Low-dose study finds no effects

[FBaggins]

Living cells are constantly bombarded by ionizing radiation in various forms and from various sources. All this has the potential to damage DNA and unless this damage is corrected by self-repair mechanisms it can result in cell malfunction or the malignancy known as cancer. For most people the additional exposure from nuclear weapons detonation, nuclear power operations or nuclear accidents is a tiny fraction of the total, but this is not the case for everyone. The MIT team said their study contributed to asking the question, "How much additional radiation is too much?"

The effects of radiation on DNA have been clearly shown to be significant for high radiation doses, such as those received by Japanese survivors of atomic bombs. What is less well understood and far harder to study are the effects of lower doses over longer times. The prevailing method to deal with this area of uncertainty is to extrapolate the observable effects of high doses and assume the same relationship applies to low doses with no observable effect i.e. assume that all levels of exposure come with a commensurate health risk, no matter how small. This approach is used in practice as a basis for the management of occupational and public exposure worldwide.

...snip...

MIT said that the DNA strand in each living cell is subject to at least about 10,000 changes per day, but that self-repair mechanisms are able to correct these. Exposure to radiation at 400 times background levels resulted in only around 12 extra changes. "These studies suggest that exposure to continuous radiation at a dose rate that is orders of magnitude higher than background does not significantly impact several key DNA damage and DNA damage responses," said the paper.

...snip...
The paper concluded: "Taken together, studies of animals that live under conditions of prolonged continuous exposure to radiation at ~400x background do not show any evidence of increased levels of base damage... nor double strand breaks... nor induction of a DNA damage response... Importantly, when delivered acutely, the same total dose induced micronuclei and induced key genes involved in the DNA damage response." MIT said the absense of the genes in the low-dose group indicated a threshold for cell morphology and DNA damage responses, something that is absent from current extrapolation-based guidelines.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Low_dose_study_finds_no_effects_1605121.html

[Richard D]

1. I'd like to see this study . . .

. . . duplicated at least once.

[FBaggins]

3. This is hardly the first with the same implications.

Here's a recent example

Berkeley Lab Researchers Find Evidence Suggesting Risk May Not Be Proportional to Dose at Low Dose Levels

Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), through a combination of time-lapse live imaging and mathematical modeling of a special line of human breast cells, have found evidence to suggest that for low dose levels of ionizing radiation, cancer risks may not be directly proportional to dose. This contradicts the standard model for predicting biological damage from ionizing radiation – the linear-no-threshold hypothesis or LNT – which holds that risk is directly proportional to dose at all levels of irradiation.

“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”

Bissell was part of a study led by Sylvain Costes, a biophysicist also with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division, in which DNA damage response to low dose radiation was characterized simultaneously across both time and dose levels. This was done by measuring the number of RIF, for “radiation induced foci,” which are aggregations of proteins that repair double strand breaks, meaning the DNA double helix is completely severed

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/

The real study though is real life. There are plenty of areas around the globe where ongoing radiation exposure is significantly higher than others...and the difference between the two is larger than the dose rates commonly debated here. So all a researcher would need to do is compare cancer rates among long-time residents of these areas and show a statistical significance.

[FogerRox]

9. Ionizing radiation RE: cellular repair was taught in high schools in the 70's

The issue might be, not all people may react this way, there might be a median or grey area, where 2 siblings could stand next to each other get a low/med dose, one will live to be 97 & never have cancer, the other will be dead from cancer in a decade or less.

Linear threshold goes back 35 yrs. linear no threshold goes back - I dunno - 20 yrs? Unless I stuck my foot in my mouth.

[TalkingDog]

2. And as NPR recently informed us (again, twice in 2 years) Jellyfish are good to eat.

Which is incredibly lucky, because they seem to be taking over the dying oceans.

[Richard D]

4. I've eaten jellyfish.

An acquired tasted I didn't.

[TalkingDog]

5. Wait, wait... I got one more

Marge: I hope the children enjoy my special fruit punch.
Lisa: We got the recipe from the Fruit Punch Advisory Board.
Maude: Oh, gosh, I'm sorry. Our boys don't eat sugar.
Marge: But why would the Advisory Board give us bad advice?

[NickB79]

7. Ah, I see what you're trying to do there. Nice

Except this study was done at MIT, and published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be any influence from any nuclear energy agents (though if anyone has evidence of such, please post it so I can re-evaluate my conclusion).

[PamW]

6. Latest research from MIT

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is consistent with the latest study from MIT:

A New Look at Prolonged Radiation Exposure

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.html

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.

“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).

“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.

These studies are consistent with much recent research which shows that our DNA damage repair mechanism, just like our immune systems, is able to protect us from radiation to a degree some had not previously imagined.

PamW

[FogerRox]

10. I think there are at least 2 legit models

threshold and no threshold, 2 different groups.

[FBaggins]

11. Just as importantly...

... there's a broad history for the risk increase rising in a linear fashion throughout the dose range, and another model (at least as "legit&quot showing a linear dose response above a certain point, but below that line for smaller doses (and by "smaller" I mean still many times the levels involved in recent debates here).

Of course there's a third group (by no means "legit" and clearly a fringe tiny minority), that says that the low dose response is actually well above the levels predicted by the straight-line model.

[PamW]

29. The LBNL study pretty much blows away the no-threshold model

The no-threshold model is predicated on the LACK of a repair mechanism.

The LBNL study has now proved the existence of the repair mechanism because they are the first to actually WATCH the repair mechanism function. Read the paper. They noted that previous studies took "snapshots" of the DNA damage.

The problem with snapshots is the timing. Some researchers took snapshots after the repair mechanism had repaired the damage, and hence they didn't see the repair mechanism in action. Other researchers took snapshots too soon, and the repair mechanism hadn't done its work yet. So both classes of researchers failed to detect the repair mechanism.

The LBNL researchers did a time-lapse look at the DNA, as detailed in their paper. They SAW the DNA repair mechanism at work.

With the existence of the repair mechanism now conclusively proven; we know that there is a threshold at some level. As long as your radiation exposure is within the capacity of the repair mechanism; then you won't have any damage after the repair is done. Naturally, if you get a very large dose, like with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing victims, the repair mechanism is completely overwhelmed, and the response looks more like the linear model for large doses, only.

PamW

[FogerRox]

38. They watched it, thats really cool

And cant there be a genetic disposition to vigorous repair or not so vigorous repair or not. That might make a certain population prone to the no threshold scenario... ?

With Autophagy, in lean people its triggered easy, obese not so much. Autophagy cleans the broken crap out of cells, increased autophagy is connected to better survival in some cancer therapies. One article I read said that fasting for 3 days before chemo can help.

[jpak]

8. "the absense of the genes"

I rest my case

[FBaggins]

12. And what case would that be?

You didn't seriously read that to say that the low constant dose had destroyed the genes, did you?

[NickB79]

13. A spelling error by the editor of a newspaper signifies what? nt

[bananas]

14. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You

http://www.prwatch.org/tsigfy.html

[NickB79]

15. This is a study done by MIT and published in a peer-reviewed journal, that replicated a previous one

Do you have any evidence it was influenced by the nuclear public relations sector?

[kristopher]

16. The OP and post 6

Look to be different write ups of the same study done on mice.

MIT, is, in fact, an impeached source in relation to nuclear power. They have their own reactor and their Nuclear Engineering Dept is a very powerful political force within the school. Their antics post Fukushima were shameful and the work they did in 2003 intended to guide policy might as well have been dictated by the nuclear industry.


Shrader-Frechette
"Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest," Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 5-107.
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf


That said, I see no reason to think the results of the study are suspect or fraudulent. However I can't say the same for the interpretation of the person quoted primarily in the write up when they describe the significance of the paper. That part is subject to the same distortion that all such statements are:
“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.”

[PamW]

43. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

Just because MIT has a nuclear reactor, that makes them an impeached source??

BALONEY!!! That's like saying that because someone knows how to pilot an airplane, they are an impeached source with regard to issues of airplane safety. If anything, that person has more at stake.

What do you think MIT does with that reactor? You think it is for making money?

The MIT nuclear reactor is involved in research in science and in medicine. Research in those areas are a great benefit to mankind. In fact, the MIT nuclear reactor was instrumental in research that led to the 1994 Nobel Prize in Physics by Prof. Clifford Shull of MIT and Bertram Brockhouse of McMaster University:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1994/

Additionally, the MIT reactor is used in medical research such as BNCT - Boron Neutron Capture Therapy which is hoped to be useful in treating such challenging cancers as glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain cancer.

http://web.mit.edu/nrl/www/bnct/

The brain cancer "glioblastoma multiforme" is an aggressive cancer of the brain. It can't be treated by surgery because the tumor sends out a multitude of tentacles. It ends up looking like the root system of a weed in your yard. Imagine trying to remove a weed and its roots from your yard, without pulling up the dirt around the roots.
In "GBM" as it is known; the tumor is the roots, and the dirt is brain tissue. You do too much damage to the brain if you attempt to carve the roots out.

In BNCT, the patient is given a drug devised by pharmacologists at Massachusetts General Hospital. The brain is quite selective about what it will absorb from the blood. This is called the "blood-brain barrier". In cancers, this barrier is compromised, the cancers are less selective than normal tissue. The pharmaceutical developed by MGH is one that the cancerous cells will uptake, but healthy cells will reject. In this manner, the cancer cells are marked for destruction. The pharmaceutical contains Boron, and specifically Boron-10.

After the patient takes the drug and builds up the boron-laden compound in the cancer cells, they are brought to the MIT reactor for irradiation with epi-thermal neutrons from the reactor:

http://web.mit.edu/nrl/www/bnct/facilities/FCB/fcb.html

The epi-thermal neutron slow to thermal energies within the brain tissue. When the newly thermalized neutrons encounter the Boron-10 atoms in the drug, a (n,alpha) reaction results in two high energy charged particles, an alpha particle and a Lithium-7 ion. The range of these charged particle with charges of +2, and +3, respectively is about the radius of a brain cell. This means that the energy of these ions will be deposited in the cell that they are born in, and neighboring cells will be spared. Since the cell that the ions are born in is the one that contains the Boron-10; then it must be a cancer cell. Therefore, the cancer cells are killed and healthy cells spared by this technique which can be cell-specific.

One of the main detractors of this research was the senior US Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought the use of nuclear energy in all its applications. Unfortunately, for Senator Kennedy, he developed "glioblastoma multiforme", the very malady that BNCT is meant to treat. It's a cruel irony that the technique that Senator Kennedy opposed so much, was intended to treat the very disease that ended up killing Senator Kennedy. BNCT research was not advanced enough to save him. Senator Kennedy may have ended up signing his own death warrant.

In order to develop advanced techniques in nuclear medicine, it is necessary to have the best understanding of how radiation interacts with matter and biological systems. Those are the very things that the MIT reactor is used to study. Additionally, knowledge of this type is needed for the safe operation of the reactor, and those that work and research in its vicinity.

MIT has every reason to have the best understanding of radiation and radiation interaction in biological systems.

The fact that MIT has a reactor used in this matter doesn't impeach their expertise; it makes them one of the best in the field.

PamW

[flamingdem]

27. Excellent!

And pertinent around here

[RobertEarl]

17. Problem is

The radiation doses were delivered via bananas.

They piled up 400 bananas and then looked through the microscope after feeding several helpings of vitamin C.

But forget all that.... just look at the wording here:
"...each living cell is subject to at least about 10,000 changes per day, but that self-repair mechanisms are able to correct these. Exposure to radiation at 400 times background levels resulted in only around 12 extra changes.

So there are about 10,000 changes per day. So it could be about 9.500?

So the 12 extra could really be 512?

Shit, even i know better than to write something so damned specious. What kind of nuclear lackeys is MIT in bed with now?

[kristopher]

19. I'm sure the study itself is neither compromised nor poorly done.

IMO the problem is the way reporting on the significance of the results encourages an eager audience of nuclear boosters to speculation that overstates what the study means.

[PamW]

30. You don't understand the paper...

You don't understand the paper; try reading it again.

The amount of radiation due to Potassium-40 and Carbon-12...should give 10,000 DNA defects.

However, they noted only 12. That's because 9,988 of them were REPAIRED.

That's how we are able to live in a world where Mother Nature exposes us to THOUSANDS of times more radiation than nuclear power or nuclear weapons fallout exposes us to. We have a DNA radiation damage repair mechanism that fixes the DNA damage.

PamW

[Downwinder]

18. Why not just do a study of the fallout zone of the 1950s

Nevada atmospheric tests?

[RobertEarl]

20. Or read this about TMI

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7954

It is a study done of the people around Three Mile Island NPP. It was released as a court document having to do with cancer rates of the nearby residents.

Note that after the plant closed, people upwind of the TMI "accident" plume had cancer rates decline. Duh! While the plant was cooking the wind blew in from 360 degrees: everyone was at one time downwind as the plant released radiation for years. Then after the plant CLOSED their rates went down because the radiation ceased. Duh!

On Edit: The link above does not detail the court case as I wrongly remembered, the link below does detail a court document.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/experts-report-outlines-cover-ups-radiation-leaks

[FBaggins]

21. Even more fictional "reality", eh?

Note that after the plant closed, people upwind of the TMI "accident" plume had cancer rates decline.

The plant is still in operation.

[RobertEarl]

22. Semantics

The nuclear reactor is not still in operation. It was a problem for a long time and what did the NRC do?

I get that that the nukers are so far down in a hole that they have to do everything they can to make it look like there is a pinhole of light for their nuke religion, but all you are really doing is digging deeper with such specious arguments. But then, nukes have always been specious.

[FBaggins]

23. Semantics?

The plant is still operational. ONE of the reactors is shut down. I'm not even sure you're read the article you're citing... it doesn't say what you claim (though it makes plenty of BS claims).

It was a problem for a long time and what did the NRC do?

It "was a problem" for a long time? What exactly was that "problem"? You're not seriously suggesting that it continued to secretly spew undetectable radiation across the landscape for years are you?

Of course you are.

[RobertEarl]

24. Eh?

Are you claiming that the plant did not release radiation for years?

You are. Incredible. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Have you no shame?

[FBaggins]

25. Yes. That's what I'm claiming.

And it's absolutely correct. Unless you're going to include "releases" below any possible relevance.

[RobertEarl]

26. Possible relevance?

So, radioactive emissions do come out of NPPs.

But you qualify it with "relevance", and you chuckle at health reports detailing the consequences of nuclear emissions. As if no one ever was harmed by emissions from NPPs.

I sure would hate to be in your shoes.

[PamW]

28. TMI - no significant radiation dose to the populace..

RobertEarl,

Evidently you didn't understand that there are TWO reactors at Three Mile Island; Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 2 had the accident in 1979. Unit 1 resumed operation, and is still operating.

When Unit 2 had the accident, the containment building worked perfectly. It even contained a hydrogen explosion like the ones that blew the Fukushima reactor buildings apart. The containment building completely bottled up the accident as it was designed to do. However, at one point it was desired to allow workers into a small portion of the containment to do some work. In order to lessen the radiation dose on those workers, that small portion was vented, and the release was within what the plant is legally able to release. That amounted to the total release due to the accident. The release involved a few million Curies of noble ( inert ) gases. However, noble gases don't pose a big health threat because you can't absorb them; noble gases don't engage in chemical reactions. So if you breathe some in, you will just breathe it out, and the probability is extremely low that it would decay while in your lungs. The plant also released 15 Curies of Iodine-131 which is able to be absorbed However, the scientific study concluded that if you stood at the plant boundary for the week of the accident; you'd get about 1 mrem of exposure. Mother Nature gives each and every one of us a dose of 1 mrem every day due to cosmic rays and natural radioactivity.

This was all detailed in the ruling of Judge Sylvia Rambo, when she summarily dismissed the lawsuit against Metropolitan Edison, the operator of Three Mile Island:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

As far as radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants; practically anything has some radioactive emissions including YOU

For example, coal power plants emit radioactivity in amounts 100X that of nuclear power plants as detailed by scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

The question is how much. From the following, courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

The emissions from nuclear power plants, INCLUDING the Chernobyl accident; and everything else associated with nuclear power plants is labeled as "nuclear fuel cycle" in the table and amounts to < 0.03% of your background exposure.

Most of your radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature. Mother Nature and natural radiation radiate you 3000 times the amount you get from nuclear power.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

31. Pam

You trying to sell the idea that radiation from nuke plants is not harmful is a load of crap. I ain't buying it.

Post a poll asking how many are buying that crap. Go ahead. Make my day.

[PamW]

32. SCIENCE; not polls

RobertEarl,

Evidently you "think" ( term used loosely ) that scientific truth is decided by polls.

Where did you ever get that "idea"????

What is scientifically true or not is scientifically true or not REGARDLESS of whether a bunch of non-scientists who are not educated in the sciences, are "buying it", to use your words. ( Most non-scientists probably don't buy that time slows down when you go fast, or are in a gravitational field. However, who cares what the non-scientists "think" Einstein was right! )

Radiation from nuclear power plants is 3000 times lower than what Mother Nature exposes you to, and we can live with what Mother Nature exposes us to because we have a DNA radiation damage repair mechanism to fix radiation-caused defects.

It's a little like the immune system. We live in a world full of germs. Those germs are deadly. Ever see what happens to a person with AIDS? The body is ravaged. The AIDS virus doesn't do that. What does that are the germs that you and I are exposed to every day. They don't kill us because we have an immune system. For the AIDS sufferer, the AIDS virus destroys the immune system. That's all the AIDS virus does. The person is killed by all those every day germs. Without our immune systems, we couldn't live in the environment Mother Nature sets for us; it has too many deadly germs.

Mother Nature also is irradiating us. The way we are able to live with that radiation which is all around us is because we have a radiation damage repair mechanism.

The same repair mechanism works on the rather small amount of additional exposure we get from nuclear power.

Do you ever fly in airliners??? You get MUCH, MUCH more radiation exposure flying in that airliner than you do from nuclear power. If you don't, lots of people do. So why aren't air travelers dropping dead of radiation exposure? Do you think people are grossly harmed by the exposure in airliners? Again, the radiation damage repair mechanism takes care of that.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

33. Like i says

Post a poll asking how many are buying that crap.

Go ahead. What are you afraid of? The Truth?

[FogerRox]

39. Maybe you could over react some more

Low level Ionizing radiation causing cellular repair is at least 40 yrs old, hell it was taught in public schools.

The issue here is that there amy be different reactions due to genetic differences. Not everyone reacts the same way.

[RobertEarl]

41. Thanks for your reply

Of course you are aware that the subject is about releases from nuke plants into the environment. Releases that are not monitored for effect or directed at any certain disease or that has a doctor's approval.

But just dumped on everyone everywhere. And of which certain elements can be inhaled and or ingested by unsuspecting and unwitting recipients?

Really, is that a concern for which there can be what you call an over reaction?

[PamW]

61. Releases ARE monitored

Each nuclear power plant has monitors on them.

Additionally, the area around the nuclear power plants have a whole grid of radiation detectors monitored by the NRC.

That was one of the things that proved problematical for the plaintiffs in the case against Metropolitan Edison, the operators of Three Mile Island.

The Plaintiffs contended that there were radiation releases above and beyond what was detected by the grid of radiation detectors surrounding Three Mile Island. They were forced to contend that Three Mile Island released a plume of radiation that weaved around the detectors in the grid surrounding Three Mile Island, and thus avoided detection.

Judge Sylvia Rambo agreed with the scientists that said that was incredible, unbelievable, and just plain did not happen. That's why Judge Rambo DISMISSED the lawsuit against Metropolitan Edison for lack of evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

Now if we are talking about radiation releases that are NOT monitored; then coal power plants release in excess of 100 times what nuclear power plants release and are not monitored in any way. Courtesy of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

PamW

[RobertEarl]

62. Yeah, sure, all releases are all monitored 100%

Sure thing. You bet. Its all on the up and up. NPP's are totally honest and have complete coverage of all the releases.

Say, how much is being/has been released from Fukushima? Surely that data is available somewhere on the web since NPPs just love to keep us all informed of exactly what's coming out. Right?

[FBaggins]

34. Of course you remain mired in confusion.

you chuckle at health reports detailing the consequences of nuclear emissions.

Nonsense. I chuckle at the laughable notion that you actually think you've provided such "health reports".

You haven't. You've posted irrational scientifically unfounded ramblings that are directly contradicted by the actual health reports. And by implication, accuse universities, state and federal health agencies, health physicists, etc of knowingly lying to the public while a handful of obviously unqualified propaganda merchants actually know what they're talking about (they don't) when they try to sell the public on carrelation-causation even when the correlation itself is false.

[RobertEarl]

35. Oh?

Yep, the big money never lies to cover themselves from losing a buck.

That's why we have health care for all, a justice system that is blind and the environment is protected at all costs.

And we all live on big rock candy mountain and there is nothing to worry about.

Keep dreaming!

[FBaggins]

36. That's a precarious perch you've set up for yourself.

Every single competent source (public or private) is lying while the real truth comes from anonymous bloggers and those who profit personally from selling the lies?

The evidence appears to be that you're their target audience. The "fall for anything" crowd.

Want to buy a bridge cheap? It comes with a lifetime supply of tinfoil.

[RobertEarl]

37. Wrong again

There are many competent sources that detail the impacts of radiation from NPPs. You call them ignorant and laugh at the reports.

I am not falling for anything but the truth of how dangerous radiation is to the environment and humans.

I ain't buying what you are selling.

Go ahead and post a poll asking the members here if they are buying what you are selling. Make my day.

[FogerRox]

40. Then why dont flight attendants and pilots who fly long haul

Intercontinental routes have cancer, why arent they dead?

[PamW]

44. WRONG!!

NO - the sources that anti-nukes rely on that detail horrible impacts from NPPs are usually activist groups. They've been fabricating lies and boogeymen as fodder for the gullible simpletons that believe what these activists say.

On the other side, are the scientists. Their reports are found at Universities, in the scientific literature, at the big scientific laboratories....

I quote University reports, national laboratory reports, the National Academy of Science....those are the legitimate sources for information in the scientific realm, and not activist groups.

We, scientists know the truth; and really don't care if you are "buying it" or not.

We are not responsible for your ignorance; you are.

Do you want to learn the science; or do you want to remain willfully ignorant of the science.

PamW

[Downwinder]

45. Perhaps you can explain then,

why the Atomic Veterans Act says that MS, if diagnosed within seven years of discharge, is considered service related.

[PamW]

46. That's EASY

Because legislation like the Atomic Veterans Act is written by politicians and not scientists. A politician is not bound by the laws of scientific truth when they write legislation. Politicians will put anything into an Act that they think can get them more votes.

Sorry - but just because something is in an Act of Congress is NOT SUFFICIENT grounds for being scientific truth.

I'm appalled that I have to explain that.

PamW

[Downwinder]

47. So where are the Scientific Studies Of the 1950s fallout?

Last edited Sun May 20, 2012, 12:54 AM - Edit history (2)

he official position of DOD, DOE and, DOH is still that radiation is not harmful; while they run around talking about dirty bombs.

How large would a "dirty bomb" have to be to be comparable to "Dirty Harry" (Upshot-Knothole Harry)?

[PamW]

48. "Dirty bombs" are "Weapons of Mass Distraction"

Read what University of California - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller had to say about "dirty bombs" in an article he wrote for MIT's "Technology Review":

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13651/

I remember attending a seminar by Nobel Laurete Dr. Rosalyn Yallow, who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for her work with biology and radiation. She told us of a time she was testifying before a Senate hearing on the "atomic veterans".

She asked the Senators if the following was fair. Any serviceman who receives an equal dose of radiation in the course of serving their country, deserves equal compensation.

That is she asked if the amount of compensation should be proportional to the radiation dose. The Senators all agreed that would only be fair.

She said then you have a problem. For every dollar you give to one of the "atomic veterans", you need to give a thousand dollars to an airman that served in World War II. The airmen of World War II spent so much time in their airplanes at altitude, that the additional radiation dose that they got was thousands of times greater than the radiation does received by those servicemen that attended nuclear tests in Nevada.

At that point, Senator Kennedy looked puzzled and asked her, "What's the matter, can't we fix the planes?"

PamW

[Downwinder]

49. It has been half a century since the Nevada open air tests, long

enough for the Cancer rate, birth defect and Immune System effects to become apparent. Where are the Scientific Studies, pro or con?

[FBaggins]

50. Are you under the impression that there haven't been any?

There have been scores of them.

Radioactive fallout and cancer. J Amer Med Assoc, 1984 (Lyon JL, Schuman KL.)

Cancer incidence in an area of radioactive fallout downwind from the Nevada Test Site. J Amer Med Assoc, 1984; 251:230-236 (Johnson CJ)

Assessment of Leukemia and Thyroid Disease in Relation to Fallout in Utah. Report of a Cohort Study of Thyroid Disease and Radioactive Fallout from the Nevada Test Site. Contractor's final report to the National Cancer Institute under the terms of contract #N01-CO-23917, 1991. University of Utah.

Leukemia in Utah and radioactive fallout from the Nevada Test Site: A case-control study. J Amer Med Assoc, 1990;

Surgically treated thyroid disease among young people in Utah, 1948-1962, Am J Public Health, 1967; (Weiss)

The Utah leukemia case-control study: Dosimetry, methodology, and results. Health Physics 1995; (Simon SL, Till JE, Lloyd RD, Kerber RL, Thomas DC, Preston-Martin S, Lyon JL, Stevens W)

Thyroid nodularity in southwestern school children exposed to fallout radiation, Am J Public Health, 1971; (Weiss)

There's a decent bibliography at the end of this piece:
Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks


On edit - BTW - The official position has never been that radiation is not harmful. The official position (matched by all of the science) is that radiation is all around us and that you need to receive a significant dose before the risk increases significantly (I use the same word intentionally). There has been a great deal of study to determine what that dose is and to set guidelines for public safety well below whatever it is. The common shorthand explanation is that there is no 100% "safe" amount of radiation, but that there has been no evidence of a discernible increase in cancer risk at acute doses lower than about 100mSv.

[RobertEarl]

51. Here is a TMI study from NIH.gov

Part of abstract:
The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence. These associations would not be expected, based on previous estimates of near-background levels of radiation exposure following the accident.

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/105-1/wingabs.html

The problem lies in that environmental nuclear doses are not administered through doctors, etc., are variable and of different types. Radiation in the air is natural. Nuclear is not natural and not only is it just skin exposure but it is ingested and inhaled. Making such doses far more deadly at nearly any amount.

[FBaggins]

52. Have you read it? Are you thus admitting your error?

Obviously not or you wouldn't have posted it.

In comparing my claim of effectively zero impact from TMI vs. your links to claims of thousands... this study comes 99% of the way over to my side. Yes, they believe they identified a tiny impact for the TMI release (and even that disagreement was effectively rebutted), but even accepting their claim, their margin of error takes the effect down to almost statistical insignificance.

If you want to shift the argument down to whether there were zero additional cancers or instead a handful... I don't see that's there's much left to argue. It certainly represents a change from your prior claims.

The problem lies in that environmental nuclear doses are not administered through doctors, etc.,

So? Did you think that physicians have access to magical radiation that works differently?

variable and of different types. Radiation in the air is natural. Nuclear is not natural

Are you sure that you aren't a pro nuclear poster just trying to make the other side look bad? A number of us joke that some anti-nukes know so little about health physics that they think that there's something different between an alpha particle emitted from a "natural" source and a "man-made" source. But you rarely get one willing to make the error so clearly as you have here.

Let me respond equally clearly. You don't know what you're talking about. "Natural" radiation is in no way different from nuclear radiation.

not only is it just skin exposure but it is ingested and inhaled. Making such doses far more deadly at nearly any amount.

The hits just keep on coming, don't they?

Again, you're dead wrong. The thousands of becquerels emitted from your body (including the Carbon 14 that plays such an important role in your DNA) is internal radiation. The radon that in your part of the country makes up a big portion of your background dose, is inhaled constantly. The radionuclides in your food and water are obviously ingested. X-rays from cosmic background radiation or medical procedures are not "ingested/inhaled", but it hardly matters since your skin is no protection (that's why x-rays work of course).

[RobertEarl]

53. If you were honest

You would admit that radiation from nuclear plants is not natural radiation.

But you don't.

Take plutonium. Is plutonium natural?

That's what I'm talking about.

[FBaggins]

54. Did you read the post at all?

I've never denied whether or not nuclear radiation is man-made... what I've told you (and you have yet to accept - to your own shame) is that it doesn't make any difference.

Take plutonium. Is plutonium natural?

Of course. Did you think that it wasn't? It's actually the heaviest natural element.

But let's pretend that it isn't (there's certainly more manmade stuff in the atmosphere than natural)... Did you think that alpha radiation from Plutoinum is different from alpha radiation from the radon in your lungs right now?

There's a chemical toxicity difference, but the radiation is the same.

[RobertEarl]

55. If you were honest

You wouldn't badger me about technical terms.

You would state the truth that plutonium in and released from nuclear power plants is not natural, it is man-made.

It is curious that you would hold me to such a high standard when the fact is that it is nuclear power which poses a threat to life on this planet. Not I.

If you were honest we could have a reasonable discussion.

I admit that I am not a nuclear scientist. I am just a tree hugging environmentalist who sees the natural world being overtaken by man-made pollution. And the eventual conclusion of that is a change in the planet that is not conducive to life as we know it.

You, otoh, do pretend to know what is happening, yet you contrive to win the argument that nukes are ok by deception and being dishonest.

I feel sorry for you that feel you have to be so dishonest just to try and win stupid internet debates.

[FogerRox]

57. Baggins is not saying Nukes are Ok Thats BUll crap.

What the study says is that at certain levels cellular repair is a fact. Above those levels may indeed be cancer and death.

JSHC this is 9th- 10th grade science in the early 70's taught here in the US, in public schools.

I'm anti nuke, wanna see 100% renewables with storage & HVDC supergrid. But JS on a stick, We need to be better than the pro nuke side, and that means getting the science right.

I dont have one college credit, but I do have an aptitude for science. If you dont have an aptitude for science then you might want to acknowledge that, at least in private, to your self. If you were going to be honest with your self.

Did you know that there are 97 fission nukes in the US generating 104 gigwat hrs? Did you know there 23 BWR's in the US?

[PamW]

59. More like 104 nuclear units

The number of nuclear power reactors licensed to operate
in the USA currently stands at 104 composed of 69 PWRs
and 35 BWRs:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

PamW

[FogerRox]

60. Drat, I flipped the numbers,

23 Mark one GE BWR's, to be more precise. 104 reactors generating 97 gigs.

Thanks.

[happyslug]

58. Becasue Congress has ruled you are in 100% perfect health upon enlistment

Thus, by law, there can be NO preexisting conditions once you pass your physical unless it is noted in the physical. Now, if afterward the VA detects what it claims is a per-existing condition, the burden in on the VA to show it was NOT on the veteran to show it was NOT. This is mandated by Congressional passed law, was was the MS situation. Congress, by making the mentioned LAW as to MS, wanted to make it clear that Veterans can get benefits for something like MS that COULD have been caused by Military service. Congress wants the VA to show someone developed MS within seven years of Military service from some other cause, NOT the Veteran having the burden to show he or she developed MS due to Military duty.

[joshcryer]

42. This is good news for space travel, I think.

Especially Mars colonization.

[FogerRox]

56. Well, no

In the case of a mass coronal ejection IIRC we're talking about death in an hour or 2. One of the Apollo Moon missions was nearly wiped out, the ejection went in another direction, if it had hit the Moon, the 3 Astronauts would have certainly died. Quickly.