Preface: I take very seriously any warning about consuming a product which is important for the local economy. But when a respected radiation expert issues this type of warning, I have to pass it on.
I wrote to radiation expert Dr. Chris Busby to ask him if he thought people living outside of Japan should take any actions to try to reduce their radiation exposure:
Epidemiologist Dr. Wing thinks people outside of Japan shouldn’t do anything to attempt to reduce radiation exposure: Leading Epidemiologist: Instead of Trying to Avoid Japanese Radiation, Put Your Energy Into Demanding a Saner Energy Policy
But the French anti-nuclear NGO CRIIAD says that pregnant women and infants should take steps to reduce exposure: French Nuclear Group Warns that Children and Pregnant Mothers Should Protect Themselves from Radiation
I’ve also researched the scientific literature, and found that antioxidants can help a little: Can Vitamins or Herbs Help Protect Us from Radiation?
What’s your advice for people outside of Japan?
Professor Busby replied:
I attach my “don’t panic” paper. However, since then I have re-thought this advice as the thing is still fissioning and releasing 10 to the fourteen becquerels a day. This will mean that Sr-90 [strontium 90] and Uranium and particulates will be building up in the USA and Europe. I will assess this later but for now I think it prudent to stop drinking milk. I also attach the particulates note.
Busby – Fukuparticles2(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
Busby – Dont Panic(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
Disclaimer: I am not a health professional or radiation expert.
75 comments
Comments are closed.
Apparently, the Revolutionary Council has decided that radiation is evil and should be punished. I’m sure, however, that this radiation fellow is perfectly reasonable and if given a decade or two to explain himself (or at least enough time to allow the statute of limitations to run or the public to forget, whichever comes first), everything would be wonderful and we could all just get along.
The modern liberal is neither modern nor liberal. Discuss.
Our respected radiation expert is quite right – one should indeed stop drinking milk just in case it is contaminated. Also water, of course, and anything containing water.
Oh, and the stuff is probably in the air too, so you’d better stop breathing. Just in case.
Yes, I agree, because you can defeat scientific arguments with ignorant mockery.
Milk concentrates ambient raidation.
On the other hand, when have experts been right on anything lately.
If you really had a problem with radiatiom stemming from cesium, strontium in milk, you would have to stop drinking it (and water too) for at least the next 8 to 30 years in the case of cesium, or 4.88 × 10(10) years in the case of strontium.
Stop drinking water, or eating anything, too, because everything will be contamined after a while.
If that stuff were in the environment in significant quantities, there is not much you could do about it – except move someplace where they don’t have that problem.
Correction: We are talking about strontium 90 which has a half-life of 28.78 years, not strontium-87 with a half-life of 4.88 × 10(10) years.
“you can defeat scientific arguments with ignorant mockery”
Well, of course, you can’t do that.
At the same time, what is shown above is not a “scientific argument.” It is a claim completely without support within the bounds of the post, only linking to someone who may or may not be credible.
As for your, again, unsupported claim about concentration, if you concentrate sugar in water from 1ppb to 5ppb, I can almost guarantee your taste buds won’t recognize it as sweeter. Context is important, as some people like to say (I hate those people…ha). If the milk is less dangerous than sitting out in the sun, should we still tell people not to drink it? How do we “know”?
Busby is a loon..
My tap water comes from Hetch Hetchy in radiation soaked granite country in the Sierras. According to people like Busby I should have died ten years ago. We live in a sea of natural radiation, we have evolved plenty of defense mechanism, get over it. I’m with Tepco on this one.
Many people who go for a cure, or “take the waters”, as they say in mineral baths are getting pretty high doses of uranium too.
There’s no accounting for human stupidity.
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/health-and-fitness/23178-fdas-comparison-of-radiation-in-milk-to-everyday-exposures-called-improper.html
Thanks. You saved me the trouble. Why do these idiotic guest posts continue here. YS – stick to economics. I’m impressed with your knowledge there, radiation, not so much.
Ra. Di. Ation.
Google Chris Busby and you notice that the guy is a professional crackpot. Yves: I have said this before (with respect to Caldicott), but your credibility is seriously undermined when you cite as experts people who are not even close to the scientific consensus. It is no better with respect to radiation safety than it is with respect to climate change. You have your ideological and emotional biases, we all have, but you also have a brain capable of critical thinking.
Jani,
Keep in mind this is a “guest post” – linked via George Washington’s Blog, not Yves speaking.
Well in that case some quality control is really needed.
I agree, leave it to zerohedge…
The person who writes the “George Washington” blog is not an expert on anything but conspiracy theories and fear mongering. As others have said, he fits in with the nuts at Zero Hedge but I don’t know why Yves has anything to do with him.
GW cites sources. You don’t have to agree with them. You can even disagree with them based on prejudice and superstition and no one will care.
per recommendation, googling Busby yields a mildly controversial Wikipedia page, a lengthy word press hit piece by someone calling themselves junk science revealed, and several pages of news appearances and articles. Are we to dismiss out of hand any commentary he has made or will in the future make based on that 2nd google entry, or did your google search scare up a different set of results?
google radiation in milk and a general picture emerges of elevated but officially acceptable levels found in US cites. Why would concern about this evoke dismissive hostility? Should Tepco indeed entomb the whole stinking pile in 9 months, what reasons have we to believe this would not amount to a cumulatively elevated level of radiation in water and milk?
It’s not just him. France’s radiation agency is warning its residents, and their levels of exposure are 8 times less than on the West coast of the U.S.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negligible-news-503947
A major problem you would know about if you’ve been keeping up is that the EPA has recently decided in the wake of Fukushima that the safety guidelines for radiation exposure are thousands of times too low.
Euh, that article is not by the ‘French’, it’s by a French NGO, called CRIIRAD, and they don’t talk about anything but iodine-131, which has a half life of about 8 days. That’ why they don’t warn about drinking milk, but only fresh milk.
So, I can’t see how this is a support for what Busby is saying. He seems to be alone in his view.
Don’t know about this Busby guy, but the scientific consensus is most definitely that (a) the world is warming, and (b) the main drivers are anthropogenic.
>> credibility is seriously undermined when you cite as experts people who are not even close to the scientific consensus
Early on, what was the “consensus” on Fukushima? It wasn’t a “level 7” event. Now, it is. In 2005, what was the “consensus” on the credit and housing bubbles?
Not that “consensus” isn’t important. But, these are developing stories.
Also, officialdom tends to lie and tell us “everything is fine”, so they can get on with making/taking our money, declaring a profit, and calling their work done. Reading and considering *non-consensus* “bad news” seems a logical recourse.
http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/
When this headline popped up on my RSS feeder, I thought, “hmm, sounds like another crackpot guest post from Washington’s Blog.” Unfortunately I was right.
This post ranks up with GW’s finest.
Up there with ‘the world is running out of bumble bees’ and ‘ the gov’mt is controlling the weather’
Awesome stuff.
The world is running out of bees, so your sarcasm falls flat.
GW, thank you for this warning about uranium particulates contaminating our milk supplies.
Since one good turn deserves another, I also spoke with a radiation expert recently. Before going into details, please read my somber, grave, and sincere preface that I write to you with my lower lip quivering:
I want everyone to know that I take very seriously any warning about the effects of radiation. And when a respected radiation expert issues this type of warning, I have to pass it on. I do this because…I care.
Anyways…This expert also discussed uranium particulates. Specifically, he said that uranium has a pernicious interaction with all tin metals. He was particularly concerned about feeble bloggers, when he said, “For now I think it prudent to stop wearing tin foil hats.”
But don’t panic, GW. Just slowly remove your shiny headgear. It-Will-Be-OK. Do-Not-Panic.
ZH and GW blogs are both extremist sites that flip out over everything.
Occasionally they post something genuinely interesting that doesn’t seem to show up elsewhere but usually they’re making mountains out of molehills based on conjecture.
They aren’t quite the blog version of the Sun or Nat. Enquirer but they aren’t far from that either.
Sorry they offended your truthiness. You don’t have to read them you know.
You can stuff that comment you know where.
The whole point of these blogs is find out and tell others what is the truth, if they don’t do that then they serve no real purpose. At best they’re entertainment.
sorry ignore above, mis click and post, not meant for you
Whoohoo Dan Duncan uses the phrase “tin foil hat” in an attempt to discredit people who want to avoid unnecessary radiation. Way to go Dan!
>> DP says:
>> April 25, 2011 at 9:18 am
>> The person who writes the “George Washington” blog is not an expert on anything but conspiracy theories and fear mongering. As others have said, he fits in with the nuts at Zero Hedge but I don’t know why Yves has anything to do with him.
ZH and GW are fantastic blogs.
ZH and GW blogs are both extremist sites that flip out over everything.
Occasionally they post something genuinely interesting that doesn’t seem to show up elsewhere but usually they’re making mountains out of molehills based on conjecture.
They aren’t quite the blog version of the Sun or Nat. Enquirer but they aren’t far from that either
I think it’s extremist to drink the propaganda until you are calling actual experts “extremists.”
ZH and GW have been wrong on so much crap in the past that your comment can not be taken seriously.
Also you apparently don’t know the meaning of the word propaganda, which is anything but that the Japanese have been giving out. They’ve been quite open about events from the start and keeping giving out more information as they themselves find it.
You had it going for you till you started talking about “how open the Japanese have been about this”…
Are you serious????
Have you not been reading the news lately???
Each time the situation has become more critical, it turns out they knew about this before, but did not release the information …
Also, it’s not 3-4 Bq per day….but more in terms of Terra Bqs per day…Check out this link from yomiuri shinbun
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20110423-OYT1T00667.htm?from=y10
Yes I read the news and yes occasionally they will “learn” something or know about something a few days before hand before releasing more info about it. That is called making sure what you have is correct and not giving a confused and contradictory message to the media and people at large, which is a good thing.
Also the TBq number you’re freaking out over is for TOTAL radiation, which isn’t nearly as important as the radiation CONCENTRATION and EXPOSURE TIME which is what actually determines what is and isn’t dangerous.
An exposure 10TBq of radiation over one hour in a space of 40 cubic feet is probably going to lethal to say the least.
The same amount spread out over thousand cubic miles over a period of a month is nothing.
>> ZH and GW blogs are both extremist sites that flip out over everything.
People SHOULD be flipping out over what’s happening. On many issues.
Sure but this isn’t one of them.
You ever hear the fable of the boy who cried wolf?
Same difference here.
You guys know a Bq is nothing right? A single banana has thousands of Bq worth of radiation naturally occurring in it. Approx. 31kBq according to wiki. 10-14 Bq a day will not do squat to anyone.
You guys freaking out over this and defending that nut ball are undermining your own credibility.
Also Fukushima’s rating as a lvl 7 nuclear event is tentative and can be changed at any time, which they also said about the lvl 5 rating it had initially. They’ve already said they expect it to be changed one more time before the site is finally sealed off BTW, it’ll probably drop back down to 5.
If you people really want something to freak out over you should look up “B30 nuclear storage site” and “Lake Karachay”. Both of those places are nuclear disasters on par or WORSE than Chernobyl but you hear nothing about them at all, just Fukushima this Fukushima that. The Fukushima disaster totally destroyed the reactor and ruined the cooling storage ponds but the actual amount of radiation and particulate released has been trivial. Its a slightly worse TMI and that is it.
“releasing 10 to the fourteen becquerels ”
I think that means 10 to 14 power becquerels, not 10 to 14.
I’m not supporting any particular position, just trying to interpret what I am reading.
Been posted several times but whatever:
The TBq number you’re freaking out over is for TOTAL radiation, which isn’t nearly as important as the radiation CONCENTRATION and EXPOSURE TIME which is what actually determines what is and isn’t dangerous.
An exposure 10TBq of radiation over one hour in a space of 40 cubic feet is probably going to lethal to say the least.
The same amount spread out over thousand cubic miles over a period of a month is nothing.
Yves, this post is no better than anything on FoxNews.
The guy you are relying on does not publish in “scientific journals” – yet simply asserts he’s an expert. What’s next, a Rand Paul lecture series on how to be a doctor?
Would it kill you to read up on your sources before linking something? This thread has zero credibility.
From his wikipedia entry:
“In 2001, he was appointed to the UK Ministry of Defence Oversight Committee on Depleted Uranium (DUOB).[citation needed]} In 200 he was made Honorary Fellow, University of Liverpool, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology.[citation needed]
In 2004 he was named Leader of Science Policy for( EU) Policy Information Network for Child Health and Environment PINCHE based in Arnhem, The Netherlands.[citation needed].”
And you got your Ph.D from where exactly?
In 2008 he was a guest researcher, German Federal Research Laboratories, Julius Kuhn Institute, Braunschweig, Germany.[citation needed]. He was also a visiting professor at the School of Molecular Bioscience, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland[8][30]”
Unfortunately, the scientific and medical literature on the effects of low-level ionizing radiation support Busby’s arguments.
There is clear and conclusive evidence that low-level ionizing radiation hampers DNA repair mechanisms.
There is also strong evidence that many of the birth defects and childhood cancers stemming from Chernobyl were mediated by milk.
The radiation in bananas is less risky because the body’s potassium levels are more stable and the body is less likely to be “tricked” into absorbing (rather than excreting) this type of radionuclides (as compared to Iodine and Strontium).
I had no opinion about this topic before the disaster. I have spent several weeks researching using my univ. library’s Science Direct data base, a technical data base.
I was honestly appalled by what I learned and by my previous ignorance about the subject.
The propaganda about radiation has been so pervasive and effective that even educated people have little knowledge of the subject until they go in and really look at the research.
Wilson et al in 2010 essay “Inter-Individual Variatin in DNA Double-Strand Break Repair in Human Fibroplasts…” Mutation Research/Fundamental Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, vol 683, pp. 91-97
A.M. Kellerer, Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer–the epidemiological
evidence, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 39 (2000) 17–24.
D.J. Brenner, R. Doll, D.T. Goodhead, E.J. Hall, C.E. Land, J.B. Little, J.H. Lubin, D.L.Preston, R.J. Preston, J.S. Puskin, E. Ron, R.K. Sachs, J.M. Samet, R.B. Setlow, M.Zaider, Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing
what we really know, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 (2003) 13761–13766.
R. Wakeford, The cancer epidemiology of radiation, Oncogene 23 (2004)
6404–6428.
P. Bhatti, J.P. Struewing, B.H. Alexander, M. Hauptmann, L. Bowen, L.H. Mateus-
Pereira, M.A. Pineda, S.L. Simon, R.M. Weinstock, M. Rosenstein, M. Stovall, D.L.
Preston, M.S. Linet, M.M. Doody, A.J. Sigurdson, Polymorphisms in DNA repair
genes, ionizing radiation exposure and risk of breast cancer in U.S. radiologic technologists, Int. J. Cancer 122 (2008) 177–182.
Your sources look and sound impressive at first but don’t hold up to much research done lately nor to real world examples we have which out right disprove what you’re saying.
Such as this place where people live just fine with natural back round radiation levels 200 times in excess of what you find elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity
You “clear and conclusive evidence” is anything but and directly goes against what Busby is saying. Remember we’re talking about 10-14Bq of radiation, not the 100’s of KBq those papers talk about using at a minimum, no one anywhere rates that as risky in any form.
Also potassium is water soluble and is so readily absorbed by the body as to moot any point about how absorbable it is vs. iodine/strontium.
I find it interesting you would respond to my research with a wikipedia entry.
Hormetic effects have been documented in some of the literature but the stimulating effects of radiation are not consistent across populations. That is, a level of ionizing radiation that might stimulate DNA repair mechanisms in an adult may very well cause birth defects in an embryo or cancer in a child.
It is not valid to generalize radiation’s effects from an entire population’s location without controlling for other variables. Sorry the wiki link doesn’t count as valid evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity
In contrast, you may find this helpful reading:
Dietrich Averbeck, a, Towards a New Paradigm for Evaluating the Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis Volume 687, Issues 1-2, 1 May 2010 pages 7-12
The finding that mammalian cells and tissues and whole organisms react differently at high than at low doses of ionizing radiation questions the scientific validity of the linear no-threshold concept for low-dose exposures. Indeed, the classical paradigm of radiobiology was based on the concept that all radiation effects on living matter are due to the direct action of radiation. Meanwhile, the discovery of non-targeted and delayed radiation effects has challenged this concept, and one might ask whether a new paradigm has to be developed to provide more realistic protection against low radiation doses. The present overview summarizes recent findings on the low-dose radiation-induced bystander effect, genomic instability, radiation hypersensitivity, hormesis, radioadaptive and transgenerational responses. For these, some common features can be recognized.
“Radiation-induced bystander effect represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of the radiobiological effects of ionizing radiation in that extranuclear and extracellular effects may also contribute to the final biological consequences of exposure to low doses of radiation. There is evidence that targeted cytoplasmic irradiation results in mutation in the nucleus of the hit cells and that cells that are not directly hit by an alpha particle, whether nuclear or cytoplasm, but in the vicinity of one that does, contribute to the genotoxic response of the cell population” http://www.radiation-bystander.columbia.edu/
also
Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk Annual Report NCI Presidential Cancer Panel Report April 2010.pdf http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
and a testimonial
“the human body absorbs iodine and caesium readily. “Essentially all the iodine or caesium inhaled or swallowed crosses into the blood,” says Keith Baverstock, former head of radiation protection for the World Health Organization’s European office, who has studied Chernobyl’s health effects.” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html)
The wiki entry is literally just a brief summary of what you will find in any serious research paper of the place, it states nothing controversial about the site and none of your excerpts address that site nor the risk the amount of radiation levels at Fukushima that were released were dangerous in any way shape or form.
Radiation can certainly be dangerous but at levels that are far higher than what we’re seeing so far at Fukushima.
“Remember we’re talking about 10-14Bq of radiation”
No, we are not, we are talking about 10 ^ 14 Bq – off by a factor of 100,000,000,000,000.
Been posted several times but ok whatever:
The TBq number you’re freaking out over is for TOTAL radiation, which isn’t nearly as important as the radiation CONCENTRATION and EXPOSURE TIME which is what actually determines what is and isn’t dangerous.
An exposure 10TBq of radiation over one hour in a space of 40 cubic feet is probably going to lethal to say the least.
The same amount spread out over thousand cubic miles over a period of a month is nothing.
Your statement seems to me to be a general statement – that may or may not be true – but in any case you fail to show how this is applicable to the present circumstances.
For example:
The statement «There is also strong evidence that many of the birth defects and childhood cancers stemming from Chernobyl were mediated by milk.»
May be true for Chernobyl and sourroundings, but it’s to my knowledge not true for the rest of Europe. Are you saying that a substantial risk exists in this regard for Europe, the US, the rest of the world stemming from Fukushima?
Another example:
«There is clear and conclusive evidence that low-level ionizing radiation hampers DNA repair mechanisms.»
That’s also the case for solar radiation, i.e. taking a sun bath. Are you saying a substantial risk in this regard exists for Europe, the US, the rest of the world stemming from Fukushima?
N-PLANT WORKERS SHOW CHROMOSOME DAMAGE. (NUCLEAR POWER PLANT)
https://fukushimaleaks.wordpress.com/#__RefHeading__45_323964393
Twice more as the rest of population. Danger children deficient.
Small correction for those who are asserting 10-14 becquerels per day is small potatoes (I’m looking at you, tts): if you read the original article carefully, Dr. Busby is stating 10 to the POWER of 14 becquerels per day. This is a major, on-going disaster, with intermittent recriticality, virtually non-effective cooling, and very poor mitigation options.
The TBq number you’re freaking out over is for TOTAL radiation, which isn’t nearly as important as the radiation CONCENTRATION and EXPOSURE TIME which is what actually determines what is and isn’t dangerous.
An exposure 10TBq of radiation over one hour in a space of 40 cubic feet is probably going to lethal to say the least.
The same amount spread out over thousand cubic miles over a period of a month is nothing. Example:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
“On 20 April, deposition of I-131 was detected in 8 prefectures, ranging from 2.4 to 80 Bq/m2. Deposition of Cs-137 was detected in seven prefectures, the values reported ranging from 2.6 to 87 Bq/m2.
Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures. For Fukushima on 20 April a gamma dose rate of 1.9 µSv/h was reported, and for Ibaraki prefecture a gamma dose rate of 0.12 µSv/h was reported. In all other prefectures, reported gamma dose rates were below 0.1 µSv/h.
Dose rates are also reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances beyond 30 km from Fukushima Daiichi. On 19 April the values in this area ranged from 0.1 to 22 µSv/h.
In cooperation with local universities, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has set up an additional monitoring programme. For 20 April, measurements of gamma dose rates were reported for 54 cities in 40 prefectures. In Fukushima City a value of 0.42 µSv/h was reported. For nine cities, gamma dose rates between 0.13 and 0.17 µSv/h were reported. For all other cities reported gamma dose rates were below 0.1 µSv/h.
I-131 or Cs-137 is detectable in drinking water, but at levels below 1 Bq/L and in only a few prefectures. As of 20 April, one restriction on drinking water for infants relating to I-131 (100 Bq/L) remains in place for a small scale water supply in a village of the Fukushima prefecture.
Food monitoring data reported by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 20 April covered a total of 103 samples. These samples were taken on 3, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 April from nine prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Niigata, Tochigi, Tokyo and Yamagata).
Analytical results for 99 samples of various vegetables, shiitake mushrooms, fruit (strawberries), fish, seafood and unprocessed raw milk indicated that I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 were either not detected or had levels below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. Four samples of leafy vegetables (Japanese parsley, komatsuna, shinobuhuyuna and spinach) taken on 18 April from Fukushima prefecture had levels above the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities for radioactive caesium.
On 20 April, restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of the young of a specific sea fish (sand lance) from the coastal region of Fukushima prefecture. As has been reported previously, sand lance is the only seafood that has been found with I-131, Cs-134 or Cs-137 levels above the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities.”
Bear in mind these numbers are effectively “ground zero” or right next to it as far as anyone in China, Hawaii, or the continental US is concerned. Total radiation concentration has maybe risen 3-4Bq total so far.
So quit freaking out. Or continue and undermine what ever confidence anyone could or would have in what you people are saying. Whatever.
That was supposed to be 3-4Bq increase for the entire hemisphere, mistyped.
Listen to the latest Fairewinds updates
http://www.fairewinds.com/home
Chris Busby using European risk model to evalaute Fukushima’s projected effects
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/ecrrriskmodelandradiationfromfukushima.pdf
Dr. S. Wing on 3 mile island effects
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/seven-wing-presentation-tmi-health-effects
Siting more Busby and Fairewinds as “proof” of anything, especially of the “horrors” of TMI which only released the equivalent of a few chest x rays of radiation, further undermines your creditability.
We academics and scientists cite and describe citing practices.
tts does something called Siting.
Not sure what that is. Perhaps it is a unique form of troll activity?
Anyway, here is a cite on differential impact
… a given intake would result in a ten times larger dose to the thyroid of a one year old child (thyroid weight 2 grams) than to an adult (thyroid weight 20 grams) (Section IV, page 11).
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6283&page=218
Yes I misspelled citing, point for you.
Unfortunately you have once again posted a very generalized article that does not apply to Fukushima at all, it applies to nuclear bomb testing and involves relatively very high doses. So you’ve once again undermined your creditability in a very silly and obvious way.
No one is saying that radiation can’t be dangerous or that radioactive iodine in certain doses isn’t bad for you. But you are scaremongering and hand waving by posting these articles which deal with very different scenarios and dosages of radiation and radioactive substances and then saying that they back what you and Busby are saying, when they clearly don’t.
If anyone is trolling or at the very least arguing dishonestly here then it is you.
I really don’t know what the effects of Fukushima radiation are going to be. I think no one knows for sure.
However, I did research low-level ionizing radiation and found that children near nuclear plants, pilots, flight attendants, etc all have higher than normal levels of cancer.
I also looked at the research on Chernobyl and the fallout in the US southwest during the 1940s and 1950s. Low-level ionizing radiation causes cancer and birth defects and may be implicated in other disorders.
I spoke to someone in AZ who ran tests on iodine contamination in milk during the nuclear tests in Nevada. He said there were hights in milk of 100 picocuries a liter.
The other day Phoenix milk tested at 48 picocuries a liter. I don’t know if that was raw milk or not.
The EPA recommends that people should not be exposed to more than 100 mrem of “background” radiation a year.
The radiation dose to the thyroid for an infant would accumulate fast at 48 picocuries a liter of milk for any length of time.
Fukushima radiation may persist for 9 months. It may easily become worse.
What I’m waving my hands about is the dismissal of concerns about our long-term exposure over the next 9 months to low-level ionizing radiation.
Corporate interests are at stake because the US west coast is a source for agricultural products for much of the country.
I simply do not trust that the public would be adequately informed of risks because of the costs and the lack of alternative food sources.
The public has been lied to plenty over the years. What makes this time any different…?
The radiation levels are so low as to be barely over back round in most areas near ground zero, which has been verified by independent and multiple sources and even people driving around with Geiger counters on youtube if you like. If that amount of radiation posed real danger to people the human race would’ve died out long ago from various cancers and degenerative diseases. There is no link to that level of radioactivity and any disease, indeed even if you wish to ignore the example of the Iranian town I linked I can easily point to nuclear plant workers and X-Ray Techs as an example of people doing perfectly fine after being exposed to FAR higher levels of radiation for decades.
So quit comparing this to what you’d see from nuclear bomb fall out (like you keep on doing for some reason) because that is apples to oranges at best.
Most likely we’ve seen the worst of this disaster and they’re already starting to vitrify parts of the reactor now. Complete site clean up is likely years away, 5 at best, but it’d probably take another big earth quake or 2 to really cause another big radiation release.
Common sense is that you are now and going to be exposed to more raditation than you were six, twelve, etc. months ago. Common sense would also tell you there are things you can’t influence and there are things you can do to minimize or reduce the influence. To sit here and try and imply that things are as they were is the definition of insanity and foolishness.
The author of this post is either mentally unbalanced, or in the pay of the anti-nuclear cabal, or both. Not a single person will be measurably harmed by radiation from the Fukushima reactor incidents. Not a single person. No one was harmed by Three-Mile-Island. Chernobyl resulted in 60 deaths, maximum. Nagasaki bomb survivors have measurably better health than the surrounding population.
Nuclear power is 1000 times safer and cleaner than Coal-fired plants (which each emit five pounds of Uranium into the atmosphere daily), and about 400 times safer than oil or gas powered electricity generators. It is safer than solar or wind power.
Thanks for enumerating the most toxic energies, now please go and learn about the alternatives, and how we can just reduce energy usage…
BTW, Are ‘tts’ efforts here payed from some corporation’s PR budget?
Nope day off from work.
Not a single person will be measurably harmed by radiation from the Fukushima reactor incidents
Everybody knows that several Fukushima workers *have already been hospitalized* suffering from radiation burns. Thus the above “argumentation” appears immature and/or retarded!
Sofia do you really believe what you are writing about the lack of deaths from reactor accidents? The evidence is very much against your claims.
Furthermore, whistleblowers have charged that the reactors built in Japan’s Fukushima plant were unsafe
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/21/3168926.htm
Coal-fired plants are also not safe. That much is true. We should pursue alternative energy and re-design our cities to minimize our energy consumption.
It is indeed ironic that the technology we have produced to support our growth is now ensuring our decline biologically and socially (and morally it seems also).
If spent fuel rods require cooling in pools for 5 years after being taken from reactors then any significant disruption in power supply compromises our safety at a massive level while simultaneously demonstrating the essential risk-laden nature of nuclear energy…
I am puzzled by the number of people here who pretend to be regulars put out by the non-econ nature of posts like this one, but who I don’t remember seeing very often on said econ threads – in fact they only ever seem to alight on these nuclear or AGW posts, there to shower us with nuclear-friendly conventional wisdom, replete with stats, facts and figures of their own, which they just happened to have handy, as you would expect with econ/finance mavens bored by topics like this. I mean, are there really so many apparently casual supporters of nuke power who just happen to be trolling around blogs like this?
I smell several rats.
Right on spot.
(BTW I read NC every morning even when I’m not a regular commenter. Still I am a real person with a veritable online presence… Nothing that cannot be faked with money-paid technology though)
I noticed the same thing with the Gulf blowout.
These people just materialize out of nowhere and monopolize every post that deals with whatever their pet issue happens to be. And the aggressiveness!
I suppose they could be true believers, or they could be paid corporate hacks. But either way, like you say, they don’t pass the smell test. And truth-finding is not the mission of either coporate propagandist or true believer, so I suppose that’s why they always try to pass themselves off as “regulars.” But those of us who truly are regulars immediately pick up on the fact that they have never been sighted in these parts before, and this bit of dishonesty only impugns their credibility further.
So posts by regular posters are not valid?
I usually don’t bother with the non-econ links that are posted but this one was just too ridiculous.
Busby isn’t the only one saying there are serious problems.
Troll this:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/japan/110415/fukushima-death-toll-meltdown-chernobyl
I have a tendency to trust technicians over shills.
I agree with Busby and many many other people who have been sounding the alarm for years…
Basically the most powerful argument is to come and visit us in Ukraine. Come and meet people who lived around Chernobyl here and did the epidemiological count. Let us see if you guys dare talk us the way you comfortably do now.
I would not wish that to my worst enemy, although people who covered up (Hans Blix, ICRP and other “independent” commissions,…) would amply deserve living nearby the nuclear waste they so generously permitted for the rest of their days with their family and loved ones.
Go and learn.