Bharat Rakshak

Amber G. wrote:

chaanakya wrote: Do me a favour and make a search for /1,400,000 radiation deaths/ with my name and tell me how many times I have mentioned it anywhere .

As mentioned MULTIPLE times by MULTIPLE users, the number is from Busby 's BBC interview
<ink.. Please do watch it> .. It is the same interview where he talks about nuclear explosions.

This was clearly articulated.. As you asked me to look at his paper, I did look and told you that his writing was rubbish.

If you don't agree with that kind of rubbish, just say so.. and perhaps as many advised, you should remove all that rubbish from brf.

You still can say if you think that was rubbish .. but to use inappropriate language as shown below is beyond pale. It is not Indic to call fellow brfite crude names.

..... What right you have pulled out of your m@&raf . ... Well looks like lying is your profession.

Per your suggestion I have reported the above lines.

I will not dignify other personal attacks and falsehoods with response.

Amber G. wrote:

chaanakya wrote: I have given a direct quote of your post where you have posted saying /some level of radiation might actually be good for health and have a positive effect on population /. And before you advise other to look at /these data points/ why dont you do the same. Let me see where I have written about it and what I said about it.
<..> Do you have the intellectual honesty to accept that I quoted you rightly? At least I have not read you disagreeing with the idea.

What you quoted was my quote .. quoting wiki which which said that some studies have shown that some (low level) radiation may actually be good....

Far cry from your dishonest diatribe that I said (all) radiation is good.

I do have intellectual honesty to note that you have maliciously misstated what I said.

I have still not heard (in spite of asking multiple times) how many people you think died in Chernobyl (or Fukushima) due to radiation poising ..The numbers you have given quoting Busby and such are in millions . do you agree with those numbers? Simple question.

Amber G. wrote:तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय .. countering ignorance with knowledge ..

chaanakya wrote: And perhaps you dont know there is equivalence when converting something to one unit though some may not have existed prior to its enactment. For example Fahrenheit and Kalvin

Please do read <this post> AGAIN before trying the same old points.

True, one can convert Kelvin into Fahrenheit as they both measure temperature but it will make no sense to convert it into calorie or MeV (to measure energy of "thermal" neutron)

And it is idiotic to convert Fahrenheit into Sievert.
(even though some may call some places as radiation hot-spots ).

What Busby's did similarly was idiotic except it was many times more silly. This was already explained many times by GuruPrabhu, Bade, Mort, me. Virtually every paragraph in busby's paper posted by Chaanakya had gross errors.

It is incredible that one person is still stuck into coulomb is same as joule type nonsense. /

What you quoted was my quote .. quoting wiki which which said that some studies have shown that some (low level) radiation may actually be good....

chaanakya wrote: Of course it is Idiotic to convert Fahrenheit to Sievert. But is it idiotic to convert Fahrenheit to Kelvin? Well you may think so. Your bananspeak.

JwalaMukhi wrote:^ No,to my understanding I believe that Shri VSundarji (if I am not mistaken), mistook that the fora to be other than high school timepass and tried to inject and initiate pure/applied mathematics discussion. Hence he was promptly trolled out.

With the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) receiving the crucial nod from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), its first reactor is just one step away from attaining criticality.

The AERB approval was based on the data obtained during the ‘hot run' done last July. KKNPP officials said this has proved the efficiency of every component of the first reactor. It will now be ready for the loading of the enriched uranium fuel assemblies, which will mark the criticality of the reactor that will start generating power from mid-June onwards.

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) has proposed to insure its nuclear assets, including the ‘nuclear island’ that holds core reactors.

It has said so to the government. The idea has been prompted by the belief that reactor use would be more and more of a commercial nature, with the increasing demand for energy. Currently, reactors are insured only till the time they are not operational. As soon as the fission material is fired into the reactors, the insurance cover ends. NPCIL bears the responsibility of any damages.

One issue that prevented insurance was existing government guidelines that bar inspection or survey of nuclear facilities. Since India is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, it did not permit any inspection of its facilities. "The government would have to modify rules if it wants to insure assets," said an official. When asked, officials of the department of atomic energy would not comment.

There also have been efforts by NPCIL to insure assets without the required survey for operational risks but insurance companies have not responded to this call, said an official.

Analysts also say, due to the very high liability in case of an accident, that insurance companies do not want to insure nuclear assets without due diligence. Also, due to the high risk involved, nuclear insurance pools have evolved internationally that collectively reinsure the nuclear assets. The concept of insuring nuclear assets is prevalent among countries where dependence on nuclear energy is considerable. Highly specialised nuclear risk underwriters inspect the facilities to ascertain the risks.

“Given the experiences from the tragedies at Bhopal, Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is very clear that the exposure to liabilities is very high. To cover those and ensure proper and timely compensation, taking a protective cover is essential,” said Anuraag Sunder, principal consultant, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"We are not in a situation in which Japan is there... It would be harmful for the country's interest to pass an Ordinance of self-denial
..
The Prime Minister said that government would never do anything which creates doubts about the safety of nuclear plants.
..
"ordered a complete revisit to all the 19 reactors. Those findings of the NPCIL are on the websites for everybody to see," he said.

Germany relies on France to meet its power need and France has a large number of nuclear power plants.

In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.
..
France is also forced to be the world's largest net exporter of electric power (exporting 18% of its total production via 10 GW overall of interconnection capacity[2] to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany),
..
France's electricity price is among the lowest in Europe,[5] however this figure should be treated with caution, since the stations were essentially built using French government sovereign debt
..
some reactors close on weekends because there is no market for the electricity.

“Non-violent protesters are being intimidated, harassed, imprisoned, and falsely charged. We understand that from one police station alone, charges have been brought against more than 50,000 people including about 6,500 for sedition and ‘war against the State' in the last eight months,” it says.

Shale gas development in the United States has turned the gas market there from shortage to glut, and cheap US LNG export projects are soon expected to provide stiff competition for Australian LNG export developments.

The US Energy Information Administration estimates that China holds the world’s largest shale gas reserves, with 1,275 trillion cubic feet, followed by the United States at 862 trillion cubic feet.

Neela wrote:

“Non-violent protesters are being intimidated, harassed, imprisoned, and falsely charged. We understand that from one police station alone, charges have been brought against more than 50,000 people including about 6,500 for sedition and ‘war against the State' in the last eight months,” it says.

Charges against 50000 people? Like the 7000000000000 Indian soldiers in Kashmir? British MPs show the same resolve for Dow's sponsorship of Olympics .

ACKGROUND: In the event of a nuclear accident, people are exposed to elevated levels of continuous low dose-rate radiation. Nevertheless, most of the literature describes the biological effects of acute radiation. Our major aim is to reveal potential genotoxic effects of low dose-rate radiation.

OBJECTIVES: DNA damage and mutations are well established for their carcinogenic effects. Here, we assessed several key markers of DNA damage and DNA damage responses in mice exposed to low dose-rate radiation.

METHODS: We studied low dose-rate radiation using a variable low dose-rate irradiator consisting of flood phantoms filled with 125Iodine-containing buffer. Mice were exposed to 0.0002 cGy/min (~400X background radiation) continuously over the course of 5 weeks. We assessed base lesions, micronuclei, homologous recombination (using fluorescent yellow direct repeat [FYDR] mice), and transcript levels for several radiation-sensitive genes.

RESULTS: Under low dose-rate conditions, we did not observe any changes in the levels of the DNA nucleobase damage products hypoxanthine, 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine, 1,N6-ethenoadenine or 3,N4-ethenocytosine above background. The micronucleus assay revealed no evidence that low dose-rate radiation induced DNA fragmentation. Furthermore, there was no evidence of double strand break-induced homologous recombination. Finally, low dose-rate radiation did not induce Cdkn1a, Gadd45a, Mdm2, Atm, or Dbd2. Importantly, the same total dose, when delivered acutely, induced micronuclei and transcriptional responses.

CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results demonstrate in an in vivo animal model that lowering the dose-rate suppresses the potentially deleterious impact of radiation, and calls attention to the need for a deeper understanding of the biological impact of low dose-rate radiation.

Citation: Olipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, et al. 2012. Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation. Environ Health Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104294

A new study from MIT scientists suggests that the guidelines governments use to determine when to evacuate people following a nuclear accident may be too conservative.

The study, led by Bevin Engelward and Jacquelyn Yanch and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that when mice were exposed to radiation doses about 400 times greater than background levels for five weeks, no DNA damage could be detected.

Current U.S. regulations require that residents of any area that reaches radiation levels eight times higher than background should be evacuated. However, the financial and emotional cost of such relocation may not be worthwhile, the researchers say.

“There are no data that say that’s a dangerous level,” says Yanch, a senior lecturer in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. “This paper shows that you could go 400 times higher than average background levels and you’re still not detecting genetic damage. It could potentially have a big impact on tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the vicinity of a nuclear powerplant accident or a nuclear bomb detonation, if we figure out just when we should evacuate and when it’s OK to stay where we are.”

Until now, very few studies have measured the effects of low doses of radiation delivered over a long period of time. This study is the first to measure the genetic damage seen at a level as low as 400 times background (0.0002 centigray per minute, or 105 cGy in a year). { for perceptive, this is about 1000 mSV /Yr = 10000000 bed /yr - about 1000 times 1mSV insisted by some.. about 50 times the current limit when one is forced to evacuate .. about 4 times the limit allowable (which they increased to 250 mSV) for emergency workers in Japan..Amber G notes }

“Almost all radiation studies are done with one quick hit of radiation. That would cause a totally different biological outcome compared to long-term conditions,” says Engelward, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT.
<snip:
(Background radiation . add up to about 3 mSV per year in US)

“Exposure to low-dose-rate radiation is natural, and some people may even say essential for life. The question is, how high does the rate need to get before we need to worry about ill effects on our health?” Yanch says.

Previous studies have shown that a radiation level of 10.5 cGy, the total dose used in this study, does produce DNA damage if given all at once. { This is what I said in one of VERY early message - I said that below this one does not see any symptoms ... LNT predicts about 4% increased risk of cancer in life time } However, for this study, the researchers spread the dose out over five weeks, using radioactive iodine as a source. The radiation emitted by the radioactive iodine is similar to that emitted by the damaged Fukushima reactor in Japan.

At the end of five weeks, the researchers tested for several types of DNA damage, using the most sensitive techniques available. Those types of damage fall into two major classes: base lesions, in which the structure of the DNA base (nucleotide) is altered, and breaks in the DNA strand. They found no significant increases in either type.
<snip - Technical details about DNA damage >
... “My take on this is that this amount of radiation is not creating very many lesions to begin with, and you already have good DNA repair systems.
Doug Boreham, a professor of medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University, says the study adds to growing evidence that low doses of radiation are not as harmful as people often fear.

“Now, it’s believed that all radiation is bad for you, and any time you get a little bit of radiation, it adds up and your risk of cancer goes up,” says Boreham, who was not involved in this study. “There’s now evidence building that that is not the case.”

Most of the radiation studies on which evacuation guidelines have been based were originally done to establish safe levels for radiation in the workplace,.....

....“when you’ve got a contaminated environment, then the source is no longer controlled, and every citizen has to pay for their own dose avoidance,” Yanch says. “They have to leave their home or their community, maybe even forever. They often lose their jobs, like you saw in Fukushima. And there you really want to call into question how conservative in your analysis of the radiation effect you want to be. Instead of being conservative, it makes more sense to look at a best estimate of how hazardous radiation really is.”

Those conservative estimates are based on acute radiation exposures, and then extrapolating what might happen at lower doses and lower dose-rates, Engelward says. “Basically you’re using a data set collected based on an acute high dose exposure to make predictions about what’s happening at very low doses over a long period of time, and you don’t really have any direct data. It’s guesswork,” she says. “People argue constantly about how to predict what is happening at lower doses and lower dose-rates.”
....
“It is interesting that, despite the evacuation of roughly 100,000 residents, the Japanese government was criticized for not imposing evacuations for even more people. From our studies, we would predict that the population that was left behind would not show excess DNA damage — this is something we can test using technologies recently developed in our laboratory,” she adds.
<snip>

"Instead of being conservative, it makes more sense to look at a best estimate of how hazardous radiation really is."

Mice exposed to low-dose radiation for an extended period showed no signs of DNA damage, said a study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that challenges existing radiation guidelines.
<snip>

Despite an increase in fuel production in the last two years, nuclear power plants dependent on domestic fuel are running at just 67 per cent of their capacity, adversely impacting India’s nuclear ambitions.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee, which quizzed officials from department of atomic energy, said it failed to understand why DAE could not amicably sort out issues with the local populace through extensive public awareness and outreach programmes,
considering that a “large amount of money” had been pumped into the two projects.

The DAE stood firm on its notion that uranium mining did not cause any health hazard. It carried out health surveys to drive home the point, but did not communicate the findings to those to whom it mattered the most.

“The fact that uranium mining does not cause health hazard needs to be appropriately conveyed to the people so as to convince them and win their confidence,” the House panel said in its report reprimanding the atomic energy department.