2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2011 11:42

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world ... usion.html

Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant

TOKYO — Given the fierce insularity of Japan’s nuclear industry, it was perhaps fitting that an outsider exposed the most serious safety cover-up in the history of Japanese nuclear power. It took place at Fukushima Daiichi, the plant that Japan has been struggling to get under control since last month’s earthquake and tsunami.

In 2000, Kei Sugaoka, a Japanese-American nuclear inspector who had done work for General Electric at Daiichi, told Japan’s main nuclear regulator about a cracked steam dryer that he believed was being concealed. If exposed, the revelations could have forced the operator, Tokyo Electric Power, to do what utilities least want to do: undertake costly repairs.

In Japan, the web of connections between the nuclear industry and government officials is now popularly referred to as the “nuclear power village.” The expression connotes the nontransparent, collusive interests that underlie the establishment’s push to increase nuclear power despite the discovery of active fault lines under plants, new projections about the size of tsunamis and a long history of cover-ups of safety problems.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2011 14:05

I suppose after all the various stalwarts and websites that have been quoted on this site, even the New American has become halal to quote.

In this article, author Ed Hiserodt, who wrote a book called What if Radiation is Actually Good for You? , has some interesting things to say.

The situation in Japan is grim. Estimates of the dead or missing — and by now this latter group must be moved into the dead column — is above 25,000 souls. A half-million residents are homeless, with many in danger of starvation since roads and railroads have simply disappeared. Yet the world’s media pays only lip service to the plight of Japanese citizens. It is almost entirely focused on the disabled nuclear reactors and the “leaks” of radiation that have had, and will have, virtually no effect on human health.

Note: In the Fukushima prefecture itself a dam burst minutes after the earthquake and swept away 1,800 homes. Perhaps somebody on this thread - particularly those who are untiringly dredging all manner of negative reports they can trawl from the Net which badmouths the Japanese - could try to find something which could give an indication of what percentage of the roughly 25,000 dead, died on account of this dam? My rough estimate, even if one person per home died and nobody else who happened to be on the path of that water were killed, then we have score: Dead by dam burst in Fukushima: 1,800. Dead on account of radiation in Fukushima: 0.

Interestingly, many of the expatriates “escaped” to areas where the background radiation was higher, in some cases much higher, than the areas in Japan they were evacuating owing to radioactive releases. An April 1 Bloomberg article by Stuart Biggs and Yuriy Humber gave the current background radiation measurements in Tokyo compared with other areas. Even after the releases in Japan, the amount of background radiation in Tokyo is still below the world average. The article quoted Bob Bury of the UK’s Royal College of Radiologists, “The situation in Japan looks set to follow the pattern of Chernobyl, where fear of radiation did far more damage than the radiation itself.”

If we analyze for a moment the MSNBC.com story “Japan faces another dilemma: Radiation-contaminated bodies,” {thank God this piece of thrash wasn't posted here!} we should remember that exposure to radiation does not make one radioactive, e.g., you don’t become radioactive from an X-ray. So any contamination would have had to settle out from the atmosphere onto the bodies. One might ask how the radioactive particles know how to zero in on the corpses and avoid the area that surrounds them.

UConn physics professor emeritus Howard Hayden points out in his newsletter, The Energy Advocate, that the joke is on the Californians who are now gobbling down potassium iodine pills to saturate their thyroids in an attempt to block an accumulation of radioactive iodine. The “K” in KI pills is potassium, a small percentage of which is radioactive Potassium 40. In an attempt to avoid barely detectable amounts of Iodine 131, they are ingesting easily measurable amounts of bone-seeking Potassium 40. Actually this radiation won’t bother them either, although the pills are not gentle on the digestive system and give the same symptoms — nausea and cramping — as does real radiation sickness, which has afflicted no one in Japan, let alone thousands of miles away in the United States.

The next quote is a keeper, should be posted as a sticky on this thread!

Fear of radiation is a learned behavior. Moreover, it’s not something we learn from personal experience or observation. We have no way to sense it and must be told by others that we are in danger. As noted above, we receive plenty of information from the media on the dangers of radiation, and this is nothing new. Professor Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh looked at the New York Times Information Bank, which allows access to numerous publications, and found over the period 1974 to 1978 that there were about 120 stories per year on automobile accidents that killed some 200,000 people. But there were 200 stories per year on radiation that killed no one. Do you know anyone who died or was sickened by radiation? Do you know anybody who knows anybody who was such a victim? The odds are a million to one against it.

Note: Tragically last year two of my relatives died in automobile accidents. Does that mean I should stop driving my car?

Aside from death and radiation sickness resulting from extremely high doses of radiation, the only other known negative effect of radiation on humans is an increased risk of cancer. While certainly real, this threat seems overblown. Professor John Cameron, of the University of Wisconsin Medical School, points out that there were only about 400 excess cancer deaths in the tens of thousands of exposed individuals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If a large-scale, real-life sampling of radiation survivors didn’t validate hypotheses of skyrocketing cancer rates, though many of the affected people suffered acute radiation exposure, why then do we hear terrifying reports about the number of cancer deaths we can expect from the recent partial meltdown in Japan, where no one has been reported to have faced acute exposure? It is because of a statistical hypothesis known as Linear No Threshold theory, or LNT.

Linear No Threshold theory assumes that there is a linear relationship in the amount of danger posed by increasing levels of radiation. Let’s use aspirin to demonstrate LNT at work. Assume that 100 tablets is a 100-percent fatal dose of aspirin. (That is roughly the case for a 200-pound man.) Linear No Threshold theory would predict that 50 tablets would cause a 50-percent mortality rate, 10 tablets would result in 10-percent mortality, and a single tablet would cause one percent of the users to die. We can pretty well agree that this doesn’t happen with aspirin, but we are told that it does for radiation.

High doses of radiation, for example 100,000 mrem, are carcinogenic and generally follow the LNT. But there is a growing consensus among health professionals that no such risk occurs below 10,000 mrem. Anti-nuclear activists and the media haven’t caught on to this, however, as the following example shows.

Let us assume that the risk of cancer increases by 10 percent for anyone exposed to 100,000 mrem of radiation. If we extrapolate this linearly to zero, then at 10,000 mrem we have a one-percent increase in cancer. At 10 mrem, there would be a 0.001 percent increased risk of cancer. Now comes a hypothetical release of radiation that blankets the country of Japan with a dose of 10 mrem, the U.S. average for 10 days from natural sources. With a population of 127,000,000 people and a mortality of 0.001 percent, the LNT predicts 1,270 increased cancer deaths. Of course the media would pick up on this fact as gospel, needlessly frightening the citizenry with fictitious threats of cancer and death.

So what will be the likely outcome of the nuclear meltdown, and the subsequent release of radioactive elements, in Japan? Once pumps are fully operational and structural damage to the nuclear power plant is repaired, the level of radiation from venting the containment vessels and from uncovered spent-fuel cooling ponds will quickly drop, as will airborne particles. Within a few months, the 131I deposited on the ground will decay to zero. Some 137Cs (cesium) will remain detectable on the ground, but at present it appears to be only a tenth the amount of that from the Chernobyl incident — and the amount from Chernobyl was on the same order of magnitude as the natural radionuclides in the soil.

Of course, anti-nuclear activists will predict thousands of cancer deaths based on the LNT, which will not happen, but no matter. Fear is the objective. As we have already seen, the Fukushima “disaster” will become the rallying cry against nuclear power. Few will remember that the plant stayed generally intact despite being hit by an earthquake with more than six times the energy the plant was designed to withstand, plus a tsunami estimated at 49 feet that swept away backup generators 33 feet above sea level. Wonder how those windmills would have stood up.

We've already seen the above being played in a well-orchestrated fashion on this thread haven't we?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2011 15:36

http://rt.com/news/operator-test-drowni ... d-reactor/

Fukushima operator starts test-drowning damaged reactor

The reactor is already partially drowned with water about six meters deep. Once TEPCO’s plan is fulfilled, the water will be 18.8 meters high and will completely cover the fuel rods. The operation was conceived specifically for the Fukushima disaster and had never been tried before, reports Itar-Tass news agency.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in- ... story.html

Nuclear crisis takes high psychic toll in Japan

Just more than a month ago, Minamisoma was a city of 70,000. When the March 11 earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear emergency at the atomic plant to the south, the city — subdivided, by lines of latitude, into three smaller towns — was at just the distance perfect for maximum confusion. Those who lived in the southernmost strip were required to evacuate. Those in the middle strip were told to stay indoors. Those at the top strip were told they had nothing to fear.

In practice, local officials said, most people in Minamisoma followed their own guidelines, doubtful that the lines between safety and danger had such bold boundaries.

amit · Post by **amit** » 27 Apr 2011 15:39

^^^^^
Aha! The Washington Post story is precisely the kind of journalism Ed Hiserodt commented about in the post above Sanku's.

At the end of the day it's not about radiation and risks thereof. It's about the psychic condition created, that is irrational fear of nuclear, in short a sort of social engineering.

Even in this report, here's the real empirical evidence of the actual danger posed by radiation in the town:

At a radiation screening center, just three of 22,182 have been found with levels that the government considers above the limit. (They were ordered to take a decontamination shower.) Those on the city streets now ride their bikes and keep their skin uncovered.

Why am I not surprised that this particular paragraph was not quoted in the post above?

Mort was right what does a stupid college like MIT know? They don't have a professor or chair on psychic abilities, na? They are definitely hand in glove with the corrupt nuclear industry.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2011 22:43

Reality check redux

Power for reactor cooling lacking
Nuke plants' backups fall way short
Kyodo

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 426x1.html

yada yada yada...

The company is trying to secure three 1,825-kw power-supply vehicles with the hope of deploying them by around next March, the sources said.

blah.....

Hokkaido Electric Power Co. has also deployed one 3,200-kw power-supply vehicle at its Tomari power station, but the capacity is not enough to achieve stable shutdown of the reactors and it plans to add a second vehicle within two years, the sources said.

yada yada yada....

Basically there is no back up and mostly there is going to be no back up for 2 years for most places, at best, if ever.

So much so for -- "safety"

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Apr 2011 21:18

chaanakya wrote: US power company abandons reactor construction ...

Well why they are not getting convinced by all the arguments put forth by experts and yumbeeai...
They want to abandon nuclear power when it is cheapest, safest and cleanest of 'em all....
..

The question is whether others would follow suit??....
....and to whom Unkil yumbeeai hope to peddle their wares and earn their living....
...Only in India one can be insensitive to Public opinion and sensitive to Scamming.
...Is it one off example??

To be fair....not all are scared by scaremongers...thinking people are not always swayed by all that narebazi.. here is another news item:
Palo Verde operating licences renewed

27 April 2011
The operating licences of all three units at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona have been extended for a further 20 years beyond the original 40-year licence period by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Palo Verde (Image: APS) The plant's operator, Arizona Public Service (APS), submitted its licence renewal application to the NRC in December 2008. The company said that it has made various recent equipment upgrades to enable the continued safe operation of Palo Verde including the replacement of components such as steam generators, reactor vessel heads and low-pressure turbines in all three units. APS also reached an agreement in 2010 with local cities guaranteeing the supply of sufficient cooling water for the plant through to 2050. The company is also modernising the plant's cooling towers.

The NRC said, "After careful review of the plant's safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that the applicant had effectively demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging and that there are no safety concerns that would preclude licence renewal. In addition, NRC conducted inspections of the plant to verify information submitted by the applicant." The renewal of the operating licences of the Palo Verde units brings the number of reactor licences renewed by the NRC to 66 out of a fleet of 104 reactors.

The renewed licence of unit 1 will now expire in June 2045; unit 2's expires in April 2046; while that of unit 3 will run until November 2047.

APS chairman and CEO Dan Brandt commented, "The ongoing operation of Palo Verde is important to a reliable and affordable energy future for Arizona." He added, "For many more decades, Palo Verde will supply billions of kilowatt-hours that are safe, clean, low cost and secure."

"As our response to recent events in Japan demonstrates, Palo Verde and the entire US nuclear power industry are committed to continuous learning and improvement to enhance safety," Brandt said. "The NRC's approval of the licence renewal is a mandate for even greater commitment to safety at Palo Verde."

According to APS, power generation operations to date at Palo Verde have offset the emission of almost 484 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (the equivalent of taking up to 84 million cars off the road); more than 253,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide; and 618,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide. The company noted, "If Palo Verde were to cease operation at the end of the original licence, replacement cost of natural gas generation - the least expensive alternative - would total $36 billion over the 20-year licence renewal period."

The three units at Palo Verde are capable of generating nearly 4000 MWe. The plant supplies about one-third of the base-load power used in Arizona. The plant is owned by a consortium of seven utilities in the southwest of the USA. As well as operating Palo Verde, APS - with a 29.1% stake - is the largest shareholder in the plant

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Apr 2011 22:05

Indian response to safety calls

Indian leaders are preparing to reassess some aspects of nuclear policy following the Fukushima accident and violent protests against a proposed nuclear plant at Jaitapur.

Yesterday the Indian government announced it would table a new nuclear safety law to create an autonomous nuclear regulatory body in the country and it would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) operational safety review team (OSART) to help with future Indian nuclear industry safety reviews and audits. These measures would bring it into line with practice around the world, where nuclear safety is recognised as an area where neither business nor politics should have influence.

The Indian government also said it would incorporate "standalone safety systems" in the design of each reactor in Jaitapur in Maharastra. The move follows intensifying demonstrations near the planned site, with one person being killed and 20 others injured on 18 April when police opened fire on an angry local population which attacked a police station in parallel with a planned demonstration at the plant site.

In addition, India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh, a member of the government's dominant Congress party, had been shifting in his public statements over nuclear safety in general and Jaitapur in particular. In his most recent pronouncement, on 23 April in Ludhiana, Punjab, he said: "The [Jaitapur] nuclear plant issue is a wakeup call after Fukushima and we cannot ignore the panic of the residents." Furthermore, he advocated a "pause button for the time being" on approving new nuclear plants. On 15 April, he clarified his position on Jaitapur: he had not "called for a re-think, I have called for a deeper thinking."

India has plans to increase its nuclear power capacity from the present 4780 MWe to 20,000 MWe by the year 2020 with the expansion of capacity to include 2500 MWe of fast breeder reactors and 8000 MWe of light water reactors. However, the Japanese crisis and the Jaitapur dispute have caused anxiety in the industry. Madhukar Vinayak Kotwal, senior executive vice president – heavy engineering for Larsen & Toubro, said that he was concerned that misinformation was being spread through the Jaitapur protests. "I just hope that the protesters do not derail the entire nuclear program, which is vital for the energy needs of the country," he told World Nuclear News.

Indeed some protesters are insisting on complete rollback. "All the new nuclear plants that are being proposed should be scrapped and all the existing nuclear plants be gradually shut down," said Neeraj Jain, an organiser for India's National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements. He said his group's strategy was aimed at persuading the central government that nuclear power is so unpopular, it supports the industry at its electoral peril. "It has to come from the prime minister's office and only public pressure can force a change like in Germany," he said.

However, in Maharashtra state, the chief minister Prithviraj Chavan (also a Congress party member) has already ruled out any possibility of abandoning the Jaitapur proposal. "We are determined to complete the project and that too on schedule," he told Mumbai journalists on 21 April.

Kameswara Rao, energy and utilities leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers India, stressed that there was positive political capital associated with India's nuclear industry and that this could win the day in government assessments of future policy. He noted India's indigenous nuclear program had a good safety record and the imported reactors that will form part of the planned capacity expansion use the latest technology.

He backed the government's latest announcement, saying there is a need for an independent nuclear sector regulator in India, periodic reassessments of safety, and more safety related information in the public domain.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Apr 2011 07:11

Meanwhile:
Here in USA, IN Alabama three boiling water reactors ( Browns Ferry NPP) were shutdown automatically due to worst outbreak of tornadoes. Cooling system (at least up till now) are working with combination of offsite power as well as onsite diesel generators.

NRC was notified because some glitch, alternative power supply was not available for 15 minutes or so.

ar Regulatory Commission "when the normal and alternate power supplies for essential equipment were unavailable for more than 15 minutes." TVA stressed that "safety systems performed well."

Unit 2 and 3 are in cold shutdown, unit 1 is still being cooled to get cold shutdown.

Hope this does not have any fallout at Jaitapur...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Apr 2011 07:42

Fukushima update: TEPCO delays plans to submerge reactor vessels - April 28, 2011

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... elays.html

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) today postponed plans to add extra cooling to reactor number 1 – thought to be the most damaged reactor – by flooding the containment vessel that surrounds the reactor vessel with almost 8,000 tonnes of water.

The unprecedented flooding plan is seen as a potential solution to the fact that leaks are hampering cooling of the reactor vessel, and possibly leaving fuel rods exposed. The same procedure is being considered for the plant's two other stricken reactors.

But engineers are holding back from executing the plan following tests yesterday, Nikkei.com reports, because of concerns that adding water to the containment vessel might create a negative pressure inside it that would draw in air and so perhaps trigger a hydrogen explosion. The weight of the water could also stress the containment vessel and lead to structural damage if an aftershock hit the reactor. Any leaks in the containment vessel could also worsen local contamination; attempts to remove highly contaminated water from the reactor basements continue to stall with more water leaking back into them than is being pumped out.

Nikkei.com also reported that concerns about a possible leak in the fuel pond at reactor 4 have resurfaced.

US supercomputer centres are offering Japanese colleagues compute time in a show of solidarity. The NSF's Teragrid reports on how its centres are trying to help with the emergency response in Japan by offering supercomputing resources.

Keith Baverstock, a radiobiologist at the University of Eastern Finland's Kuopio Campus, has an editorial in the BMJ calling for the health lessons from nuclear accidents to be more thoroughly explored. He doesn't seem impressed with the international response to the Fukushima accident here.

India has decided to delay approval of four new reactors, the Wall Street Journal reported today, signalling perhaps a tougher regulatory line.

Editorial: Chernobyl 25 years on

Notes: Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2443

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2443.full

Lessons have not been learnt and the full public health implications are unknown

On 26 April 1986, a nuclear incident occurred in the then Soviet Union in a place called Chernobyl. Radiological data garnered after the United Kingdom’s Windscale (Sellafield) nuclear incident in 1957 had been used a decade earlier to set emergency reference levels to protect the UK public after such events. [1] These would be used to determine evacuation and food control policies in the immediate aftermath of an incident. In 1979, the Three Mile Island incident in the United States did not pose a threat to the UK, but it was clear in 1986 that Chernobyl might. Unfortunately, not all the UK authorities recognised this possibility, so when Cumbria and southern Scotland received fallout about a week after the incident the state of preparedness was less than optimal—the first radiological assessment appeared 20 days later, [2] but it contained errors that went uncorrected for three years. [3]

The situation was much worse closer to Chernobyl: the fallout was serious and extensive, but the Soviet authorities initially denied that an incident had occurred, then acknowledged a small one, and finally—by evacuating more than 100 000 people from their settlements—acknowledged the full seriousness of the situation. Throughout Europe chaos reigned for several weeks: bans on milk were enforced in some places but not others, suspicion of contamination was enough to prevent trade in commodities, and conflicting official advice about travel was rampant. The European Regional Office of the World Health Organization (WHO/EURO) quickly evaluated the available data to formulate rational risk based advice to member states. In the immediate aftermath a programme was developed recognising the need for harmonisation and rapidity of response. An early visit made to the worst affected areas by Professor Lennart Levi of the Karolinska Institute identified an epidemic of stress related disease attributable to public anxiety. This subsequently became known as the psychosocial effect, [4] and is arguably Chernobyl’s most serious health detriment to date, notwithstanding more than 6000 thyroid cancers in those exposed to iodine-131 as children and more to come. [5] A lack of trusted and timely information in the public domain exacerbates the public health effects of such incidents.

The events taking place at Fukushima in Japan over the past weeks are similar to the situation immediately after Chernobyl. Although information abounds, little of it is usable, [6, 7] especially in terms of determining the potential effect on public health, and its truthfulness is doubtful. In the first days the engagement of the international organisations (WHO and the International Atomic Energy Agency) to ensure harmony in response to the incident was notable by its absence, the dedicated Nuclear Emergency Project Office in Helsinki set up in 1998 as part of EURO’s post-Chernobyl response having been closed in 2000.

Institutional failure aside, attempts by the international research community to learn and implement the public health lessons of Chernobyl have been less than effective. Although useful information on the sensitivity of a child’s thyroid to iodine-131 has been collected (and stable iodine prophylaxis was used at Fukushima), more knowledge is still needed. [8] Recently, an in-depth review of health related research carried out by experts under the auspices of a European Commission project (Agenda for Research on Chernobyl Health (ARCH); http://arch.iarc.fr) referred to the coverage at the international level as “uncoordinated . . . forming a patchwork rather than a comprehensive, structured attempt to delineate the overall health consequences of the accident.”

Looking forward, the ARCH group’s strategic research agenda recommends that a lifespan study—in part bringing together cohorts already under study in the most affected countries, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine—is funded by the European Commission. [9] Latency periods for diseases caused by radiation generally extend from 10 to 60 years, so much could still be learnt and “no evidence of health damage” after comprehensive investigation would be a valuable result.

The health implications of Chernobyl have, since the incident occurred, been the “battle ground” for the lobbies for and against nuclear power, which seek to interpret the effects or absence of effects to their own advantage and are apparently unwilling to find the truth. Apart from exacerbating the psychosocial effects on those directly affected, this situation has prevented a comprehensive evaluation of the importance of the event to public health. A determined attempt to “close the Chernobyl book” was made in 2006, which sadly some UN agencies signed up to.[10]

Chernobyl can still help us understand the public health consequences of radioactive fallout and the consequent exposure to low doses of ionising radiation over prolonged periods. It represents the other side of the coin from the information gathered from the atomic bombings in Japan in terms of the consequences of exposure to high doses over extremely brief periods. The Japanese and American governments are supporting long term ongoing studies of a lifespan cohort of people who were exposed.

Many have been unconvinced by arguments that Chernobyl would be the final nuclear incident, and they have been proved correct. Now it is time to act, both to ensure that the protection of the population exposed to fallout from Fukushima benefits from the experience of Chernobyl, and that the long term health effects of Chernobyl are subject to appropriate and ongoing study.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Footnotes
Competing interests: The author has completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declares: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

References
↵ Baverstock KF, Vennart J. Emergency reference levels for reactor accidents: a re-examination of the Windscale reactor accident. Health Phys1976;30:339-44. [CrossRef][Medline][Web of Science]
↵ Fry FA, Clarke RH, O’Riordan MC. Early estimates of UK radiation doses from the Chernobyl reactor. Nature1986;321:193-5. [CrossRef][Web of Science]
↵ Baverstock KF. Cleaning up after Chernobyl. Nature1989;342:744. [Medline][Web of Science]
↵ Bromet EJ, Havenaar JM, Guey LT. A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Clin Oncol 2011; online 16 February.
↵ United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2008 report to the General Assembly with scientific annexes. Volume II: annex D. Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. 2011.
↵ Butler D. Fukushima update: Data, data, everywhere [blog]. Nature2011. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... a_eve.html.
↵ Editorial. A little knowledge. Nature2011;472:135. [Medline]
↵ Baverstock K. Chernobyl and public health. BMJ1998;316:952-3. [FREE Full text]
↵ Agenda for Research on Chernobyl Health. Strategic research agenda: the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. 2010. http://arch.iarc.fr/documents/ARCH_SRA.pdf.
↵ Peplow M. Special report: counting the dead. Nature2006;440:982-3. [CrossRef][Medline][Web of Science]

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Apr 2011 23:02

For perspective, the japan's earth-quake energy released was about 474 MT (of TNT), or 2x 10^18 joules

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Apr 2011 23:23

I think in I have posted fairly good technical information in clear terms about radiation. I, however, am still seeing (to be fair, from only one or two people eg Chaanakyaji) comments about 1mSV "limits".. let me post for record, another good PP from UCSB.

Keep this for your record, it is a good presentation.
Understanding the radioactivity at Fukushima
A physics and engineering perspective
Prof. Ben Monreal ( Also Prof Theo Theofanous in QA panel)
UCSB Department of Physics (and Chemistry)
You can see the audio or video of the presentation at
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/bmonreal11/

****
Basically it reiterates what has been presented here in BRF..
( Here, for perspective it says ..1000 mSv = texting while driving)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Apr 2011 00:06

^^^ Above presentation was given in March, but physics does not change and conclusions given then are basically are true.
Here are some of the conclusions (basically very similar to what I have said here in BRF around that time)
• The worst
stress/fear; HUGE education/communication failure
(Example: we have loss of life in police firing in Jaitapur because of ignorance)
• You have the information: count the millisieverts and
decide how to respond
• My feeling: the worst-case radiation hazards from
Fukushima are mitigatable and local
• (early evacuation + controls on 131 I in food)
• My feeling: the global radiation hazard is nil.
• The best way to reduce worldwide low-level radiation
releases is ... stop burning coal
• Save your energy for those affected by the tsunami and
“50 plant workers” at Fukushima

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Apr 2011 08:11

Government Adviser Quits Post to Protest Japan's Policy on Radiation Exposure for Fukushima Schools

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... st-to.html

A prominent Japanese radiation safety specialist has resigned his governmental advisory post in protest over what he calls "inexcusable" standards for school children in Fukushima Prefecture. The Yomiuri Online news web site reported in Japanese this evening that Toshiso Kosako, a radiation safety expert at the University of Tokyo, feels the standards are too lenient and that his advice has been ignored.

On 19 April, the ministry of education announced a "provisional idea" for schoolyards contaminated by radiation emanating from the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The ministry cited a recommendation by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), based in Ottawa, Canada, that sets an acceptable level of between 1 and 20 millisieverts (mSv) per year for individuals. In its Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas After a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency , ICRP recommendation reads:

"The reference level for the optimization of protection of people living in contaminated areas should be selected in the lower part of the 1-20 mSv/year band."

Japan's education ministry figured that children could spend 8 hours a day in a schoolyard with as much as 3.8 microsieverts per hour of radiation and then 16 hours a day inside a building with 1.52 microsieverts per hour and stay within a 20 mSv per year limit. Some 800 groups and 34,000 individuals have signed a petition demanding the withdrawal of the education ministry's 20 mSv per year standard, according to a coalition of citizens' organizations that will present the petition to the government on 2 May.

"Setting this (radiation exposure) number for elementary schools is inexcusable," says Kosako, according to Yomiuri Online. His resignation is expected to put additional pressure on the government to rethink its decision

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Apr 2011 08:44

NY Times story:
Why Older Nuclear Power Plants Remain 'Cash Cows' Despite Fukushima

There are no new nuclear plants in the foreseeable future for Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. reactor operator. Old plants, though, are a different story.

Exelon's proposed acquisition of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, announced yesterday, would add five nuclear reactors at three plants to the 17 reactors at 10 plants that the Chicago-based company already runs. Exelon's total nuclear capacity would climb from 17,047 megawatts to nearly 19,000 if the projected $7.9 billion deal is completed....
...he reason, industry representatives and critics agree, is that the existing plants remain very profitable, even with the decline in electricity prices that followed the market crash and recession in 2008.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main trade organization, ranks current nuclear plants as the cheapest source of U.S. electricity, with operating, maintenance and fuel costs of just over 2 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009, compared to 5 cents for electricity from natural gas-fired plants and 3 cents for coal generation. Exelon said its generating plants returned average margins of 3.76 cents per kilowatt-hour last year, despite lower power prices, and two-thirds of Exelon's overall generation capacity comes from nuclear plants.

"These [nuclear] plants, which are fully depreciated, were purchased at a discount and are, in fact, cash cows," said industry critic Mark Cooper, a senior fellow at Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment.
<snip .. for details see the article>

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Apr 2011 19:13

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... k-in-Japan

Tokyo - Small amounts of radioactive substances have been found in the breast milk of seven women in a survey involving 23 women in five Japanese prefectures, including Tokyo and Fukushima, according to news reports Saturday.

The amount was below the provisional limit for milk and dairy products under the Food Sanitation Law and poses no health risks to babies, Kyodo News agency reported, citing Japan's Health Ministry.

Glad to know and Japan's Health ministry is pretty sure, the seven women will appreciate and be impressed by the statistics of Zero deaths due to the disaster. OTOH it will be others who may be worried about how any small suboptimal health condition in these seven women will be attributed to the exposure. Maybe they need to be sent to counselling that psychological impact will be worse than physiological impact. The daily existence and doubts in the minds of those 7 women is going to be just fine, because "zero deaths" are impressive.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Apr 2011 19:26

meanwhile the social toll continues and will continue for some time to come...
http://rafu.com/news/2011/04/reflection ... fukushima/

Evacuations, some forced, others voluntary, have created a new stigma — a class of people shuttled about, irradiated through no fault of their own — who are being shunned from clinics and even refugee camps for fear of “polluting” others.

Already Fukushima-jin are reeling from prejudice, and refugees who hail from areas close to the battered nuclear plant are being discriminated against even in shelters. Worse yet are the heartbreaking reports of Fukushima kids turned away from medical clinics for fear they might be radioactive. This instant stigmatization touches on a raw nerve in Japanese culture, reminiscent of the sad fate of “Hiroshima maidens” and other radiated hibakusha, whose victimhood attracted social pity from a distance but avoidance up close.

Decades from now, long after the gaijin are forgotten, will there be a generation of Fukushima maidens unable to marry because of the stigma of birth in a radiation-tainted hometown? Only time will tell.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 02:00

JwalaMukhi wrote:..
Glad to know and Japan's Health ministry is pretty sure, the seven women will appreciate and be impressed by the statistics of Zero deaths due to the disaster. <snip>

I am afraid, there will always be, some true believers who will keep believing even the silliest theories, but for anyone who -
a) has taken time to read this thread's posts and links and sources and/or
b) has talked to any science/physics/radiation professor in *any* reputable university and/or
c) has studied even the most basic courses in math / physics
and
d) then applied quantitatively what the radiation numbers mean, instead of believing sensational news stories and silly "experts". One would know that:

a) Every human body, unless it has been dead for thousands of years, has small amount of radioactivity (mainly due to K40 - about
4000 Bq - equivalent to about 0.4 mSv/year dose).

b) Every time one eats a banana, or takes a walk along a beach, flies in a plane, or just normally live anywhere, gets radiation. And no, it is NOT different than I or Cs radiation coming out from Fukushima. (in way it harms human body) - The quantitatively amount of dose is what matters.

c) Avogadro's number is so large ( 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000) that it is expected to see the radioactive particle generated from Fukushima even in water here in Ohio. (which we have seen). (For those who do not know what is Avogardo's number means, the above is number of atoms in a single mol of, say Cs (137 gm). One way to think, about this is:
If you spread just *1 gm* of Cs over the whole earth (including all the oceans etc) you will still get about a BILLION radioactive atoms every square meter of the earth.

So critical part is to ask, how much dose one is taking? Is it significant? will it make ANY difference? or one is panicking because of ignorance?

To keep in perspective, please read, really read, the various links presented in this thread, or any reputable sources to get some understanding what 1mSV or 10 mSV or 100 mSV means..and then apply that knowledge.

Yes, electricity is dangerous. Many die when accidentally electrocuted. But 220V is different than 1 volt. One need not panic while changing a phone battery.

Unfortunately ignorance kills. Hence it is important to educate the aam adami. We have already seen one person getting killed and many injured due to utterly irresponsible and shameful clashes due to fear mongering even in India.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 02:29

Meanwhile, the idea of reactor being submerged in water (See my post) is being discussed (at present reactor vessel) ..

me wrote:5. At this time, perhaps, containers would be examined and any leaks would be sealed to keep the inside inside. Next 5-6 months all reactors may be flooded in water by erecting swimming pool type walls or make the whole part an artificial lake (There are some concerns, - earth-quakes related - to make sure the walls would be okay).
- This is perhaps better deal than concrete burqa.

Here is one story:
Japan Nuclear Operator Postpones Plan To Flood Reactor Vessel

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 02:32

Also in the news:
No significant damage to fuel at unit 4

A visual inspection by remote controlled camera has shown no significant damage to the used fuel pond of Fukushima Daiichi unit 4.

There had been fears of serious damage to nuclear fuel stored in the pond after a series of fires and explosions in the vicinity. Highly radioactive and heat-emitting used nuclear fuel is stored for a few years in the ponds before transfer to a larger storage pond shared by all six reactors at the site. However, the reactor was in a period of maintenance with the full core temporarily stored, requiring very much more cooling than the years-old fuel. This contributed to problems at the pond as water heated up and evaporated after the tsunami of 11 March disabled cooling and water top-up systems.

At least two fires as well as an explosion occurred in the area of the pond around 15 March, although at that time radiation levels prevented workers from making a direct check on the pond's status. Engineers became worried that the pool had dried out, the fuel overheated and zirconium cladding reacted with water to produce hydrogen, but this visual inspection initially discounts that scenario by showing no serious damage of the kinds that would be expected. Some debris was scattered in the pond as a result of the damage to the building but it is thought that fuel integrity has been maintained.

Tokyo Electric Power Company continues to regularly top up the water level in unit 4 as well the others on site. At unit 4 this is done with a concrete pumping truck dubbed an 'elephant' due to its long flexible delivery tube.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 04:00

Here is an op-ed from NYtimes.
Just like Sengupta ("Terror attacks in Delhi were religious riots") and others who routinely writes about India == TSP proved themselves as clueless as Helen Caldicott proves herself to be clueless regarding radiation.
Unsafe at Any Dose

She says without ANY basis "it would mean millions of new cases of cancer in the Northern Hemisphere."

.. and notes "2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases (from Chernobyl)

Now this was also mentioned by Bidwai, and host of others, with NYAS's name (as if NYAS has validated this) and one can not blame someone who think this is to be take seriously.

Here is NYAS take on that report:
http://www.nyas.org/AboutUs/MediaRelati ... 9a76d1ef33

Statement on Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume entitled “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
Annals volume 1181, published December 2009
Posted 4/28/2010

NEW YORK—“Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier book, “Chernobyl,” published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. Although the New York Academy of Sciences believes it has a responsibility to provide open forums for discussion of scientific questions, the Academy has no intent to influence legislation by providing such forums.
<snip> .

A cursory search about the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott) leaves no doubt about her scholarship.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 May 2011 04:06

Amber G. wrote:
So critical part is to ask, how much dose one is taking? Is it significant? will it make ANY difference? or one is panicking because of ignorance?

Unfortunately ignorance kills. Hence it is important to educate the aam adami.

Unforutnately, for anyone who has minimal understanding of how
1) human condition operates
2) human perception operates
3) eloquence and science goes out the door, even for the scientist, when exposed to negligible dosage because the scientist happens to be the one who is at the receiving end.
then one would stop harping on science as though everyone else has studied only arts and has no understanding of what a good reputable university means.
But alas, when one is not the direct victim, like those unfortunate seven women, one would pontificate how everyone else does not know what science is. But as mentioned earlier, please continue to educate those seven women too. BTW did anyone of those scientists who had understanding of a good reputable university, eat the fish and spinach from fukushima? probably, most them were pontificating how others were unscientific, conveniently. Looks like french abandoned the entire island only to ponder how others were just paranoid and have no understanding of science.

Most of the scientific people in Japan during the time, probably also paid premium charges to the flights to get out of Japan in a hurry, so they can impart science education from afar. Life is grand, when one is not a victim.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 01 May 2011 06:34

JwalaMukhi wrote: But alas, when one is not the direct victim, like those unfortunate seven women, one would pontificate how everyone else does not know what science is. But as mentioned earlier, please continue to educate those seven women too. BTW did anyone of those scientists who had understanding of a good reputable university, eat the fish and spinach from fukushima? probably, most them were pontificating how others were unscientific, conveniently.

Boss, one has to be in Japan to eat Japanese spinach etc. I'll give you an example closer to home. When there was a water cooler contamination scare in one of Indian plants, the director and senior scientists took a drink of water in front of a lot of staff to convince everyone that it was safe. Your allegations above are from your Musharraf because you have no proof about what a Japanese scientist did or did not eat.

Also, logic works both ways. Since *you* are not a direct victim of Fukushima, isn't it too convenient for *you* to condemn a power plant and the land around it from afar? What about people who own homes in Fukushima? Are you not destroying their lives by spreading rumors? You sit in a far-away land and pour water (no pun) on other people's hard work.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 May 2011 07:07

More report for people inclined to unscientific processes. caution: For psuedo-/scientists sold to nuclear industry this might cause heart burn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... icott.html

It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions about the health of the people living near Fukushima.

Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention. There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the physicists of the nuclear industry.

Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of cells.

However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes, phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy.

As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer. Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15 to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis. We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Well, there is now more unscientific challenge.

For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it.

unless physicians too sell their soul to new clear lobby.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 20:45

JwalaMukhi wrote:More report for people inclined to unscientific processes. caution: For psuedo-/scientists sold to nuclear industry this might cause heart burn....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... icott.html
... unless physicians too sell their soul to new clear lobby.

First, JwalaMukhi - Did you notice that the article has already been posted by me just a few posts above!, along with some background of the author.

It is quite easy and silly to use phrases like 'pseudo/scientists sold to nuclear industry' to denigrate others, it is more difficult, but useful, to learn some gyan and understand things which are important to a nation.

In any case, NY Times is a reputable newspaper but it also routinely publishes (specially in op-eds) articles from Musharraffs, Pakis, Mishras ityadi ..ityadi.. countless articles about how Indian terrorists are worse than Pakis and other disgusting stuff.

So for anyone who has swayam pragya, it would be easy to judge the article on its own merit. Don't forget, this Austrailian is the one who calls Indians (and those in Australasian govt who wants to trade Uranium with India) "Idiots on a pill".

To me, it does not give a "heart burn", more like disgust, very much like zaid hamid's kasab=amar singh type nonsense. What is sad, that BRF members are using her statement to take potshots at people who have used their time and skill to educate aam adami and members of this forum.

Coming back to the author, she is all over in the media..

Here is a clip, where she says how 1 pound of Pu is enough to kill every one on earth. A theory, almost as credible as Zaid Hamid's Kasab=amarsingh.. (For perspective, from 1950's bomb testing alone, there is TONS of Pu scattered over the earth due to those testing).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKD8QbnoNv4

On NYTimes article, she is a little careful and says 'published in NYSA', other times she routinely calls is NY Science Academy study when she talks about 1,000,000 deaths due to cancer caused by Chernobyl. (and extrapolates that millions more will die in Fukushima) What dishonesty! (As , if an Indian News media interviews and publishes views of Musharraf, she would have attributed it .as "Indian Media says there are 1000,000,000,000,000 troops killing freedom fighters in Cashmere"...)

Also , if you really admire how great this "If you love this plane" physician is, read her writings about irresponsible India who 'refuses to sign NPT and ready to start a nuclear war ityadi ityadi..

As said before, NO NYSA study has ever endorsed that 1,000,000 number. NYSA gone out of its way to remove the misunderstanding. (see the reference in my previous post). It, however, will not stop true believers from peddling the same discredited story again and again.. while taking potshots at people who have dedicated their life to understand and educate others. What a shame!

Honestly, this message is not 'tit-for-tat' kind. It will be silly for people to do another == . As said before, Ignorance Kills. It is not good for India.

It is not anti-nuke or pro-nuke lobby. It is between swaym-pragya and ignorance.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 21:07

JwalaMukhi wrote:
Amber G. wrote:
So critical part is to ask, how much dose one is taking? Is it significant? will it make ANY difference? or one is panicking because of ignorance?

Unfortunately ignorance kills. Hence it is important to educate the aam adami.
Unforutnately, for anyone who has minimal understanding of how
1) human condition operates
2) human perception operates
3) eloquence and science goes out the door, even for the scientist, when exposed to negligible dosage because the scientist happens to be the one who is at the receiving end.
then one would stop harping on science as though everyone else has studied only arts and has no understanding of what a good reputable university means.
But alas, when one is not the direct victim, like those unfortunate seven women, one would pontificate how everyone else does not know what science is. But as mentioned earlier, please continue to educate those seven women too. BTW did anyone of those scientists who had understanding of a good reputable university, eat the fish and spinach from fukushima? probably, most them were pontificating how others were unscientific, conveniently. Looks like french abandoned the entire island only to ponder how others were just paranoid and have no understanding of science.

Few comments:

Most of the scientific people in Japan during the time, probably also paid premium charges to the flights to get out of Japan in a hurry, so they can impart science education from afar. Life is grand, when one is not a victim... BTW did anyone of those scientists who had understanding of a good reputable university, eat the fish and spinach from fukushima?

Is above based of facts or something which you just made up?

I ask because, I have met quite a few Japanese scientific people in APS meeting (had dinner with them) and all went back. My own son went to Japan a few weeks ago, and radiation was least of his (or ours) worries. I don't eat fish (being Jain and all that) but those scientists had no ignorance-caused fear. Not that one does not take radiation seriously... that's why one monitors the level of I and Cs..but a few Bq in spinach is not much more scary than a few Bq in a banana. As said before, one needs to be careful while working with high tension electric wires but to be afraid of a phone battery is plain silly.

Beside, don't believe me, just get a radiation meter and check out mushrooms or wine from 1986..it will have higher radioactive Cs due to Chernobyl. No one cares (one has to be more careful in picking out mushrooms for other reasons).

To state the obvious, it is not " eloquence" or "harping" of science.. it is science itself. Or knowledge it self. what makes 2+2=4 is math, not how eloquently it is said, or who said it is pro or anit nuclear.

Hope that is helpful.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 21:46

One well-known gem from from Helen Caldicott's article (LA Times a few years ago) - which has become a classic.

(Interesting that she is being lionized by some in BRF

)

A Friends of the Earth study showed that a nuclear plant must operate for 18 years before realizing one net calorie of energy.

Here are some critiques and letters from other scientists who tried to question the inaccuracies in her articles...

I asked Helen Caldicott to respond to the several critical letters about her article in the Los Angeles Times. Like the adversaries of
Napoleon, she is eloquent, but thrives on vagueness. Her claims often don't survive a careful comparison with the facts and she seems to want to avoid a detailed discussion of the disputed points. Rather than defend the original specific points in her article that were disputed by her critics, she chose to attempt to shift attention to other topics, such as their organizational affiliation and her
views on nuclear weapons. Important topics, no doubt, but I would have more respect for her tactics, if she would either admit the errors in her original article or offer a rational defense and explain why her critics are mistaken. ..
Her response is basically an appeal to emotions and does little to refute the specific points mentioned by her critics...

To see the specific points raised, and utter inaccuracies of here article read, for example:
Comments on Caldicott Letter - By Robert Holloway

In her response, Helen Caldicott listed several references that she claims support her view that low doses of radiation are "6 to 8 times more dangerous that originally estimated". Let's consider her reference number 3, on the epidemiological study of Rocketdyne workers. As usual with the scientific claims of Helen Caldicott, the study does not provide strong evidence for her position. Actually the study showed that Rocketdyne radiation workers had a lower incidence of death from "all causes" and also
a lower incidence of death from cancer, than the U.S. population and also in comparison to other worker groups. Let's consider the actual percentages. Compared to the U.S. population, Rocketdyne radiation workers had a 32% lower death rate from "all causes" and a 21% lower death rate from "all cancers". Compared to a similar worker control group, Rocketdyne radiation workers had a 38% lower death rate from "all causes", and a 11% lower death rate from "all cancers". The number of radiation workers from which these
percentages are derived is over 4,000 which allows a high degree of confidence that the differences are real and not due to chance.

or see this:Helen Caldicott confronts her critics without resorting to reason

Michael C. Baker, of Los Alamos, noted that Caldicott claims to be concerned about public health but the clean use of nuclear energy could prevent the thousands of deaths caused by the burning of fossil fuels every year in this country alone. She claims the release of Cesium, Plutonium, and Strontium, will cause thousands if not billions ( ) of painful deaths {won't some one notice if billions had painful death??} , but doesn't explain how these elements would be released.

Caldicott responded to Baker, Should I defend myself against attack by members of the nuclear industry from Los Alamos where new and better nuclear bombs are currently being designed for use in third world countries {read India} now that the Cold War is over? Why is this evil thinking and action countenanced by you people when such weapons would invoke the incineration and vapourisation of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?

Again we have Caldicott attacking persons and institutions, without showing us what is wrong with the argument. She alleges that new bombs are being designed in Los Alamos for use in third world countries. Even if this was true, how does the very fact prove that Baker is wrong? Caldicott simply employes an extended ad hominem fallacy to dispute Baker's criticism.

Professor Bernard L. Cohen, a Physicist at the University of Pittsburg criticized Coldicott's alligation that nuclear power does nothing to cut CO2 emissions. According to Cohen, Coldicott misrepresent her sourse, "it is not supported, as she implies, by the Friends of the Earth (FOE) study she cites." Cohen also notes that Coldicott also stacks the deck by ignoring important facts, her claim "is belied by the fact that France, which derives 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, has far lower per capita carbon dioxide releases than any other industrialized nation.

It is odd that some have casted her as a heroine and a scientist while posting her NYTimes article.

Just curious, if JwalaMukhi still considers her a heroine...and finds merit in her article.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 May 2011 22:05

^ Boss, looks like the point is being missed. One can bring out all the personality issues of a physician out. But still the larger point remains.
Most people, who are exposed to radiation however minute it may be, would go to a physician for consultation, rather than to any soothe saying physicist. Is that correct, or would that be in dispute?
What the physician can or can't do about that is next level of question. The physician may monitor the exposure levels periodically and do nothing about that.
Unless one understands how humans operate, one can easily say that physicists can turn into soothe saying quacks (on large scale) to diagonize and provide treatment plan for the victims enmass.
Most saner human beings would like to hopefully see a competent physician or atleast a physician than a physicist to discuss the health fallout.
The role of physicists wanting to play the role of physicians is being questioned. The jury is out for the physicians on the impact.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 May 2011 22:29

Most people, who are exposed to radiation however minute it may be, would go to a physician for consultation, rather than to any soothe saying physicist. Is that correct, or would that be in dispute?

A PHYSICIAN for a radiation fallout! Why that is like praying to Sheetala Devi (the "goddess" with the broom and stuff for cleaning stuff and the "goddess" of chicken pox/small pox whatever) when you get Chicken Pox! Is it a case that just because the first five letters are common between a Physicist
and Physician you are confused and in your imagination their roles become interchangeable ?

A Physicians first source for all matters related to radiation is a well.. Physicist! For eg, sure people will go to a Physician and ask for a antiviral on the first news of a swine flu or something, but is the Physician who examines a patient and if need be dispenses a medicine more or is he less qualified on the spread, method of transmission etc of swine flu over a microbiologist/epidemiologist/virologist whose expertise is in precisely that and is not qualified to dispense antiviral to cure swine flu? If the microbiologist/epidemiologist/virologist advises for eg, advises that the method of transmission for a virus is by sneezing/touch and you need to cover your nose & mouth or that it is NOT contagious and that it cannot spread, will a Physician say NO (how will a Physician know about it, unless he reads what the epidemiologist writes about the disease transmission etc in detail?) to what an biologist says and come up with his own theory ?

Well, in that case, he/she is not a Physician, but a quack!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 May 2011 22:53

JwalaMukhi wrote:^ Boss, looks like the point is being missed. One can bring out all the personality issues of a physician out. But still the larger point remains.
Most people, who are exposed to radiation however minute it may be, would go to a physician for consultation, rather than to any soothe saying physicist. Is that correct, or would that be in dispute?
What the physician can or can't do about that is next level of question. The physician may monitor the exposure levels periodically and do nothing about that.
Unless one understands how humans operate, one can easily say that physicists can turn into soothe saying quacks (on large scale) to diagonize and provide treatment plan for the victims enmass.
Most saner human beings would like to hopefully see a competent physician or atleast a physician than a physicist to discuss the health fallout.
The role of physicists wanting to play the role of physicians is being questioned. The jury is out for the physicians on the impact.

Boss, yes looks like point is being missed.

There is NO personality issue. It's just this author's article is not only bad physics, it is TERRIBLE medical/physician advise. Point is, go to any reputable medical school, ask for their radiation specialists. There is NO dispute between physicist and physician, just between ignorance and knowledge.

I can name a few people in my family alone (and I am sure many here in BRF forum), who along with a PhD in Physics are MD and practicing medical doctors. (Many universities here in US have PhD/MD program)... and a few couples who are professor/doctor couple. Don't get taken in by the non-sense of physician vs physicist spouted by NYtimes op-ed piece. ALL science leads to same conclusion. Some of the noble-prizes have been given in Medicine for studies in radiation/dna structures etc.

Doctors are the one who take X-ray's, CT scans, and perform radiation treatments. We have many decades of these studies. One can repeat 'jury is out' as much as those '100,000,0000,0000' troops in Cashemer...but millions of X-rays/CTscans/Radiation treatments are being done. People have been living in Kerala for centuries..and cosmic-rays have been here since the earth became a planet. My point is, if you have any health issue, go to a real doctor, not a Helen Caldicott types who are not much more than a activists.

For crying out loud, wont some one notice, if "billions die painful death" as this lady is saying. There is 3 mSV background radiation, where I live (it is much higher in Kerala, or Idaho or Iran)..don't you think if 1 mSV was causing cancer in everyone we would have noticed it?

Hope this helps.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 May 2011 22:53

And where do some physicians refer their patients to ? Yes "Physicists". I hope all who made it till here can read and follow science and do not need any help.

http://www-bd.fnal.gov/ntf/what_is/index.html

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 02 May 2011 05:24

Amber G. wrote: There is 3 mSV background radiation, where I live (it is much higher in Kerala, or Idaho or Iran)..don't you think if 1 mSV was causing cancer in everyone we would have noticed it?

Hope this helps.

Certainly not. It is incomplete. Unless one also has the dimension of time added to that number. For example a table in this report has more usefulness than just stating incomplete units.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435
when one talks of 3mSV/year, then one is getting somewhere to doing actual science to account for health effects.

Next question is can the time and intensity be linearly scaled for health effects, that is unclear. i.e., if x(intensity) and if y(duration), could they interchange to yield same are similar health effects. That is unclear.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 02 May 2011 05:40

Hmmm. A nitpick on the missing "/year" after 50 pages of the thread? It is clearly a typo as anyone reading Amber's posts can easily see. Wow!

OTOH, if this is the best criticism, then the message is finding resonance at last.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2011 20:25

GuruPrabhu wrote: OTOH, if this is the best criticism, then the message is finding resonance at last.

Yes it is (from one of the articles which will continue to remain unread)

A prominent Japanese radiation safety specialist has resigned his governmental advisory post in protest over what he calls "inexcusable" standards for school children in Fukushima Prefecture. The Yomiuri Online news web site reported in Japanese this evening that Toshiso Kosako, a radiation safety expert at the University of Tokyo, feels the standards are too lenient and that his advice has been ignored.

Japanese situation is marked by scores of experts who resigned, turned whistle blowers and were fired etc. (And this is Japan, were people are REALLY careful to not speak out of turn) Tons of scientific data deliberately overlooked by motivated folks.

And although the Nuclear industry every where has faced similar charges of being aloof to critisism (Santy, Gopal K et al) Thankfully it seems the situation is not as bad as it is in Japan due to peculiar Japanese societal traits.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2011 20:30

More resonance to safety issues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ion-levels

Fukushima parents dish the dirt in protest over radiation levels

Furious Fukushima parents have delivered a bag of radioactive playground dirt to education officials in protest at government moves to weaken nuclear safety standards in schools.

The new regulations say that children can be exposed to 20 times more radiation than was previously permissible. They have prompted outcry, the resignation of a senior adviser and a verbal attack on the prime minister, Naoto Kan, by lawmakers from his own party.

Why 20? Scardey cats, I demand that the limit be 50 mSv

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 02 May 2011 21:09

Sanku wrote: I demand that the limit be 50 mSv

Without "/year" you run the risk of making some folks here very dismissive.

You need to be scientific in order to have your demands met.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 02 May 2011 21:22

^^^Scientific details are not important, especially dosage per unit of time. You need to understand the dangers of radiation like I do. As I have temporal control and understand the root causes of a shift in time & space where units are not important and only the number since all radiation is bad. I would advise that you try to see all of the facts like I do.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2011 21:38

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... ty-f-GGEFH

No limit to Tepco liability: Japan govt

TOKYO - Tokyo Electric Power should face unlimited liability for damages stemming from its crippled nuclear power plant, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said, indicating Japan's government will take a hard line against the utility in its rescue plan.

The cap has been one of the most contentious issues in the talks. Tepco and its creditor banks have argued for a limit on compensation, warning that without one Tepco's credit ratings could be cut to junk, making it impossible for the utility to raise funds, sources say.

"At a Diet session in 1961, a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character was explained as one beyond the imagination of humankind," Mr Edano told a parliament committee. "The (March 11) earthquake was a very large one, but it was of a scale that had been experienced by humankind in the past."

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 May 2011 00:00

Sanku wrote:Wiki-leaks on "paid experts"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... PL20110418

Exclusive: U.S. nuclear regulator a policeman or salesman?

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to Reuters by a third party, shed light on the way in which U.S. embassies have pulled in the NRC when lobbying for the purchase of equipment made by Westinghouse and other domestic manufacturers.

While the use of diplomats to further American commercial interests is nothing new, it is far less common for regulators to be acting in even the appearance of a commercial capacity, braising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

The subject is particularly sensitive at a time when there are concerns about whether the operator of the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant, was designed by U.S. conglomerate General Electric Co., had been properly supervised by the NRC's equivalent in Japan.

Sankuji , its a high stake involved here. Therefore Nuclear Industry, Nuclear experts and Regulators ( mostly drawn from Nuclear Industries after retirement) and Nuclear Dept officials (Joining Nuclear Industries after retirement) are in it together. We have seen this in Japan, same happens in USA and would be happening in India too.
Afterall, didn't Cohen went on to study radiation effects on mine workers to support the case of MNC there against the workers who felt victimised. And in the process he also discovered that Radon is not carcinogenic.Too convenient with with good compensation I daresay for conducting research.. Information from statistical data is a question of assumptions and interpretations. And how experts tailor their data to suit their conclusions.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 May 2011 00:08

Amber G. wrote:I think in I have posted fairly good technical information in clear terms about radiation. I, however, am still seeing (to be fair, from only one or two people eg Chaanakyaji) comments about 1mSV "limits".. let me post for record, another good PP from UCSB.

I suppose 1 mSv per year ( over and above the natural radiation dose being absorbed ) is what is fixed by US for general public not concerned with Radiation related work or not taking otherwise medical doses for increasing their lifespan or for diagnostics use. So why don't you write to them to raise this limit for ordinary healthy general public who may not have much requirement for exposing themselves to Radiation without his consent or information.

Probably in all their wisdom they themselves are not quite sure of long term effect of low doses radiation and hence kept the limit to 1mSV as safe annual radiation absorbed limit.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 03 May 2011 02:45

About half of the total annual average U.S. individual’s radiation exposure comes from natural sources. The other half is mostly from diagnostic medical procedures. The average annual radiation exposure from natural sources is about 310 millirem (3.1 millisieverts or mSv). Radon and thoron gases account for two-thirds of this exposure, while cosmic, terrestrial, and internal radiation account for the remainder. No adverse health effects have been discerned from doses arising from these levels of natural radiation exposure.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... ation.html

That is already well above your 1mSv limit for the general public in the US.

Dose limits for the public is explicitly spelled out here.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... -1301.html

(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.

And I guess you are referring to the this below.

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and