2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 01:25

I suggest seriously that you read that article

Which article, can you point to that again? I DID read the Mitt article you posted before. Is it the same or some other article you mean here?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 01:29

I read this part of the article:

Conclusion
Increased incidence of total malignancies possibly related to the fallout from the Chernobyl accident is seen.

That doesn't say anything - "possibly related" is non-conclusive.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 03:27

^^ Okay I know which paper, Thanks chaanakya. From what I can see,it is very expertly written and excellent article. It is worth to read it in full.

Mathematics some times does get hard, and jargons (if not familiar) are some times a problem, that is why I was trying to explain many things in layman's term without losing accuracy. You will find that is is very consistent with every thing I have posted so far.
(Actually numbers here are very similar to some of the problems I have given in past to my students to do calculations to help them in their understanding)

You and others may like to analyze (basic understanding of scientific , and statistics terms may help if you already not familiar with) to put results/conclusion in perspective:

Results
Exposure categories were: 0–8 (reference), 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr. The corresponding adjusted Mantel-Haenszel incidence rate ratios for total malignancies during follow-up amounted to 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125, respectively. The excess relative risk per 100 nGy/hr with the same adjustments and time period was 0.042 95% confidence limit 0.001;0.084. An excess for thyroid cancer or leukemia could not be ruled out.

Conclusion
Increased incidence of total malignancies possibly related to the fallout from the Chernobyl accident is seen.

(...understanding mathematical use of the terms like relative risk %, confidence limit - nGY/hr etc.. and also evaluate, added risk like .042% in practical terms.. when total risk due to cancer is in the 20% range for some of this population. - For perspective how does .042% compares with risk due to traffic accident?/ smoking one extra pack?)

That .042% per 100nGy/Hr value is indeed a value I have used! (some people use different unit(s).. people generally, now use Sv (instead of Gy) for biological effect studies. Difference between Gy and Sv is similar to one between
rad and rem)

As I said and repeated here many time, risk due to doses less than 100 rem is very hard to measure .. much less conclusive data, so we do our best and go on the side of caution.. our " safe value limits" are 100 or 1000x smaller ... (Even for emergency and fire fighters we don't allow 100 rem/hr)

The "panic" comes when some one notices level "10 times safe levels", we certainly should worry about it, but should be smart enough not to panic.. the death due to panic heart attack is much much more that even the elevated value.. (NO this is not a number just thrown out , there is lot of thought and calculation and medical evidence behind it)

Hope this helps.

Again what I am saying is: look at the numbers.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 03:50

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote: The ocean is too big. No one says such casual comments any more. Very un-serious.
Saar, why pass fatwa like "un-serious"? Get a pencil and paper, do the calculation and then decide on the seriousness. Simple as that. You will be pleasantly surprised and once again marvel at how large Avagadro's number is.

For many, as Bhaskarachaya said - "do the calculation" (Sanskrit proverb is hard to translate)

In coming days /months we will also know if those values were accurate../smile/

- Will we continue to detect "high" level (in ocean water)? - Certainly .. I-131 will be less in 2 months or so but Cs etc will still be there, years from now. (We can still detect higher values in 1986.. mushrooms in Europe..)

- How far it will spread - (We will easily measure) in all over the world.

- Will it be health hazard - not likely.. (NO one knows what's a health hazard) but food items from the sea etc will be within the safe limit fairly soon.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Mar 2011 04:59

All numbers have assumptions behind them. Your assumptions can be wrong. We don't know enough to be so casually dismissive of what is happening, because 'my' numbers say everything is kosher.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 Mar 2011 05:54

Theo_Fidel wrote:All numbers have assumptions behind them. Your assumptions can be wrong. We don't know enough to be so casually dismissive of what is happening, because 'my' numbers say everything is kosher.

hmm so when even basic scientific methodologies are being questioned here, what is the answer? 'Paralysis by (non)analysis'

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 08:05

Amber G. wrote:
Results
Exposure categories were: 0–8 (reference), 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr. The corresponding adjusted Mantel-Haenszel incidence rate ratios for total malignancies during follow-up amounted to 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125, respectively. The excess relative risk per 100 nGy/hr with the same adjustments and time period was 0.042 95% confidence limit 0.001;0.084. An excess for thyroid cancer or leukemia could not be ruled out.

(...understanding mathematical use of the terms like relative risk %, confidence limit - nGY/hr etc.. and also evaluate, added risk like .042% in practical terms.. when total risk due to cancer is in the 20% range for some of this population. - For perspective how does .042% compares with risk due to traffic accident?/ smoking one extra pack?)

That .042% per 100nGy/Hr value is indeed a value I have used! (some people use different unit(s).. people generally, now use Sv (instead of Gy) for biological effect studies. Difference between Gy and Sv is similar to one between
rad and rem)

Amber,

I am reading it differently. The claim is the following:

1. There were 6 bins of exposure 0–8, 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr

2. The incidence rates normalized to first bin were: 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125

3. From this they conclude that at 95% confidence level, there is an excess risk of 0.042 per 100 nGy/hr.

4. It is not .042%, but 4.2% (normalized to an exposure of <8 nGy/hr).

My critique:

1. No error bars are presented, so it is difficult to judge the significance of this excess.

2. They report 4 significant figures, so one would be forced to conclude that getting 67-84 nGy/hr is healthier than getting a smaller dose of 44-64 nGy/hr. /big smile/

Basically, the statistical treatment looks suspect. I am not going to read 116 pages to find out how they set the 95% CL -- is it a frequentist approach? Why have they not presented error bars? What about systematic errors?

If Chanakya-ji or anyone else who claims to have read the paper has any answers, we would all be enlightened.

In the meantime, I will regard this analysis as amateurish and inexact. The data trend can barely be distinguished from noise.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 10:04

arnab wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:All numbers have assumptions behind them. Your assumptions can be wrong. We don't know enough to be so casually dismissive of what is happening, because 'my' numbers say everything is kosher.
hmm so when even basic scientific methodologies are being questioned here, what is the answer? 'Paralysis by (non)analysis'

The basic methodology is always being questioned. Thats how understanding moves forward sir.

And as far as basic methodology goes, as Chaankya's paper pointed out, the same set of data with a slightly different set of starting assumptions can give fairly different results.

So the extent of damage is yet indeed quite open (but we can safely assume that it will lead to long term impacts)

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Mar 2011 10:35

Sanku wrote:(but we can safely assume that it will lead to long term impacts)

Can you educate us why we can safely assume there will be long term impact and what kind of long term impact you think will occur/is inevitable. And please not the usual wish washy stuff like the exclusion zone will never be habitable because of radiation etc that you've ejected before on this thread.

It goes without saying that we expect you to back you assertions with data (not the Daily Star type) since you posted this bit of (stupid) hubris in the Indian Nook Dhaga.

I do have the curse of being able to read the data accurately much before others do. In the past people like me were burned in Europe.

PS: Please don't quote other's links, specifically the link which Channakya posted because that pertains only to Chernobyl. The topography, climate, dispersal of radiation etc is different there from what happened in Fukushima. And that is not even taking into consideration that Chernobyl was Level 7 while Fukushima was Level 5 like TMI in which there were no long term impact.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 25 Mar 2011 10:54

Japan Raises Possibility of Breach in Reactor Vessel - NY Times

One sign that a breach may have occurred in the reactor vessel, Mr. Nishiyama said, took place on Thursday when three workers who were trying to connect an electrical cable to a pump in a turbine building next to the reactor were injured when they stepped into water that was found to be significantly more radioactive than normal in a reactor. The No. 3 unit, the only one of the six reactors at the site that uses the mox fuel, was damaged by a hydrogen explosion on March 14. Workers have been seeking to keep it cool by spraying it with seawater along with a more recent effort to restart the reactor’s cooling system.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 11:49

^^^^

Its been known for a week, its only that now the "official" confirmation can not be put off any longer.

A neutron beam had also been observed.

===================

Meanwhile more serious reports continue to emerge, Mahen, its for you

PRAY FOR JAPAN
Cs 2650 kBq/kg, I 2540 kBq/kg, radioactivity detected from weeds in a zone exposed by nuclear fallout 40 km from Fukushima Nuclear Plant 1.
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/1 ... 034-n1.htm

This radiation level is relevant to the worst exposure in Chernobyl disaster. see wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_d......isaster
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/1 ... 034-n1.htm

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 12:36

IAEA update du jour

As previously reported, three workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were exposed on 24 March to elevated levels of radiation. The IAEA has received additional information on the incident from the Japanese authorities.

The three were contracted workers laying cables in the turbine building of the Unit 3 reactor. Two of them were found to have radioactivity on their feet and legs.

These were washed in the attempt to remove radioactivity, but since there was a possibility of Beta-ray burning of the skin, the two were taken to the Fukushima University Hospital for examination and then transferred to Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences for further examination. They are expected to be monitored for around four days.

It is thought that the workers ignored their dosimeters' alarm believing it to be to be false and continued working with their feet in contaminated water.

Jeff Lira · Post by **Jeff Lira** » 25 Mar 2011 14:01

Even after two weeks of the earthquake and tsunami which devastated Japan on March 11 around 240,000 people are sill shelters. Official figures says 10,000 are dead where as 17,000 are missing.

Weeks After Japan Tsunami, 27000 Missing; Cleaning in Progress

I am amused to see how inter government departments and public private partnership is working as described by the above article to clean up the mess of debris which has been created there after the natural calamity

the education board of Hiroshima Prefecture came forward telling its counterpart in Miyagi Prefecture that it could accept around 150 elementary school children and their 10 teachers for one year at two school buildings in the city of Etajima that are currently not in use, reported Japan Today. Children will be accommodated in public hostel facilities

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 14:08

High radiation leak suggests damage to No. 3 reactor vessel: agency

Friday 25th March, 03:05 PM JST

FUKUSHIMA —
A high-level radiation leak detected Thursday at one of six troubled reactors at the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant indicates possible damage to the reactor’s vessel, pipes or valves, the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said Friday.

Three workers at the No. 3 reactor’s turbine building, connected to the reactor building, were exposed Thursday to water containing radioactive materials 10,000 times the normal level, with two of them taken to hospital due to possible radiation burns to their feet, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) said.

Electrical engineering firm Kandenko Co, for which the two hospitalized employees worked, said its workers were not required to put on boots as its safety manuals did not assume a scenario where its employees conduct work soaked in water at a nuclear power plant. They were working in the basement of the reactor’s turbine building when they were irradiated.

Two of the three have been hospitalized due to possible burns caused by beta rays which can cause major skin damage.

TEPCO said almost no water was present during an on-site inspection the previous day and also that the level of radiation was low during the inspection.

‘‘Because of this, the workers were believed to have continued their work even after their dosimeters’ alarm went off, assuming a problem with the machine,’’ a TEPCO official said.

The two hospitalized workers were transferred Friday to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Chiba City for closer examination from Fukushima Medical University hospital.

Meanwhile, Hidehiko Nishiyama, spokesman for the governmental nuclear regulatory body, told a press conference, ‘‘At present, our monitoring data suggest the (No. 3) reactor retains certain containment functions, but there is a good chance that the reactor has been damaged.’‘

Nishiyama said the high-level radiation is suspected to have originated from the reactor, where overheating fuel rods are believed to have been partially melted, or a boiling pool that stores spent nuclear fuel, both of which are located in the reactor’s building.

Following the radiation exposure incident, the nuclear agency ordered TEPCO to improve radiation management at the power station, where Japan’s worst nuclear crisis is unfolding. The operator began removing the highly radioactive water from the site.

The spokesman said further verification is needed to find out how the radioactive water reached the underground site. Huge volumes of water have been poured into the reactor and the pool in the No. 3 reactor building, which was substantially damaged by a hydrogen blast on March 14.

Despite the partial halt of restoration work at the troubled plant due to the technicians’ radiation exposure incident, TEPCO on Friday prepared for the injection of freshwater into the No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 reactor cores and spent fuel pools, instead of seawater currently used.

As a step to bring the reactors under control, authorities are eager to replace seawater with fresh water in cooling the reactor cores and the pools, as crystallized salt could form a crust on the fuel rods and prevent smooth water circulation, thus diminishing the cooling effect.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said Friday U.S. forces will supply some of the fresh water to be pumped into reactors and spent nuclear fuel pools at the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Kitazawa said at a news conference the United States has strongly urged that fresh water be used early in place of seawater because salt in seawater causes corrosion of equipment at the nuclear plant.

U.S. forces will begin supplying the water probably early next week, Kitazawa said at a press conference.

According to the Defense Ministry, two U.S. warships carrying fresh water will be towed by a Maritime Self-Defense Force warship to Onahama port in Fukushima Prefecture from the U.S. Yokosuka base in Kanagawa Prefecture.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 14:16

High radiation detected in water at plant

Tokyo Electric Power Company says it has detected high levels of radioactive substances in water that 3 workers were exposed to at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The company says 3.9 million becquerels of radioactive substances per cubic centimeter were detected in the water that the workers were standing in. That is 10,000 times higher than levels of the water inside a nuclear reactor in operation.

The level of radioactive cerium-144 was 2.2 million becquerels. Also, 1.2 million becquerels of iodine-131 was measured. These substances are generated during nuclear fission inside a reactor.

Tokyo Electric says damage to the No.3 reactor and spent nuclear fuel rods in a storage pool may have produced the highly radioactive water.

On Thursday, 2 of the 3 workers were taken to hospital after being exposed to 173 to 180 millisieverts of radiation while standing in 15-centimeters of water in the turbine building adjacent to the reactor. A third worker was also exposed to the higher-level radiation but did not require treatment.

amit · Post by **amit** » 25 Mar 2011 14:18

kmkraoind wrote:Japan Raises Possibility of Breach in Reactor Vessel - NY Times

One sign that a breach may have occurred in the reactor vessel, Mr. Nishiyama said, took place on Thursday when three workers who were trying to connect an electrical cable to a pump in a turbine building next to the reactor were injured when they stepped into water that was found to be significantly more radioactive than normal in a reactor. The No. 3 unit, the only one of the six reactors at the site that uses the mox fuel, was damaged by a hydrogen explosion on March 14. Workers have been seeking to keep it cool by spraying it with seawater along with a more recent effort to restart the reactor’s cooling system.

This report headline uses the word "breach" while the first para and the post above this one uses the word "damage".

My questions to gurus. In this case can the two words be used interchangeable?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 14:22

Japan nuclear plant remains precarious, but not as serious as Chernobyl: experts

The troubled nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan could suffer more damage and leak more radiation, but it is unlikely to get out of hand and spark a catastrophe resembling the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, experts say.

Experts believe that one of the reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant poses the biggest danger while other reactors apparently have calmed down.

"What we are worried about most is the No. 1 reactor in which temperature and pressure are rising. The No 2 and 3 reactors seem to have escaped danger," Haruki Madarame, head of the government's Nuclear Safety Commission, said at a news conference on the evening of March 23 while making clear that that was his personal opinion.

According to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the temperature in the pressure vessel of the No. 1 reactor housing nuclear fuel rose to 400 degrees Celsius on March 23. The assumed maximum limit of the temperature in the pressure vessel is 302 degrees Celsius. If the high temperature remains intact for an extended period of time, the pressure vessel could be damaged.

As a result of increasing the water injected into the reactor, steam was created, paving the way for the pressure in the pressure vessel to build up further. The amount of water being used to cool down nuclear rods is believed to be insufficient.

Tadashi Narabayashi, professor of reactor engineering at Hokkaido University, said the reactor container of the No. 1 reactor could be damaged. "The temperature of 400 degrees Celsius in the pressure vessel is abnormal. The hydrogen created in the process of the reaction between the fuel cladding that holds nuclear rods and water in the container at high temperatures is believed to have built up both in the pressure vessel and the reactor container," said Narabayashi. "If hydrogen is leaked out, it could spark an explosion and damage the reactor container, releasing massive amounts of radioactive substances," he added.

With the water level dropping, the nuclear fuel could melt in the overheating reactor, allowing for the melted fuel to leak from some weak structures such as the control rod system. "The bottom of the pressure vessel will not easily break open. There is only a small possibility of more serious hydrogen explosions being sparked because the quantity is small," said Narabayashi.

Experts say it is unlikely for the reactor to have "re-criticality" -- a nuclear fission chain reaction. "Nuclear fuel is made in such a way that fission reaction is triggered most easily in its ordinary state. It's hard to imagine that criticality will be reached with melted fuel," said Keiji Kobayashi, former lecturer of reactor physics at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute. Narabayashi shares similar views.
In the case of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, a running reactor using flammable graphite ignited a hydrogen explosion that blew off its pressure vessel, scattering a massive amount of nuclear substances. But the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant automatically shut down immediately after the March 11 earthquake, and no graphite was used in the reactors there.

"We can definitely say that something like Chernobyl will not happen," said Narabayashi.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 14:27

Salt buildup likely to harm pumping system before reactor, expert says

While the buildup of salt from seawater pumped in to cool reactors at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant may become a concern, it is likely to affect the pumping system itself before it affects the fuel rods, one expert said Thursday.
"In the core, it's probably not that great of a concern because it's going to be pretty hot in there," and the salt is likely to melt before the core reaches a dangerous temperature, said Gary Was, a nuclear engineering expert at the University of Michigan.

<snip>

"For almost two weeks now, we've been injecting about 100 gallons a minute of seawater into these reactors," said Michael Friedlander, a former senior plant operator at three U.S. nuclear power plants who has been following the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. He spoke on CNN's "AC360" Wednesday night.

The salt left behind "is now plating on surfaces inside the reactor vessel, as well as settling in the bottom of the reactor," he said.
Both Friedlander and Was pointed out that it's too soon to tell, given a lack of detailed information and instrumentation at the reactor, whether the salt crystals are a problem.

But, Was pointed out, salt itself liquefies at 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 degrees Fahrenheit). That is below the temperature at which zirconium fuel rods would oxidize and crack open, exposing the fuel. Oxidation becomes a self-sustaining process at about 900 degrees Celsius (1,652 degrees Fahrenheit). So, he said, it is likely the salt would melt and liquefy before that point is reached.
Where buildup could be a problem, he said, is in the system pumping in the cooler seawater, where lower temperatures are the norm.
Still, "this is uncharted territory," Was said, "so nobody really knows what the situation is in there, but we can make sort of educated guesses."

<snip>

The seawater is being pumped into the cores of reactors No. 1 through 4 at the Fukushima plant in an effort to cool them and to replenish the spent fuel pools in at least two reactors.

Normally, seawater is about 3.5% salt, Was said.
In both the reactors and the spent fuel pools, the salt left behind as the seawater boils off is potentially concentrating the mixture, Friedlander said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 16:10

I think there is some misunderstanding because I posted two different articles that shows that members are not paying attention while reading it and replying just to reply based on their preconceived notions., hardly a scientific attitude or approach.

One is a research study conducted by Swedish scientists done in Gavle and published in 2006. Title is self evident. It deals with increased malignancies in Sweden after Chernobyl. It is a pear reviewed publication and concludes that higher malignancies have been noticed when compared in sample /control groups. Guru's point relate to that and he is entitled to his opinion. The study serve a limited purpose to show that counter data points do exist and researched and reported.

The other one is an article written by an expert , who has conducted several studies. This deals with radiation, its impact, safe levels etc. It indeed cites several studies by Russian and Japanese Scientists and explains the reason for errors in safe radiation limits as regulated by govt agencies based on ICRP.

This paper shows that safe radiation limits have been revised by regulatory authorities several times as and when evidences have emerged of radiation hazards. It also shows relations between these changes and occurances of new evidences.

The paper also points out that since 1990 the level has not been revised due to various reasons despite new evidences emerging which have been , so far, ignored by Nuclear industrial complex.

Nevertheless, the requirements of military research for bombs caused pressure on the regulators. Limits were slightly relaxed, allowing the period of averaging of dose to be extended to 13 weeks, so long as the total dose to any organ accumulated during a period of 13 consecutive weeks does not exceed ten times the basic permissible dose. This introduced the concept of the integrated dose: but note that this new dose limit permitted an annual dose of up to an enormous 1560mSv. Pressure built up: research results leaked out. Fallout Strontium began to show up in childrens’ milk. The doses were again revised in 1958 when ICRP considered the exposure of individuals in a number of categories. For the highest risk category, ICRP recommended a new weekly limit of 0.1rem (1mSv) or 52mSv in a year with a proviso that not more than 3 rems (30mSv) were delivered in 13 weeks.

It also points out to ICRP risk assessment model which shows significant divergences in numbers. The numbers obtained through ECRR model , he claims , is nearer to what was reported by Russian and Japanese studies which have been studiously ignored by conventional wisdom. ICRP model is based on Study of Hiroshima and hence called Hiroshima model sponsored by USA

Funded and controlled by the USA, data on the survivors' health was gathered (as it still is) in what have become known as the Life Span Studies or LSS.

The LSS were not begun until 1952. This was another flaw, since seven years of epidemiological data would be missing from the study and in addition, those selected into the study would have been healthy survivors: many of the victims of radiation would have died in the five years before the study began (Stewart and Kneale, 2000). It is clear from reports of Japanese scientists that there were many deaths and leukemias occurring in the irradiated cities in the interim period and studies of the increases in cancers in the cities using external control data give higher cancer yields than the LSS yields which effectively employed internal controls
(Kusano 1953, Busby 1995, Busby 2006, Sawada 2009). Long before then America's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) urgently needed to regulate the growing nuclear industry. The AEC pressed the National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) to develop safety standards. An especial concern was the quantity of novel elements which, being alpha emitters, would present internal radiation hazards. Separate sub-committees addressed internal and external radiation.

I am sure there are studies from both sides and numbers to support the contentions. The only point which I wish to make here is that matter is not settled.The other side has equal right to present its point of view without being derided.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 18:27

Ramana (and other old brf timers) --

Just curious..

Why people like Prof Hoyt, Prof Komerath, Prof Tripathi and many others who used to be prolific contributers in this forum no longer contribute?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 18:47

Chaankya - Since you suggested me to read your posted article, can I urge you to do the same for the same article you posted.

Also calculate, (really calculate, in stead of asking us to prove that those numbers are not wrong).. read up
what ICRP and the NTLH method these people use. I even gave the term you can google to get your basic research material.

Also Simple points Guru Prabhu raised.. just answer them quantitatively instead of mocking us.

And also apply those numbers and methodologies to see if these are really consistent with actual data..

Say in -
- Extra chance calculated by this method for a person who took one plane trip from LA to NY
- Wild life preserve, right near Chernobyl (Easy to get data, we know radiation there and animal's death rate etc.

Let me post again what I posted years ago in brf (I think some one posted a link from time/newsweek confirming this story) and see if that model explains that -

When western reporters and scientists visited the NK reactor for the first time, they were surprised because the reactor pool building had a hole in the roof above (broken sky-light!) with birds going in and out, and there were frogs in the pool .. radioactive but hopping.

Hope this helps.

GuruPrabhu and Chankya - I am going to post the physics problem I was talking about in physics thread.. quite relevant, IMO
hope you put your answers/comments there.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 19:00

Has anyone seen Nancy Grace's grilling of Nuclear expert(s) who were pooh-poohing danger in California?
Very funny. Daily show's John Sterwart had a nice clip of it.. Very very funny.. (worth watching - few days ago daily show) it ends with:

If there is no emergency and no cause of alarm why did hospital I passed by had an "EMERGENCY room"

But this one really could spill some one's coffee on the floor..

^^^^
Its been known for a week, its only that now the "official" confirmation can not be put off any longer.

A neutron beam had also been observed.
<snip>

(Gentel readers - The coffee you might have spilled has ..oh..
about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.. neutrons!)

PS - Trust me, I really do know what a neutron beam is...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Mar 2011 19:12

I am little surprised that no one here is talking about danger due to DHMO.. much more serious, according to some, than radiation.
Specially it's relation to Tsunami, after all, as you will see from the link below, scientists have known this for a long time (but not too many others know)... the data from antiquated nuclear submarines propulsion system (1960 vintage) clearly shown the danger.

Please read this:
http://www.dhmo.org/

(Read FAQ for details)

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Mar 2011 19:16

Amber G. wrote:Ramana (and other old brf timers) --

Just curious..

Why people like Prof Hoyt, Prof Komerath, Prof Tripathi and many others who used to be prolific contributers in this forum no longer contribute?

If I may, it could be because of posters who know little and yet post as if they are experts. The ones who don't want to be distracted with facts.

No one likes to debate or discuss any thing with those people.

Another, thing I am surprised by is the stopping of both the BRM and the SSR. They were great way of presenting the BRF POV to the masses.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Mar 2011 20:27

^^ Maybe for the same reasons that Prof. Steven Hawking, Prof.Weinberg, Prof. Kipp thorne and Prof. Larry Kraus, do not post here. Appealing to authority is a weak case in science. Present it cogently, doesn't matter if it happens to be from a non-professor from LMU.

What is important is aspects that a physicist should be able to explain to a layman in simple terms - rule is clearly violated here. Also, unless one can condense the esoteric matter to make it accessible to lay readers then one can indulge in cat fights in conferences where physicists or other august members routinely engage in, say such as International conferences etc. This fora is not a show of strengths (/or lack of it) for the scientists, they better duke it out where it matters. Journal papers? International conference publications? Other arenas meant for that.

But beyond that, unfortunately even on a scientific topic, there is way too much noise and unnecessary sniping, unwarranted insinuations while forgetting to expend energy in explaining things cleanly to layman. Just my 2 cents. Happy sniping.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 21:02

GuruPrabhu wrote:
I am reading it differently. The claim is the following:

1. There were 6 bins of exposure 0–8, 9–23, 24–43, 44–66, 67–84, and ≥85 nGy/hr

2. The incidence rates normalized to first bin were: 1.000, 0.997, 1.072, 1.114, 1.068, 1.125

3. From this they conclude that at 95% confidence level, there is an excess risk of 0.042 per 100 nGy/hr.

4. It is not .042%, but 4.2% (normalized to an exposure of <8 nGy/hr).

My critique:

1. No error bars are presented, so it is difficult to judge the significance of this excess.

2. They report 4 significant figures, so one would be forced to conclude that getting 67-84 nGy/hr is healthier than getting a smaller dose of 44-64 nGy/hr. /big smile/

Basically, the statistical treatment looks suspect. I am not going to read 116 pages to find out how they set the 95% CL -- is it a frequentist approach? Why have they not presented error bars? What about systematic errors?

If Chanakya-ji or anyone else who claims to have read the paper has any answers, we would all be enlightened.

In the meantime, I will regard this analysis as amateurish and inexact. The data trend can barely be distinguished from noise.

Here is the details of contact for the Author.

How to Cite
Tondel, M., Lindgren, P., Hjalmarsson, P., Hardell, L. and Persson, B. (2006), Increased incidence of malignancies in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident—a promoting effect?. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49: 159–168. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20271

Author Information
1Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden
2Department of Health and Society, Division of Social Medicine and Public Health Science, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden
3Department of Oncology, University Hospital Örebro, Linkoping, Sweden
4Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, Linkoping, Sweden
Email: Martin Tondel ([email protected])

*Correspondence: Martin Tondel, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Linkoping University, Linkoping SE 581-85, Sweden.

You must be knowing how to refute a thesis or research that is peer reviewed and published.
You can email your query, surely it takes less time then to reply to post or read that article. If email doesn't work then just take a printout and send by snail mail.
I am neither a statistician nor physicist qualified to answer your query. My points are rather simple.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Mar 2011 21:14

Amber G. wrote:Chaankya - Since you suggested me to read your posted article, can I urge you to do the same for the same article you posted.

Also calculate, (really calculate, in stead of asking us to prove that those numbers are not wrong).. read up
what ICRP and the NTLH method these people use. I even gave the term you can google to get your basic research material.

Also Simple points Guru Prabhu raised.. just answer them quantitatively instead of mocking us.

And also apply those numbers and methodologies to see if these are really consistent with actual data..

Say in -
- Extra chance calculated by this method for a person who took one plane trip from LA to NY
- Wild life preserve, right near Chernobyl (Easy to get data, we know radiation there and animal's death rate etc.

Let me post again what I posted years ago in brf (I think some one posted a link from time/newsweek confirming this story) and see if that model explains that -

When western reporters and scientists visited the NK reactor for the first time, they were surprised because the reactor pool building had a hole in the roof above (broken sky-light!) with birds going in and out, and there were frogs in the pool .. radioactive but hopping.

Hope this helps.

GuruPrabhu and Chankya - I am going to post the physics problem I was talking about in physics thread.. quite relevant, IMO
hope you put your answers/comments there.

Does that take away the point that counter data point do exist? I am not sure how anyone can assume that I did not read and comprehend when you simply don't show willingness to do the same. Just go through the paras posted. May be they support either thesis. But that is besides the point.
The basic conclusion that I draw from all this ( without doubting your calculations and conclusions) that the issue is still open and one needs to keep his eye peeled unless one happens to belong to the lobby of pro nuke or green peace.. To err on the side of caution is not wrong.

ps I did read that report long back but then there should be some update.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 21:31

chaanakya wrote: Here is the details of contact for the Author.
How to Cite
Tondel, M., Lindgren, P., Hjalmarsson, P., Hardell, L. and Persson, B. (2006), Increased incidence of malignancies in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident—a promoting effect?. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49: 159–168. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20271
You must be knowing how to refute a thesis or research that is peer reviewed and published.
You can email your query, surely it takes less time then to reply to post or read that article. If email doesn't work then just take a printout and send by snail mail.
I am neither a statistician nor physicist qualified to answer your query. My points are rather simple.

You say that your point is simple. What is your point?

You said that you have read the article. You quoted it. You derived secondary conclusions from it. But, if someone asks you a question about it, you start talking about snail mail.

[even the title of the paper has a question mark.]

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 21:36

JwalaMukhi wrote: Appealing to authority is a weak case in science. Present it cogently, doesn't matter if it happens to be from a non-professor from LMU.

Amen. Simply posting articles and then absolving oneself of the responsibility to defend it is not useful. This is a new form of google-ized debate. Given a few key-words (try chernobyl+long-term+health) anyone can come up with reams of cup&paste.

If that counts for debate, then I am an expert in any topic under the sun. Within 5 minutes I can inundate any opponent with info-crap from google.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 21:37

[soosai own text]

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 25 Mar 2011 21:39

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Mar 2011 21:51

AmberG wrote:Ramana (and other old brf timers) --

Just curious..

Why people like Prof Hoyt, Prof Komerath, Prof Tripathi and many others who used to be prolific contributers in this forum no longer contribute?

I am not really a that "old timer", but do remember some of those folks you mentioned. I think it is a great loss that they dont post anymore and many of them must have simply stopped because of being constantly in a position to try and din stuff into stuff people with "one way traffic" , ie all output via the bull horn and no "input" , ie tone deaf with zero ability to read, listen or comprehend.

The best way to deal with that in my opinion is to simply hit the mental ignore button and not get into a wrestling match with them. That is the down side of Google. With a key word, you can search up even the most bizarre and wacky theories on anything and even the voices and opinions of absolute nutcases and frankly media shock jocks with the bullhorn (but no brains behind that bullhorn, like the classic DDM) get lots of hits and airtime.

So let it slide. There is nothing much you can do with people who are convinced that the milk with iodine/Cs from Fukushima is going to kill 4000000000 people , while in reality the exhaust from an idling car /truck (even if Euro V) or tobacco , even as 2nd hand , 3rd hand smoke and other forms kills some hundreds of orders more people every year in every part of the world and hence that is a far more REAL deadly killer than any radiation simply cannot register with them.

In fact, the closest parallel I can see is the scare mongering with vaccines. It is very similar to the Fatwa some nitwits issued against the Polio vaccine in India and a few other countries with large muslim population as a "Joo Kansipracy" to "sterlize" muslim children and the result being that probably couple of 1000 innocent children fell victim to polio and the disease is still not eradicated in India (probably next year I pray we see zero cases) and the world, despite heroic efforts and funding from everyone from GOI, to WHO to Bill Gates. Is there a chance of someone getting a polio from vaccine, you bet , one in a couple of millions maybe, is there a chance that a child in UP/Bihar/Bengal WILL GET polio if not innoculated, absolutely ,with orders of magnitude more probability than getting polio from the vaccine!

The scare mongering with the MMR vaccine and autism is another case in point.

The DDM and the bull horners can't perceive subtleties and uncertainties and the probabilistic math. The are the quick headlines , one liner consuming types.

I would suggest the best way to respond to "Oh my gosh. Radiation in Tokyo's water and milk ! How awful" is by saying..

"Awful indeed. But, Oh my gosh! Carcinogens and radiation in fossil fuel emissions killed 400000000 people this year alone, while a grand total 100 people have died from leaked radiation from nuclear power plants in their entire history from all causes" . That one sentence should be repeated ad nauseum in every post as a typical copy that gives "background" to the subject as the concluding paragraph after every one liner you write in response.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Mar 2011 22:04

chaanakya wrote:Theo, you are right on the mark about Kalpakkam. We need not gloat about having survived tsunami. 35 mts tsunami would have destroyed things as far as Chengalpattu. Kalpakkam would have been in deep trouble.

Gosh! I can't believe that anyone with a serious engineering/science or even a business background with actually having designed or built something can write that stuff.

You ALWAYS design for a postulated scenario. When you build a bridge over say a sea or something, you look at a 100 year/150 year record to estimate the maximum you design that for. A 35 meter Tsunami has probably never happened EVER in recorded human history!

You cannot design (or even make a business case to build a business /product considering even the minutest possibility of failure that is 100% fool proofed against failure) anything that can cater to any eventuality . Why do you want to restrict yourself only to a 35meter Tsunami ? The meteorite impact (in the gulf of mexico) that is supposed to have wiped out the dinosaurs is thought to have created a tsunami wave of magnitude that reached as far as probably Kansas and flooded nearly most parts of the earth. How do you know that there is not going to be a similar metorite impact within the next 40 years, assuming that you are commissioning the nuke plant today and that the life of the plant is 40 years!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 22:15

Normal operating loads etc are considered nominal ie the average. The plus/minus are the 3-sigma loads. From this one can extrapolate the 1:500 loads which means probability of 0.002 loads. Extremely critical systems (the Waldemort systems)) have even lower probabilities.

However it very very difficult to anticipate extreme values with limited data. So one has to use imagination which is killed in regular engineering studies and then there are the accountants/bean counters who will blackball you for being conservative in your estimates.

In mid 70s a Hydrology prof at IITM was using FFT on flood data to come up with 100 year flood design limits etc for weirs and gates. He was considered a nut for using FFT which was the domain of Electronics Engineer and not for lowly civil engineers!

(I helped his grad student for it helped me learn to code FFT in Fortran and got some extra time on the IBM 370 in those days!)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 22:17

And modern Risk management couples those low probabilties with measures to mitigate the consequneces.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Mar 2011 22:33

ramana wrote:(I helped his grad student for it helped me learn to code FFT in Fortran and got some extra time on the IBM 370 in those days!)

Et tu Brutus! You too went to the Madrassa in those days ? Ah the trusty punch card 370. I think they got rid of that only in the mid 80s !

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 22:35

ramana-ji, now do you see why i made that comment about marine drive and 35m tsunamis?

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Mar 2011 22:43

Normal operating loads etc are considered nominal ie the average. The plus/minus are the 3-sigma loads. From this one can extrapolate the 1:500 loads which means probability of 0.002 loads. Extremely critical systems (the Waldemort systems)) have even lower probabilities.

True. Those indeed are estimates, however there is a limit beyond which you think the probability is so low that you stop worrying. However that doesn't mean that a 100m Tsunami or a Richter scale 20 earthquake cant happen , just because the probability is so low. Even a one in a million year event can happen (like the metorite that wiped out the dinosaurs) anytime within the 40 yr span (with a very low probability of course), but millions of dinosaurs that ruled the earth for millions of years saw it happen to them.

ramana wrote:And modern Risk management couples those low probabilties with measures to mitigate the consequneces.

Well, that is probably good for natural sciences /engg kind of field where the system is robust, replicable and lends to experimental verification and proof, but in Phynance and social "sciences" (I prefer Social Studies, there is no science in it, despite what the social studies snake oil salesmen would like you to believe), where they misapply that to fat tail sytems, you get black swans with alarming frequency and disastrous consequnces like the current global meltdown.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Mar 2011 22:52

Lalmohan wrote:ramana-ji, now do you see why i made that comment about marine drive and 35m tsunamis?

Marine Drive is not in seismic zone 5. Has no known history of Tsunami's or quakes.

Discussing Marine drive is entirely irrelevant an pointless.

Discussing the Eastern sea board at least has merit and comparisons with 2004 Tsunami have already been made, which are very instructive.

Banana, lal chix and Stock market are all quite meaningless to the discussion here and only serve to distract from the more meaningful data points.

Such as studies outlining the extent of health issues caused by radiation, the current levels of radiations and the state of the nuclear plant.

===============

Not to lalbrof but in general

And direct deaths from Chernobyl were only 30, so going by the brilliant wisdom on display, Chernobyl is actually safer than HP roadways?

Is logic ka kya kiya jaaye? I propose we replace HP buses by nuclear reactors used in Chernobyl, after all they have killed fewer people yet.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 23:00