sig is to remind myself of what is going on and continues. Nothing like a reminder to never inhale the dust in one's house too deeply if one can at all help it.

Is any of fukushima still leaking out into the air? That tends to come down with rain and concentrate in fresh water supplies.



You're welcome :) one of my favourites that is :)

"Is any of fukushima still leaking out into the air?"

Hmm.. There's three lost corium in those wrecked buildings and every reason to think they might still be fissioning so my guess is yes, it probably is.

I'd recommend this chap's blog. https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/
He's been keeping an eye on jet stream patterns and official radiation monitoring stations, had rainwater and lichen tested in a lab. It appears our gracious overlords might be messing with the rad monitors so as not to frighten the horses, dropping out readings when there are spikes.

There's also a bunch of peeps who monitor the Tepco webcams and they claim there are ongoing emissions.

It must be said that the Pacific will also be suffering from all the other junk that washed out of Japan that day.
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:24 am

"NOAA Fisheries has declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for large whale strandings in the Western Gulf of Alaska. The event began in May 2015 and strandings remain elevated."

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/faqs_2015_large_whale.html

Connected or not?

Admittedly, the kids have been playing cowboys n indians up that way, so it might be their new toys upsetting our whale friends.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/15/upcoming-alaska-navy-training-exercises-prompt-protest-plans/27358363/

just ... one... more... straw...

EDIT: seems everyone is at it these days. poor Alaska :(
http://www.voanews.com/content/ap-russia-launches-massive-arctic-military-drills/2681533.html
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:33 am

SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
The Fukushima Fix
by ROBERT HUNZIKER

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was briefed on the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant as he toured the facility back on Sept. 19, 2013. chief Akira Ono (4th L) in front of two tanks (back) which are being dismantled after leaking contaminated water, during his tour to the tsunami-crippled plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan on September 19, 2013. Abe told Fukushima's operator to fix radioactive water leaks as he toured the crippled nuclear plant on September 19, less than two weeks after assuring the world the situation was under control. AFP PHOTO / Japan Pool JAPAN OUT (Photo credit should read JAPAN POOL/AFP/Getty Images)

Japan’s Abe government claims portions of Fukushima Prefecture (original population 2 million) are safe for habitation, radioactivity is acceptable; whereas scientific data by third-party NGOs indicates otherwise, stay away!

PM Abe’s specific maneuvers towards rehabilitation give the appearance that the Fukushima full-blown nuclear meltdown is relatively minimal in comparison to Chernobyl’s disastrous explosion of 1986. After all, to this day, Chernobyl after 30 years is still a 30km “exclusion zone” where nobody is allowed due to excessive levels of radiation.

Meanwhile, back in Japan, PM Abe is moving people back into former restricted zones four years after the fact.

It remains an open question as to whether the Fukushima aftermath will be worse than Chernobyl. After all, the China Syndrome may be actively at work at Fukushima and as such could last over many lifetimes.

Still, the immediate direct exposure of radiation over population centers at Chernobyl was significantly more than Fukushima of which 80% drifted out into the Pacific Ocean.

But, that may be slight solace because, horrifyingly, nobody knows where the Fukushima melted cores are located, nobody knows; it’s absolutely true, nobody knows whether the molten cores are within the containment vessels, outside of the vessels, deep in the ground, or cataclysmically traversing towards the water table.

Regardless, PM Abe’s directive appears to be: “No problem, we’ve cleaned up a whole lot of the mess outside of the immediate meltdown… so, move back into former restricted areas.”

Still, it’s nearly impossible to give an all-clear signal at this stage, especially with the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station containment vessels completely out of control with wild atom-splitting rogue radionuclides spewing into the Pacific Ocean, and who knows where else (Einstein must be spinning in his grave).

The China Syndrome Worry

“While a molten reactor core wouldn’t burn ‘all the way through to China’ it could enter the soil and water table and cause huge contamination in the crops and drinking water around the power plant. It’s a nightmare scenario, the stuff of movies. And it might just have happened at Fukushima,” Eben Harrell, Was Fukushima a China Syndrome? Time Magazine, May 16, 2011.

If Chernobyl is a leading indicator of Fukushima’s future, “Chernobyl offers many lessons about what Princeton University engineering professor Robert Socolow calls the ‘afterheat’ of a nuclear disaster, but it’s the generational lesson that’s most important. Because some of the isotopes released during a nuclear accident remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, cleanup is the work not just of first responders but also of their descendants and their descendants’ descendants. Asked when the reactor site would again become inhabitable, Ihor Gramotkin, director of the Chernobyl power plant, replies, ‘At least 20,000 years,” Eben Harrell, Apocalypse Today: Visiting Chernobyl, 25 Years Later, Time Magazine, April 26, 2011.

As of June 12th, 2015, the Abe government is returning residents to the Iitate village in Fukushima’s Prefecture four short years post the nuclear plant meltdowns, and by the upcoming 2018 year, the prime minister is eliminating state compensation to victims.

Not only that, but since August 2015, PM Abe is reopening nuclear facilities, the Sendai No. 1 reactor has already resumed full-scale commercial operations.

Contrariwise, according to former PM Naoto Kan, who was prime minister during the Fukushima disaster: “I now consider nuclear energy to be the most dangerous form of energy, and the risks associated with it are too great for us to continue generating atomic power,” Former Japanese PM Naoto Kan: Fukushima Radically Changed my Perspective, Deutsche Welle, Feb. 25, 2015.

One of the issues in trying to assess the dangers, as well as timing of recovery, for Fukushima is believability. Who can be trusted? In that regard, the Abe government’s enactment of strict extraordinarily broad secrecy laws, similar to WWII, with the threat of prison sentences up to 10 years for any violators of indeterminately wide-open secrecy laws undermines confidence in believability of the Japanese government, by definition.

On the other hand, respected third-party NGOs seem more reliable, if only because they do not have an axe to grind, no broad open-ended secrecy laws, no threats of prison sentences, no scare tactics, no public demonstrations in opposition, no lost revenues, no cleanup costs, no threats to human health, no threats to marine life, and no connections to the upcoming 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Greenpeace/Japan Exposes Failure of Fukushima Decontamination (July 21, 2015)

Greenpeace Japan presumably takes issue with Prime Minister Abe’s declaration that people can safely move back to parts of Fukushima Prefecture.

Greenpeace Japan conducted a radiation survey and sampling program in Iitate, a village in Fukushima Prefecture. Even after decontamination, radiation dose rates measured ten times (10xs) the maximum allowed to the general public.

According to Greenpeace Japan: “The Japanese government plans to lift restrictions in all of Area 2 [2], including Iitate, where people could receive radiation doses of up to 20mSV each year and in subsequent years. International radiation protection standards recommend public exposure should be 1mSv/year or less in non-post accident situations. The radiation limit that excluded people from living in the 30km zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant exclusion zone was set at 5mSV/year, five years after the nuclear accident. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from within the zone and will never return.” (Greenpeace Press Release, July 21, 2015).

So, Chernobyl’s 5mSV/year radiation limit morphs into the possibility of 20mSV radiation each year for some areas of Fukushima, subjecting residents to what?

According to Green Cross International, founded in 1993 by Mikhail Gorbachev, who was president of the Soviet Union when Chernobyl exploded: Both Chernobyl and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disasters are categorized as Level 7 events defined as a major release of radioactive material.

“However, the number of people affected by radiation in Japan has tripled when compared to Chernobyl, says Nathalie Gysi of Green Cross Switzerland… water leakage at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant remains a problem four years after… There continue to be rising doubts over the safety of seafood, such as radioactivity levels in tuna and other fish.” (Green Cross Int’l March 11, 2015).

The Green Cross International 2015 Fukushima Report was prepared under direction of Jonathan M. Samet, MD, University of Southern California professor Keck School of Medicine and chair Department of Preventive Medicine, using the same standards as a similar 2012 study of Chernobyl.

According to the report: “Continued exposure to low-level radiation, entering the human body on a daily basis through food intake, is of particular consequence.”

Morphologically Defective Fir Trees

According to the National Institute of Radiological Science/Japan (“NIRS” est. 1957 as Japan’s only institute of radiology science) fir trees in Fukushima are exhibiting “strange growth patterns,” meaning the trees are stunted and showing morphological defects, in particular bifurcation or the splitting of a tree body into two parts at the tip. Thus, further normal tree growth is stopped dead.

Fir trees normally extend upward in growth patterns with two or more branches each year. However, 98% of inspected fir trees within a 3.5km area of the Fukushima damaged nuclear plants have severe defects. NIRS believes radiation causes abnormalities of fir trees “without a top bud,” hence no more normalized growth. Results of inspected trees found 125 out of 128 abnormal.

Thus, begging the question: If tree growth is stunted/deformed within 3.5km of the damaged nuclear plants, what’s the analogous impact on people?

Missing Birds

According to CBS News (April 16, 2015): “Birds are becoming a rarity around the damaged nuclear site… dramatic reductions… in terms of swallows in Fukushima, there had been hundreds if not thousands in many of these towns where we were working. Now we are seeing a few dozen… It’s just an enormous decline,” (Dr. Tim Mousseau, biologist, University of South Carolina, Dwindling Bird Populations in Fukushima, sc.edu, 4/14/15).

Fukushima Myths

Chris Harris, a former senior nuclear reactor operator for over three decades and currently a nuclear consultant, claims Fukushima is an extinction level event: Containment is a myth, there isn’t any; cold shutdown is a myth; cooling is a myth because there is no way to measure cooling when nobody knows where the nuclear fuel is located; waste processing is a myth; cleanup is a myth because it’s a “waste generation facility” that won’t stop.

Voices Within Japan

According to Yauemon Sato, the ninth-generation head of a sake brewery, since 1790, and the president of Aizu Denryok, an electric utility: “You know the caldron of hell? You will be sent to hell and will be boiled in that caldron if you do evil. And there are four such caldrons in Fukushima… And the disaster has yet to end. It continues to recur every day. More than 300 tons of water, contaminated with intense levels of radioactive substances, are being generated every day,” The Asahi Shimbun, May 1, 2015.

Hiroaki Koide, professor (retired) at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute reacts to PM Abe, as of April 24, 2015:
“The Prime Minister [said Fukushima] had been brought to a close. My reaction on hearing his words was, ‘Stop kidding.’ Reality is, though 4 years have passed, the accident has not yet been brought to a close at all… The Japanese government has issued a declaration that this is an emergency situation. As a result, normal laws do not have to be followed. What they are saying is that, in these very high radiation exposure level areas, they have basically abandoned people to live there. They’ve actually thrown them away to live there… The Cs-137 that’s fallen onto Japanese land in the Tohoku and Kanto regions, so much so that this area should all be put under the radiation control area designation [the Kanto region includes Tokyo and is home to over 40 million people].”

Footnote on Cs-137: Cesium-137 is one of the most problematic fission isotopes as it easily moves and spreads in nature and has a half-life of 30 years. It is deadly dangerous, for example: The Kramatorsk Radiological Incident of 1989 in Ukraine a small capsule of Cs-137 was discovered inside concrete walls of an apartment building, probably part of a measurement device, lost and accidentally mixed with gravel used to make concrete. For over 9 years two families lived in the apartment. By the time the capsule was discovered, 6 residents had already died from leukemia.

Fortunately for PM Abe, unfortunately for radiation victims, radiation is a silent destroyer that slowly progresses over time. In fact, it takes 5-40 years for the incubation period to take hold. Next year is the 5th year.

Nevertheless, when hit by powerful rapid radiation exposure, too much too soon, physical damage occurs relatively quickly, now experienced by sailors of the USS Reagan that served in Japan in 2011.

U.S. Sailors File Lawsuit

Two hundred U.S. sailors of the USS Reagan have a pending lawsuit filed in San Diego against TEPCO, General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba and Hitachi through the law offices of Bonner & Bonner, Sausalito, CA. The plaintiffs won a crucial battle in the U.S. District Court/San Diego last year, allowing the case to move forward.

“The lawsuit is based on the sailors’ participation in Operation Tomodachi (meaning “Friends”), providing humanitarian relief after the March 11, 2011 devastation caused by the Earthquake and Tsunami. The lawsuit includes claims for illnesses such as leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain cancer, brain tumors, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments and a host of other complaints unusual in such young adults. The injured servicemen and women will require treatment for their deteriorating health, medical monitoring, payment of their medical bills, appropriate health monitoring for their children, and monitoring for possible radiation-induced genetic mutations,” Press Release, The Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, Sausalito, CA.

According to the press release, up to 70,000 U.S. citizens were potentially affected by the radiation and will be able to join the class action suit, which alleges that TEPCO deliberately lied to the public and the U.S. Navy about radiation levels at the time the Japanese government was requesting help.

Therein lies a prime example, although only alleged, of why official sources in Japan cannot be trusted. Moreover, as far as convincing evidence goes: How is it that a disproportionately high number of very young naval personnel, all from the same ship, have severe medical problems like leukemia and brain cancer?

Furthermore, according to Charles Bonner, Esq.: Additional plaintiffs with serious aliments from radiation are continuing to come forward.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a grim tragedy that is extremely difficult to fully understand or gain trustworthy information, in large measure because the Japanese government instituted a new secrecy law, Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, Act No. 108 that is extraordinarily broad and provides up to 10 years in prison for release of “state secrets,” which may be subjectively, not objectively, defined by government bureaucrats… oh, isn’t that just grand!

Essentially, Japan surreptitiously institutes news blackouts of any information that government employees don’t like, carte blanche.

“On Dec. 10, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s new special secrets law took effect despite overwhelming public opposition. The new law gives bureaucrats enormous powers to withhold information produced in the course of their public duties that they deem a secret — entirely at their own discretion — and with no effective oversight mechanism to question or overturn such designations. The law also grants the government powers to imprison whistle-blowers, and prohibits disclosure of classified material even if its intention is to protect the public interest. This Draconian law also gives the government power to imprison journalists merely for soliciting information that is classified a secret,” Abe’s Secrets Law Undermines Japan’s Democracy, The Japan Times, Dec. 13, 2014.

Once again: “This Draconian law gives the government power to imprison journalists merely for soliciting information.” For merely soliciting information, for merely soliciting information, gives the government power to imprison journalists for merely soliciting info…. some footprints should never stop.

“Susumu Murakoshi, president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, says the law should be abolished because it jeopardizes democracy and the people’s right to know. Meiji University legal scholar Lawrence Repeta agrees with Murakoshi,” Ibid.

What democracy?

Thus, on the surface, by all appearances, the government of Japan has something to hide. It must be really big. Why else adopt a hard-hitting secrecy law on the heels of the worst disaster to hit Japan since America dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Japan’s citizenry really should expect consolation rather than aggravation, intimidation, and terrorizing by their own government.

At the end of the day, George Orwell’s 1984 has captivated a radiantly glowing ancient country.

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at roberthunziker@icloud.com
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:55 pm

The muon scans show that there is no fuel left inside reactors 1 & 2. Many suspect that the couriums are swimming in groundwater by now.
They won't scan unit 3, dunno why, I expect it's too hot - we all saw it cannon it's contents cloudwards, ye?
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:54 am

Fukushima Watch: Near-Complete Meltdown Confirmed at Reactor 2

By JUN HONGO

An aerial view of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s9501.TO +0.25% Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2015, the fourth anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that led to a nuclear disaster. Kyodo/Reuters
Researchers at Nagoya University and Toshiba Corp.6502.TO -3.48% said they have confirmed that at least 70% of nuclear fuel inside one of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant melted down following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The team had said in March that it was able to use muons, which are particles that fall on earth from space and are deflected by nuclear materials, to examine the content inside reactor 2.

Further study confirmed that 70% to 100% of the fuel inside the reactor has melted, a Toshiba spokeswoman said.

The team had been comparing how muon particles deflected when passing through reactor 5, which wasn’t heavily damaged after the quake, and reactor 2.

The conclusion was largely expected, as nearly all the nuclear fuel in reactors 1 and 3 was also found to have melted. Tokyo Electric Power Co. in March said it confirmed a complete meltdown at reactor 1 after using muon particles.

Tepco has said it plans to start removing nuclear debris from the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi in 2021
.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
The World’s Never Seen Anything Like This
by ROBERT HUNZIKER

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 nuclear reactor fuel is missing from the core containment vessel. (Source: Up to 100% of No. 2 Reactor Fuel May Have Melted, NHK World News, Sept. 25, 2015.)

Where did it go? Nobody knows.

Not only that but the “learning curve” for a nuclear meltdown is as fresh as the event itself because “the world has never seen anything like this,” never.

Utilizing cosmic ray muon radiography with nuclear emulsion, researchers from Nagoya University peered inside the reactors at Fukushima. The nuclear fuel in reactor core No. 5 was clearly visible via the muon process. However, at No. 2 reactor, which released a very large amount of radioactive substances coincident with the 2011 explosion, little, if any, signs of nuclear fuel appear in the containment vessel. A serious meltdown is underway.

“The researchers say further analyses are needed to determine whether molten fuel penetrated the reactor and fell down,” Ibid. In short, researchers do not yet know if the molten hot stuff has penetrated the steel/concrete base beyond the containment vessel, thus entering Mother Earth.

The Nagoya University research team, in coordination with Toshiba Corporation, reported their findings at a meeting of the Physical Society of Japan on Sept. 26th.
Thus, therefore, and furthermore, it is advisable to review what’s at stake:
“High-level nuclear waste is almost unimaginably poisonous. Take for example cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years, which makes up the largest fraction of long-lived radionuclides residing in spent nuclear fuel. One gram of radioactive cesium-137 (about half the size of a dime) contains 88 Curies of radioactivity. 104 Curies of radioactive cesium-137, spread evenly over one square mile of land, will make it uninhabitable for more than a century,” Comments on Draft of Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013, Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 23, 2013.
As for example, there are 1,090 square miles of land surrounding the destroyed Chernobyl reactor that Ukraine classifies as an uninhabitable radioactive exclusion zone because radioactive fallout left more than 104 Curies of cesium- 137 per square mile on the land that makes up the zone. Scientists believe it will be 180 to 320 years before Cesium-137 around Chernobyl disappears from the environment.

Here’s the big, or rather biggest, problem: Cesium is water-soluble and makes its way into soils and waters as it quickly becomes ubiquitous in a contaminated ecosystem.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, is a different animal than Fukushima because it’s explosion was much more widespread and more dense than Fukushima, where 80% of initial radiation was blown out to the Pacific Ocean. Hmm.

Whereas, during the Three Mile Island incident, a partial core meltdown occurred but the reactor vessel was not breached, so there was no major radiation release.

Categorically, “Long-lived radionuclides such as Cesium-137 are something new to us as a species. They did not exist on Earth in any appreciable quantities during the entire evolution of complex life. Although they are invisible to our senses they are millions of times more poisonous than most of the common poisons we are familiar with. They cause cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations, and abortions at concentrations almost below human recognition and comprehension. They are lethal at the atomic or molecular level,” Steven Starr, senior scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Director, Univ. of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program, The Implications of the Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium, Speech to NY Academy of Medicine, March 11, 2013.

Still, a true understanding of the dangers of the Fukushima disaster may never be fully known by the general public because of difficulties accessing solid information. Indeed, the Japanese government has made it nearly impossible to obtain information which is not indiscriminately labeled “secret,” and a journalist may face up to 10 years in prison based upon which side of the bed a government employee gets up on any given morning; it’s absolutely true!

The independent organization Reporters without Borders has downgraded Japan in its World Press Freedom Index from 22nd place in 2012, to 53rd in 2013 and to 59th in 2014, following the enactment of the state secrets bill. Reporters without Borders says that “Japan has been affected by a lack of transparency and almost zero respect for access to information on subjects directly or indirectly related to Fukushima,” Reporters without Borders (2013). Press Freedom Index 2013: Dashed Hopes After Spring, August 2014.

Meanwhile, there is another angle to the nuclear issue. On the opposite side of the anti-nuke crowd it is instructive to note that a sizeable pro-nuke coterie claim nuclear power is safe and also claim that few, if any, serious human health problems have arisen, or will arise, from radiation exposure. In fact, some nuke addicts even claim a “little radiation exposure” is good.

That, however, has been debunked via a recent (July 2015) landmark study concluded by an international consortium under the umbrella of the International Agency for Research on Cancer / Lyon, France where a long-term study for low radiation impact was conducted on 300,000 nuclear-industry workers. The study proves, beyond a doubt, there is “no threshold dose below which radiation is harmless.” Any amount is harmful, period.

Nevertheless, here’s one example of the pro-side:

“The Fukushima incident will continue to attract media attention for some time to come, I imagine. It has become such a good story to roll with that it will not just go away. However, in sober reflection and retrospection one has to come to the conclusion that far from being a nuclear disaster the Fukushima incident was actually a wonderful illustration of the safety of nuclear power,” Dr. Kelvin Kemm, CEO of Nuclear Africa, Physicist: There was no Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: The Terrible Toll From Japan’s Tsunami Came From the Wave, not Radiation, Cfact, Oct. 12, 2013.

Back to Fukushima, depending upon whom is the source, radiation exposure is (a) extremely harmful and deadly as levels of radioactivity are widespread throughout the greater region, including Tokyo, or contrarily, (b) radioactivity is at such nominal levels that people do not need to worry, or (c) the worst is yet to come. Thereupon the rubber meets the road, meaning the credibility issue encountered by outsiders looking inside Fukushima remains “who to believe.”

Meanwhile, the “world information system aka: Internet” is crowded with stories about melting starfish in the Pacific Ocean, dumbfounded whales, and massive animal deaths enough so that people start connecting the dots in expectation that Fukushima radiation is omnipresent; however, to date, most of the evidence is labeled conjecture by various mainstream parties. Again, the problem is who to trust.

Regardless of whom to believe, it is now known for a fact, a hard fact, that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 is missing its fuel within its core containment vessel. This leads to a world of unknowns, and the biggest question is: What can be done about a full meltdown should it occur (maybe it’s already occurred)? Then what?

A full meltdown would involve all of the fuel in the nuclear plant core melting and a mass of very hot molten material falling and settling at the bottom of the reactor vessel. If the vessel is ruptured, the material could flow into the larger containment building surrounding it, which is shielded by protective layers of steel and concrete (Ferguson).

“But if that containment is ruptured, then potentially a lot of material could go into the environment,” according to Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists (Source: Mechanics of a Nuclear Meltdown Explained, PBS Newshour, Science, March 15, 2011.)

What does a lot of material going into the environment really mean?

Sources claim deadly Cesiun-137, which is only one of many dangerous isotopes, is water-soluble and makes its way into soils and waters, as it quickly becomes ubiquitous in the ecosystem. The question thus becomes would a full meltdown turn lose this deadly isotope, as well as others, on the surrounding environment? Frankly, it kinda seems like it would.

Nobody knows whether Fukushima morphs full meltdown into Mother Earth, although the signposts are not good, and not only that but nobody knows what to do about it. Nobody knows what to do. They really don’t.

The only thing for certain is that it’s not good. Going forward, it becomes a matter of how bad things get.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby smoking since 1879 » Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:36 am

old news, no one cares, go back to the sports channel n reality tv.
roll on the mutant olympics is what i say !
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests