2 nuke plant events - France and Japan

[ensho]

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng


France


Situation Update No. 1
On 02.12.2009 at 14:19 GMT+2

One of the reactors at the Cruas nuclear power station in Ardèche, southern France was shut down on Tuesday after a problem with the cooling system. EDF, the French energy company, reported the incident just before midnight local time and shut down the reactor. Water from the Rhone river is used to cool the nuclear plant, which employs more than 1,000 people, and the French Nuclear Safety authority (ASN) said vegetation had blocked the intake. The flow of water was restored in the early hours of the morning and the emergency alert was lifted around 6:30 on Wednesday. The accident was classified as a level two situation on the seven point scale of international nuclear incidents. ASN confirmed that the reactor was under control at all times and there was no affect on the environment. The Cruas site has four reactors, producing around 900 Megawatts each. It provides Rhône-Alpes with around 40 per cent of its power.
--------------------------


Japan


Situation Update No. 2
On 02.12.2009 at 08:54 GMT+2

Nearly 30 workers were exposed to radiation after liquid waste leaked at a nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, Chubu Electric Power Co. has announced. The accident occurred at the No. 3 reactor at the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station in Omaezaki, Shizuoka, when 53 liters of highly-concentrated nuclear waste solution leaked inside the plant's auxiliary building on Tuesday afternoon. Twenty-nine workers out of the 34 who were at the scene -- including four workers who were inspecting a concentrated liquid waste storage tank and others who rushed to the scene following the accident -- were exposed to up to 0.2 millisieverts of radiation. The company said the amount poses no health risk to the workers, nor did the leakage affect the environment outside the radiation controlled area. A massive amount of radioactivity at 1.2 billion becquerels -- 324 times higher than the government-set standard of 3.7 million becquerels -- was detected in the waste solution, the company said. At the time of the accident, the four workers were pumping wastewater out of the storage tank, which keeps concentrated liquid waste for a certain period to lower radioactivity in the solution. After an alarm about a water leakage sounded at around 4:15 p.m., the workers found liquid waste leaking from around four drain valves outside the tank and flooding the floor. The auxiliary building that houses the tank has three stories above ground and two below, and the accident occurred on the second floor in the basement. Chubu Electric Power said it was likely that the waste liquid poured out of the drain valves as its stickiness impaired the flow inside pipes during the inspection. "We are sorry for causing concern. We will try to determine the cause as soon as possible and prevent a recurrence," said a public relations official from the Shizuoka branch of the company. Senior officials of the branch visited the Shizuoka Prefectural Government on Wednesday morning to explain the accident. "There was no problem (with many workers being exposed to radiation) as they responded to the accident in line with the government's safety regulations," said an official from the company. The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the accident posed no health or environmental risks. "The amount of radiation that the workers were exposed to is about the same level as that for regular operations and does not pose a problem as the work was intended to confirm safety at the plant. Since the leaked solution did not leave the radiation controlled area, the incident would not have an immediate impact on safety," said an official from the agency.
------------------------------

so they got 'regular' radiation plus the accident's radiation but that's alright?

[Liberation Angel]

1. Once again, the most deadly energy technology in history, in the universe, vomits death

The spew from these plants on a daily basis is bad enough. It multiplies the radiation we get from the sun by many times (which already causes enough mutations to nudge "evolution" or "devolution" along (radiation destroys some species or alters them into new species).

Thanks for posting these reminders of how dangerous and sickening this technology is.

Obama's energy bill is next and if the neocons win that battle as they have with Afghanistan (more or less) then there will nuke subsidies for MORE leaks and mutagenic carcinogenic radionuclide death for ALL of the earth's inhabitants.

Sickening

[anigbrowl]

3. Drama much? LOL

[Liberation Angel]

4. Yeah - if you think mutations and cancer and death are dramatic

then get on board the nuclear train of death...

and laugh all the way to hospice

[EOTE]

7. How many mutations, cancers and deaths have been linked to working at a nuclear power plant?

Especially in the U.S., there are many safeguards to prevent workers from receiving radiation which would be adverse to one's health. This is simply more scare mongering. Nothing in those articles suggests that nuke power isn't one of the safer forms of power production.

[Liberation Angel]

11. Baloney, nuke workers get ten times the dose of civilians and civilians are getting dosed every day

with massive amounts of deadly radiation.

I suggest you start here for info and peer reviewed studies links:


www.radiation.org

and

www.nirs.org

[EOTE]

15. And you still haven't addressed anything I said in my post.

My question was how do the incidences of mutations, cancer and deaths caused by radiation compare to the population in general. You should also know that many airline pilots receive 50% more radiation than maintenance workers at nuke plants, and they receive the brunt of the radiation. Is there a link between airline pilots and increased risk of cancer or mutations? Please try to post something substantive next time.

[anigbrowl]

17. Really? These links are not very relevant.

I get it, you thinknuclear power is a bad thing. but you argument is based on emotive language and hand-wringing rather than documenting actual consequences. I mean look at the OP, they mention that workers in Japan were exposed to 0.2 millisieverts. that's only 1% of the annual permitted safe dose in the UK (which has the strictest standards of radiation exposure). For context, that's about 1/3 of the radiation from a mammogram, or about the same as 2 chest x-rays. http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray&bhcp=1.Accessed

I'm not saying that nuclear power doesn't have dangers, or that we shouldn't be ultra-careful about it. But lots of things have things have dangers; your complaints take no account of the actual risk involved, they're just 'OMG it's dangerous BAN IT'. That doesn't improve awareness, it's just panic.

Realistic criticism is only possible when you compare the risks and safety record of the nuclear power industry to the risks and safety record in other kinds of power generation. For example, compared witht he deaths or injuries resulting from the mining and burning of coal or oil, gas and so on.

[Liberation Angel]

22. People can read the links and judge for themselves and mammograms can cause cancer

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20091202/study-mammograms-may-raise-breast-cancer-risk


This is in the news today as well

so...

the sites that I linked do have studies on the comparative risks and exposures


FYI the study publicized today says:

"Among the findings:

High-risk women were two-and-one-half times more likely to develop breast cancer than women in the general population.

High-risk women who had mammograms or chest X-rays before age 20 were two-and-one-half times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women who were not exposed to low-dose radiation.

High-risk women who had mammograms or X-rays after age 20 were one-and-one-half times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women who were not exposed to low-dose radiation, but that finding could have been due to chance."

[anigbrowl]

31. As usual, you divorce the facts from the context

Occasional mammograms are not dangerous for most women. Your own quote points out that these findings concern women whoa re already at high genetic risk, and that after age 20 the risk is not statistically significant (which is what 'could have been due to chance' means.

Nobody disputes the potential dangers involved in nuclear power. The dispute here is over your conflating the existence of risk with a high risk probability. In short, fearmongering.

[Liberation Angel]

35. No, I don't. EVERY exposure creates additional risk of harm

That is what the science means when it says that there is no dose so low that it does not potentially harm you.

It is PROBABLE that harm exists at every exposure, and therefore the risk of harm occurs with every exposure.

Some people are healthier, have "better" genes (those that can resist the harm), have better diets (which makes one less susceptible to harm) or otherwise are not as likely to be as harmed by low or high level radiation exposure. Some will survive without cancer or ill feelings in their bodies.

Danger is relative. If each exposure increases risk of breast cancer that, imho, increases the DANGER of the exposure.

The bottom line is that nuclear power plants ALWAYS emit and effluve toxic and deadly mutagenic and carcinogenic radionuclides that can kill and do kill people by giving them spontaneous abortions, cancer, damaged immune systems, damaged endocrine systems, damaged thyroids and deadly illnesses.

AND you mischaracterize the study: Women ALREADY at risk (due to their genes) have a 250% GREATER CHANCE OF GETTING CANCER if they get xray mammagrams when they are young (20 or under)

That i, s they are 2 1/2 Times MORE LIKELY to DEVELOP BREAST CANCER because of the Mammogram.

Get your facts right.

This is science and the fearmongering here is all about the fear of TRUTH on this subject by proponents of the nuclear death industry.

[Confusious]

39. Really?

"ALWAYS emit and effluve toxic and deadly mutagenic and carcinogenic radionuclides that can kill and do kill people by giving them spontaneous abortions, cancer, damaged immune systems, damaged endocrine systems, damaged thyroids and deadly illnesses."

Then why aren't all the people who live near power plants keeling over dead? Radiation exposure from mutagenic and carcinogenic radionuclides ( I get the feeling you just learned those words) would not take years, or decades. People would die within months.

[Liberation Angel]

44. Yes Really! Cancer grows slowly so people don't "keel over dead" for a while...

They keel over dead when the radiation caused tumours rot out their guts or brains or the foetuses in their bodies.

It can take years.

Even decades sometimes.

But death of the foetus in utero is pretty quick murder imho and is common.

But then again a foetus cannot keel over.

It just lists...

and bobs...

and decays...

until the mother who is also exposed gets a d&c.

[Confusious]

49. Well, from the way you make it sound

Nuclear plants are leaking MASSIVE amounts of radiation into the air. At that rate, people would keel over dead.

If they are getting a lesser amount, then how can you pin it on radiation, and not something else they encounter in the decades.

I lived in Alaska. No Nuclear plants there. People still died of cancer. My dad lives there. Had prostate cancer. No radionuclides created that.

If there are such HUGE amounts of miscarriages around nuclear plants, where is your link? I'll believe you then, just as long as it's a reputable source.

[Liberation Angel]

63. here is one study showing more than 60 Million cancer deaths from nuclear ...

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

The fact is that nuclear testing in the 40's, 50's and 60's spewed LOTS of radiation into the jet stream --- especially from Russia and China which would have come down in Alaska.

But depending on where yo lived when you were in utero (or your dad) would be another factor 9as well as age and genetic predisposition).

I am sorry about your dad's prostate cancer but the studies linked at www.radiation.org DO show a correlation with prostate cancer and exposure to strontium 90. But other toxic waste/chemicals ALSO can cause such cancers (primarily petrochemicals and other synthetics made from them, solvents, etc.) Many things factor in.

Bt IF you lived at any time in your life downwind of plant operations or downstream or were exposed in utero or otherwise to nuke testing (and even below ground tests release atmospheric radiation which gets into the upper atmosphere and blows globally) then you have a higher risk. Since radiation lasts for hundreds of thousands of years in the environment and blows globally in the atmosphere or food chain (fish, for example, in the food chain near nuclear waste dumps in the ocean) and birds.

Virtually EVERY baby tooth tested in the US has tested positive for Strontium 90 (man made radiation) ( www.radiation.org Radiation and Pubic Health project studies). I do not know much about Alaska, but it is not immune from radiation in the atmosphere nor from food or water exposed.

[trotsky]

69. So because there is nuclear radiation in the environment...

from weapons testing in the mid-20th century, that means nuclear power plants today are causing cancer?

Is that the connection you're trying to make?

[Liberation Angel]

83. That is what the studies prove: that nuclear power plant radiation causes cancer

in many people who get exposed to it (which is pretty much everyone, but worse if you live close unless you drink milk or eat produce from nuclear plant regions ir are dowstrean and it is in your water table or source)

The causation is NOT that the tests cause the plants to be dangerous. They are BOTH killing people. Some cancers are latent for decades, some not so much, when you are exposed to any radiation the potential for cancer increases.

[trotsky]

86. You did not answer my question.

Please feel free to try again.

[Liberation Angel]

87. yeah i did

nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

111. no...that study references a MODEL...

Studies show that people who do not read studies nor have a basic understanding of the science within said studies are people who will not listen to any fact.

Let's see if that is true...

Radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant is LESS THAN the radiation exposure from a coal fired plant.

sP

[ensho]

56. true - every exposure is added to the total

the higher the total the chance for cancers, etc. grow.

[AngryAmish]

112. For example, Dr. David Banner: physician; scientist.

Searching for a way to tap into the hidden strengths that all humans have. Then an accidental overdose of gamma radiation alters his body chemistry. And now when David Banner grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs. The creature is driven by rage and pursued by an investigative reporter. The creature is wanted for a murder he didn't commit. David Banner is believed to be dead, and he must let the world think that he is dead, until he can find a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him.

Radiation is dangerous.

[SidDithers]

116. And don't forget Peter Parker...

that was no ordinary spider bite.

Sid

[dysfunctional press]

67. well...if you count the movies(as some people probably do), then LOTS.

that nuke-you-later energy stuff is pret-ty, pret-ty, pret-ty scary.
it's going to kill us all, didn't you get the memo?

[closeupready]

27. "If"?! Don't you mean "When"?

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. It multiplies the sun many times?

My goodness.

[trotsky]

61. Science is hard. n/t

[Liberation Angel]

68. It (man made nuclear radiation) is a multiple of the amount of radiation you get from the sun

that better?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. So if I go stand next to a nuclear reactor...

I'll get burned from the reactor before I get a sun burn?

[Liberation Angel]

84. It depends on how close you are to the radiation spewing from it...

but yeah it could be worse than a sunburn and you generally don't inhale or ingest solar and celestial radiation as you do with toxic nuclear effluents from reactor operations, so it burns your innards and rots them, generally very slowly though unless you are VERY close.

[trotsky]

101. Wait, so you honestly believe that a properly functioning nuclear plant...

is "spewing" radiation into the environment?

No wonder you're scared, if you're that ignorant.

[Liberation Angel]

103. Yes ALL commercial reactors have radiation emissions and effluents

They are permitted to spew them by law.

They are deadly and cause cancer.

Again, i worked in the industry and worked on safety hearings in Congress, so I am NOT ignorant. i am well educated on the subject (although I am sometimes not as artiulate as I'd like to be on these subjects.

Here is one piece of info on the subject:

http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2003/04/14/story3.html

This debate on what the SOURCE of the SR-90 and other radiation in the environment is can be resolved by the studies done showing higher levels NEAR or downwind of operating reactors in the baby teeth of those exposed. The nuke industry has been unable and unwiling to rebut these claims with any credibility or science whatsoever.

It is a shame that folks are ignorant of the fact that nuclear power plants have radioactive emissions and effluents as part of their regular operations.

THAT is where most pronukers ignorance can be demonstrably illustrated: nuclear plants spew radionuclide particulates as part of their NORMAL OPERATIONS. Only when they exced these amounts normally released do they even have to report it as a special incidet or event.

[trotsky]

108. LMAO

See this is the common thread that the anti-vax nuts, the anti-nuke nuts, basically just about any type of nut, have: the total inability to understand anything about comparative risk. I knew it going in, but you've totally confirmed there's no point in trying to discuss this with you. You've got your agenda, and damn the facts.

[SidDithers]

2. Unrec...

SN confirmed that the reactor was under control at all times and there was no affect on the environment

The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the accident posed no health or environmental risks. "The amount of radiation that the workers were exposed to is about the same level as that for regular operations and does not pose a problem as the work was intended to confirm safety at the plant. Since the leaked solution did not leave the radiation controlled area, the incident would not have an immediate impact on safety," said an official from the agency.


The sky is not falling. The acorn is still in the tree. Chicken Little is still safe.

Sid

[rd_kent]

66. Yeah, ensho like to post these for some reason. Hardly any of them qualify as a "nuke event"

as you would expect.

[EOTE]

5. It's a good thing we have humans around to take care of these problems.

And nothing bad happened because of them. Now, if there were no humans to watch after these nuclear power plants, then there might have been a problem. But if there were no humans, we'd have other problems to worry about.

[NutmegYankee]

41. What problems to worry about?

If there were no humans, wouldn't there also be no problems or worries? ;-)

[Statistical]

92. Most Gen II & all Gen III plants will shut down on their own.

Requires no human interaction.

Actually they are failsafe closed loop.

So for example the control rods are held above the reactor against gravity by electromagnets.

Power failure = control rods lower by gravity

The magnets also require a constant "go" signal from control room or they release.
Terrorist attack blows up control room = no signal and rods lower automatically.

Reactors are designed to SCRAM automatically. If a plague wiped out all humans on the planet all nuclear reactors would shut down on their own predictably and safely (not that it would matter).

The grid imbalance (as coal plants and other "manual power" goes offline the power imbalance would trigger a SCRAM.

[Sirveri]

96. thats not technically correct.

It is correct for pretty much all PWR style reactors, however BWR style reactors have a moisture seperator above the core, meaning that the rods have to come in from the bottom. Rod control in a BWR plant is general accomplished by differntial pressure across the control rod. There are other backup systems, I believe having to do with the charging pumps, as well as the standard borated water failsafe. Also the rods in a PWR are primarily assisted by a large scram spring which inserts the rods into the core in less than a second. As for terrorists getting into a nuclear control room... They would need an army of troops. The one control room I went to had bank safe doors that formed an airlock and 1 foot thick concrete walls, good luck getting inside that. Of course before you get there you have to get past the anti-vehicle wall, the two 15 ft high fences topped with barbed wire, and the multiple watch towers. In addition to the large number of security personel with assault rifles.

[Statistical]

99. Agreed it is a generalization.

However BWR can scram with no power also.

Usually the control rod assembly (which you are correct is below reactor vessel) can be fast SCRAMed by compressed air.

In a critical failure valves on compressed air tanks are blown and the control rods are forced at very high speed into reactor. Usually they are moved via slow hydraulics.

Personally I prefer PWR because control rods are held against gravity and thus is an any failure you are working with gravity not against it to slow/cool reactor.

Also didn't even get into neutron poison which is another passive safety. Compressed tanks of liquids with high neutron cross section are attached to reactor and sealed under extreme pressure. The seal is heat sensitive and melts at temperature higher than operating temp. If reactor overheats fast enough seals blow and reactor vessel is flooded with neutron poison which acts as a giant liquid control rods.

Add to that negative void coeficiency, passive cooling like on Gen III+ reactors (AP1000), redundant systems, and multiple power sources (grid, priority grid, onsite generators, offsite generators) and anyone researching reactors can see they are very redundant systems.

[Merchant Marine]

6. Radiation does not work like you seem to think it works n/t

[ensho]

8. really?

explain

[ensho]

9. this was in reply to post #6

nt

[hayu_lol]

10. Not a single word in this thread...

about the 24/7 spew of toxins and radiation and mercury from the coal-fired plants.

The nuke plants, by comparison, are quite clean and safe.

[ensho]

12. I post all the time about toxic coal plants. this thread is about nuke

plants.

[SidDithers]

19. Really? I can't ever remember reading one of your posts about a Coal Plant Event...nt

Edit: apologies. I found one post about a coal mine explosion, but it was part of a post about another nuke event, so half-a-point only.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6781315

Sid

[EOTE]

20. And every day there are thousands of new "Solar Power Events" that she never points out.

It's the damnedest thing, every day from sometime between 4:30 and 7:00 PM, the solar arrays stop producing electricity and don't start up again until sometime the next morning. Nuke plants produce electricity 24/7 and we have to hear about every minor hardware malfunction in every country regardless if no one even gets hurt? Funny also about all the "water events" that we never hear about. I guess we should just hook a bunch of stationary bikes up to generators and produce power that way, at least until we start hearing about all the new "bike events". Perhaps we should just stop using electricity altogether.

[SidDithers]

21. Exactly...

the OP certainly didn't post about the Coal worker killed in Alabama 2 weeks ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjNziZ9Ie4eu8MXdytxwioijUg3gD9C69UO03

But a nuclear worker is exposed to .2mSv and it's a call to shut down the entire nuclear power industry.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

13. again, baloney. BOTH nukes and coal plants spew toxic death

I support neither coal nor nukes BUT nukes are far worse because they mutate the genes of tens or hundreds of millions of humans and other species (including viruses and bacteria, causing new pandemics) changing the dna and genetic code of ALL species PERMANENTLY.

It mutates humanity.

It kills people - workers and anyone exposed (there is NO safe level of exposure to certain man made nuclear products emitted in the nuclear process)

It is NOT the same as the sun or celestial radiation or even tv sets.

These are man made radionuclides produced and spewed into the air and water, killing and mutating globally.

[Confusious]

23. Hyperbole

France uses Nuclear almost exclusively and has for the past 30 or so years. I haven't seen any mutated glowing Frenchmen on my TV tube recently.

The radiation is contained, nothing gets out into the environment, and you get less of a dose from the plant then you do from cosmic radiation. Should we turn off the sun? Just following your lead there.

Radiation from the sun is the same as a nuclear plant, is the same everywhere. There is no "special" radiation.

Alpha, beta, gamma. Look it up.

[Liberation Angel]

24. Hyperbole my ass/ Strontium 90 and radioiodine are NOT like solar rays

You simply haven't got one fact right here.

Radiation and waste DO get out into the environment (they emit radionuclides and put effluents in the water). The waste itself has to be stored for 250,000 years to supposedly assure it doesn't get into the environment.

Jesus - civilization is only 5,000-10,000 years old. There is NO WAY you can ssay this does not get into the environment. it is IN the environment.

There may not be "special" radiation but there are certainly different sorts of radioisotpes and radionuclides based on their chemistry and effect on the human tissue and genes of humans and all creatures.

For example, stoontium 90 mimics calcium and gets absorbed by the teeth and bones, gets into the bone marrow and then the blood and causes brain and bone and soft tissue organ cancers.

A Little too much sunlight might give you skin cancer (or might protect against it) but the effluents from nuke plants gets into our teeth and bones and stomachs.

The french ones emit radiation as well

You are pitifully misinformed.

This past sumer the French reactors were so messed up they had to import energy. Just for the record.

[Confusious]

37. You don't know how a nuclear plant works do you

The entire reactor is encased in concrete in a closed system. The water from the reactor cycles through a heat exchanger in a circle. Water on the other side picks up the heat from THAT heat exchanger, and circles through to another heat exchanger. Water from THE OUTSIDE THEN picks up the heat from that heat exchanger and energy is generated. Nothing gets released. Whether or not you want to believe that is up to you. I live near a reactor. I don't seem to be glowing, I haven't had any horrible mutated children. I can take a Geiger counter out and measure the radiation this weekend.

You only have to store low-level waste for that long, not high-level waste, which only lasts for 200 years (They can even turn it into energy these days.)
Besides, I have heard of talk of putting it near subduction zones, so the earth takes it in. OH NOS! Ur POULTING TEH EARTHS!!!

You already have limited uranium in your body because of the environment, not because of anything people have done. There are radioactive particles in YOUR BODY RIGHT NOW, carbon-14.

"For example, stoontium 90 mimics calcium and gets absorbed by the teeth and bones, gets into the bone marrow and then the blood and causes brain and bone and soft tissue organ cancers."

Yes they do, so we treat them as dangerous. Do you think you are the only one who has any concern about this stuff. If treated carefully and with respect, it can help also. Radioiodine is used to treat thyroid cancers.

On Edit: I looked up the french, seems the plants were down because of a strike and fuel rod replacement. Funny how you turned that into "So messed up"

[SidDithers]

54. And the vast, vast majority of Sr90 contamination today...

is a remnant of nuclear weapons testing, not from nuclear power generation.

This poster seems to think that the couple hundred completely enclosed nuclear power generating facilities around the world expose us to more radiation and radionuclide than the thousands of nuclear weapons exploded in our ground, air and water since the mid 40's.

Sid

Edit: speeling

[Liberation Angel]

80. You have a source for that and...

how in the hell can YOU tell what the source of strontium 90 is and in what proportions?

See, this is one of the standard industry lies: OHhhh its not OUR strontium 90 in your bones and teeth, it is the CHINESE NUKE TESTS! NOT our good little nuke reactors which emit strontium 90 every day in your communities and rivers and groundwater.

You have NO WAY of offering any evidence that the vast majority is from above ground nuke testing which occurred more than 45 years ago in the US. The half life of stronium 90 is only 28 or so years.

But how in the hell do babies TODAY have strontium 90 in their teeth.

EVERY baby tooth tested by the Radiation and Public Health Project had strontium 90 levels in it. TODAY, Are you claiming this is residual from US nuke tests? Chinese? Pakistan or North Korea?

There are no markers to prove your bizarre theory.

[SidDithers]

89. NRC Data Sheet on the Tooth Fairy Project

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html

Strontium-90 Sources

Strontium is a silvery-white alkaline earth metal that exists in several stable and unstable or radioactive isotopes (Sr-89 and Sr-90). Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope that is produced in nuclear fission--splitting of an atom’s center that releases energy-- and has a half-life (decay of half its radioactivity) of about 28 years. In the United States, the primary pathway for Sr-90 to enter the body is through ingestion of contaminated foods and cow’s milk.

Strontium-90 does not occur naturally. It comes from three sources:

1) fallout from above-ground explosions of nuclear weapons testing worldwide from 1963 to 1980;
2) radioactive releases from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the Ukraine; and
3) radioactive releases from nuclear power plants into the environment.

By far, the largest source of Sr-90 in the environment (~99%) is from weapons testing fallout. Approximately 16.8 million curies of strontium-90 were produced and globally dispersed in atmospheric nuclear weapons testing until 1980 (UNSCEAR 2001)2. With a 28 year half-life, Sr-90 still remains in the environment at nominal levels. Numerous measurements were made during weapons testing which found that the worldwide average radiation dose from ingesting Sr-90 (1945 to present) is 9.7 millirem (about equal to radiation doses from a transpolar flight), and the dose from inhaling strontium-90 (1945 to 1985) is 0.92 millirem (about equal to the dose from an arm or leg x-ray). These doses are well below those doses known to cause any effects on health (NCRP 1991)3. The doses from Sr-90 in the environment are about 0.3% of the average annual dose a person in the United States receives from natural background radiation (~300 millirem).

As a result of the Chernobyl accident, approximately 216,000 curies of Sr-90 were released into the atmosphere. An increase in the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer in the area directly affected by the accident has been attributable to radioiodine ingestion. No other increase in overall cancer incidence or mortality has been observed that can be attributed to radiation from the accident (UNSCEAR 2000)4.

The total annual release of strontium-90 into the atmosphere from all 103 commercial nuclear power plants operating in the United States is typically 1/1000th of a curie. (NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 12)5. At an individual nuclear power plant, the amount of Sr-90 is so low that it is usually at or below the minimum detectable activity of sensitive detection equipment. Radiation doses from Sr-90 to individuals living within 30 miles of a nuclear power plant would be a tiny fraction of less than one millirem. As indicated above, nuclear power plant emissions of Sr-90 are inconsequential compared with other man-made sources and, thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of Sr-90 that can be detected in, for example, baby teeth would be attributable to fallout from nuclear weapons testing or, possibly, the Chernobyl accident.

References at the bottom of the linked site.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

91. lies and damn lies---more industry propaganda

it is cumulaive and one of the sourcs is nuke plants.

So it adds up

the line about curies is a red herring.It is the absorbtion rate that is important

more later

but this is bullshit.

The NRC is proindustry apologists and in the same league as blackwater and the cia when it comes to truthtelling and murder of civilians

[SidDithers]

98. I look forward to more of your delusional ramblings..nt

Sid

[Statistical]

100. Of course it can't be nuclear weapons because that wouldn't support your agenda.

Sr-90 is man made so there are essentially only two major sources
a) nuclear weapons tests
b) nuclear power generation

So lets look at this logically.

Nuclear weapon produces a massive amount of Sr-90 and we detonated them in the atmosphere. No containment what so ever. Thousands upon thousands of bombs each producing massive amounts of Sr-90 and it all went directly into the environment.

On the other hand nuclear reactor produces much less Sr-90 and it is contained. Even in a leak the release is a tiny amount of total production.

Nuclear weapons: massive amount of Sr-90 + thousands of tests + 0% containment
Nuclear power: moderate amount of Sr-90 (about 5% of spent fuel) + hundreds of reactors (magnitude less than weapons) + 99.9999% containment

So if you didn't have an agenda you would realize it makes perfect logical sense that the overwhelming amount of Sr-90 comes from weapons testing.

Another damning pieces of evidence is Sr-90 has half life of 28.8 years. So given the amount of Sr-90 in 1962 (peak contamination) we should see a predictable drop due to half life decay. Guess what? We have. If nuclear power was a significant source of radiation the rise in nuclear power in 1970s & 1980s would have shown an increase in the chart.



Sr-90 levels in atmosphere today are roughly 37% compared to 1962 (level are lower in milk because overtime Sr-90 becomes deeply buried and less likely to enter foodchain). Despite building hundreds MORE nuclear reactors Sr-90 levels have fallen by 2/3rd. What could cause that? I know maybe just maybe it had to do with the almost complete stop (occasional bomb from China, India, Iran aside) in nuclear weapons testing.

If nuclear reactors were a significant source of Sr-90 we would expect to see Sr-90 levels RISE not fall over the last 3 decades.
In about 100 years (assuming no nuclear war). Sr-90 levels will be about 10% of what they are today, or about 3% from peak in 1962.

[Liberation Angel]

104. If you don't provide a link it is harder to debunk your nifty graph chart

There is no doubt levels have decreased since above ground nuke testing was slowed or stopped.

But the fact is you ADMIT that one source of strontium 90 is nuclear power plant emissions. WHY have ANY emissions at all? WHY is that ACCEPTABLE to you when we KNOW that it causes leukemia, breast cancer, bone cancer, and infant mortality by mutating foetuses in the womb and also causing spontaneous abortions?

Saying that nuke emissions are not as bad quantity wise as nuclear bomb tests is a no brainer.

But if you live downwind of a plant and you also get strontium 90 in your milk (as your graph shows we are getting and WHERE IN THE HELL IS A COW EATING GRASS WITH 30 OR 40 YEAR OLD STRONTIUM 90 IN IT???) then you are getting a much higher dose of stronium 90 than those who live far away and get their milk from cows not near nuke emissions/effluents (unless it is in their feed source).

And your argument is ilogical. BECAUSE the sr 90 STAYS in the environment for so long but does gradually decay abd because the levels, as your graph shows were SO high, all you demonstrate is that the overall levels from the tests 30 and 40 years ago are declining FINALLY. But that does not mean that nuke plant emissions are GREATER than the reduction of the test sr 90 (meaning the ovrall levels may go down even though nuke plant emissions increase or remain steady from the advent of nuclear power plants (which your graph also seems to show - i.e not substantial or significant decline for more than 20 years since shortly after the last above ground chinese nuke test...

But some link to your graph would be nice if we are going to debate this fairly

[MyNameGoesHere]

107. I happen to work for French company

that start with the Letter A. Your last sentence is erroneous at best and a lie at worst.

[Liberation Angel]

122. Then you must have seen this report on the failure of French nukes

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Electricity_imports_hit_Frances_energy_autonomy_999.html

Electricity imports hit France's energy autonomy

A third of France's 58 nuclear reactors were down and one was operating at 60 percent capacity at the start of November.
by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) Nov 19, 2009
France has for decades been fiercely proud of its world-beating nuclear industry but is now having to import electricity from its neighbours and could face blackouts this winter.
News of the imports prompted the environmental group Greenpeace to say Wednesday that this was further proof that France's policy of producing three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power was a big mistake.

France decided after the 1970s oil crises to rapidly expand its nuclear power capacity in order to build up reliable energy supplies, and has long exported power to its neighbours. But ever-rising demand for electricity combined with ageing nuclear reactors have brought that policy under increasing scrutiny.

A third of France's 58 nuclear reactors were down and one was operating at 60 percent capacity at the start of November, according to an AFP survey.

...

And drought this summer lowered water levels in dams and further decreased electricity production, EDF said.

The power grid operator RTE said this month that suppliers might be forced to ask big industrial clients to ration power use and warned it could even resort to rolling power cuts in some regions.

[whistler162]

14. Next time skip the half reliable source

http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/120/article_6052.asp

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aVROFX4htPKM

[Liberation Angel]

26. You know, the link is to a GREAT source for alerting about events which MAY be serious

no need to disparage it.

Plus it makes it possible to check other sources (as you have done) and get more facts.

That's a GOOD thing.

Why disparage folks who just want to keep us aware and alert to potential serious threats?

[SidDithers]

29. Serious being the key word...nt

Sid

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Sounds to me like proper proceedure, training and respose makes these plant quite safe...

even when things try to go wrong.

[EOTE]

18. Yeah, imagine that. The safeguards in place prevented something from going wrong.

It seems that every time one of these "nuke event" articles is posted, two things have happened.


1) There is a minor hardware malfunction at a nuclear power plant.

2) The safeguard procedures prevent the hardware malfunction from doing any serious damage.

It seems to me that all these "nuke event" posts do is prove how well the safeguard systems at these plants work.

[Liberation Angel]

25. Something DID go wrong and the workers who get sick from the exposure

and die of cancer in ten or twenty years will NOT say there was no serious damage. Nor will their families and children and loved ones.

And if you live near these plants G-d help you.

[EOTE]

28. You still haven't answered my original question.

How many mutations, cancers and deaths have been linked to working at nuclear power plants? Many, many deaths have been linked to working in coal mines, if nuclear is so bad, surely there must be plenty of evidence showing how workers at nuclear power plants have a far higher rate of cancer because of it, right? Nuclear power has been around quite a long time, long enough for there to have been many epidemiological studies regarding their safety. You simply saying that these workers who have been exposed to minute levels of radiation are going to get sick and die of cancer in 20 years is a pretty laughable way of trying to make a case. Have you had x-rays recently? If you have, you're going to die a painful death 10 to 20 years from now. I can just as easily say that the world will come to an end in 20 years unless we quickly engage in the widespread creation of nuclear power plants.

I generally prefer to use facts and logic when making an argument. Emotion is a piss poor debater.

[Liberation Angel]

32. The European Study on Radiation Risk conclusions (link)

while this does not sort out workers and civilians it provides the foundation for my overall concern and analysis.

I will say this:

I worked in the nuclear industry briefly.

I worked on NRC hearings re: waste storage. I that capacoity I worked qith whistleblowers and some of the toip experts in the field (including one member of the current NRC)

I worked on the staff of a Congressman whose committee included nuclear plant safety and I researched these issues (including exposure levels and risk and cost/benefit analysis)

I grew up in a nuclear community where I was and am a downwinder.

This study pretty much sums up the problems and the issues:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

Their conclusions/summary is that man made nuclear radiation is killing ans will kill tens of millions.

Workers get it (exposure) in the highest doses usually and they get it first. The nuclear industry, like the tobacco industry, is covering up the reports on the dangers.

[Pavulon]

36. 10 million, 10 billion and you cant produce one death certificate

with cod radiation exposure from the US commercial industry. NOT A SINGLE ONE. I am sure you can find some industrial squash or shock deaths though.

[Liberation Angel]

48. That is bullshit too

I studied the case on commercial deaths.

The death certificates say cancer in most cases.

But the medical records are what show what caused the cancers

MAYBE.

But it is the epidemiological studies which PROVE that it was radiation which caused the cancers that caused the death.

[Pavulon]

90. Yeppers, One name is what you owe.

feel free to provide that. Until then chicken little you have nothing.

[Confusious]

40. Be nice if you read it

They concluded that it was from weapons fallout, not power plants, which are different. I guess you "conveniently" missed that.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

[Liberation Angel]

47. I read it - it is from ALL sources: nuke tests AND power plants

Read it again

It INCLUDES nuclear power emissions AND nuke tests.

[Confusious]

50. I read it again

The only thing they mention specificity in above ground nuclear testing fallout.

Don't read into it more then is down on paper.

[NutmegYankee]

43. I live right near a nuclear power plant.

It's just a couple of miles away. Still here, still healthy and no one has cancer rates higher than the national average. Imagine that!

[Liberation Angel]

46. You will regret it

and unless you post data for your community I doubt that you have any idea what the cancer rates are in relation to other communities.

If you live in Connecticut (a nutmegger) then it is only a matter of time before you will begin to observe the cancer patterns ner you.

In the meantime there is research on Millstone and haddam neck

at

www.radiation.org

these plants are some of the worst and even though haddam neck was decommissioned its waste pools are STILL leaking radiation into the Connecticut River and LI Sound ten years after the reactor was hauled away

READ the goddamn studies on breast and prostate cancer near these plants and tell me it is no worse than the national average.

That is patently false imho and demonstrably so


but refute the studies

no more BS rhetoric please

[Confusious]

52. One example is hardly a scientific study

Wintersburg is largest nuclear facility in the US. Google wintersburg "cancer rates" brings up nothing. Actually it brings up 4 hits. I think I could win a prize for that.

Just because one reactor has a bad history does not mean they all do. Do you make these sorts of judgments about people also?

And you even say yourself "these plants are some of the worst." You cannot compare plants built in the 40's 50's 60's to those built in the 70's. Plants built today would be even safer.

Maybe someone should sue the corp that runs the plant.

I even found this

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-128264774/nrpa-study-finds-no.html

[Liberation Angel]

74. Here's a study your search missed: try a better search

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:WCru7CDx0tIJ:www.radiation.org/reading/08spring_ijhs_mississippi.html+%22palo+verde%22+nuclear+%22cancer+rates%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari


scroll down for the palo verde study results showing an increase in infant mortality rates after startup of the plant.

[Confusious]

110. Well, there where other plants where

the death rate went DOWN. How do you explain that?? i know, they should be ignored, because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.

"ether the increase in mortality rates to infants near Grand Gulf after 1982 was due solely, or even primarily, to radioactivity cannot be conclusively stated."

Grand gulf, the worst, had the highest. But it was built in a poor area of town. What else has happened to cause this since 1983, I wonder.

Maybe, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. So less money, higher rates of infant mortality.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

113. shhhhh...you're making valid points

too bad they will be ignored...

sP

[Liberation Angel]

123. Many infant death rates

may have been reduced due to plants being idled etc.

But I would have to look closer at the data before comenting

the analysis I have seen also deals with poverty as a factor in infant deaths but poor diet and habits may make people more susceptible to radiation harm: poverty will do that.

[Confusious]

129. As I said before,

They should be ignored, because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.

[NutmegYankee]

82. The rates were high back in the 90s. In the last decade, it dropped.

The cancers seen are not ones normally associated with radiation exposure. Skin cancer in particular has been a problem, but not bone cancers or leukemia.

The local rates still show the leading cause of death to be heart disease by a wide margin.

[ThomWV]

30. Unrec.

[Occulus]

94. Instantly.

Anything from the OP or Liberation Angel regarding nuclear ANYTHING should be unrecced without further cause. They are ALWAYS wrong about the seriousness of the incident in question from my observations, and they both ALWAYS blow it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of proportion.

I don't want their chicken little paranoid fantasy bullshit tarring the Greatest Page, and I'm sure you don't, either.

[Liberation Angel]

33. The study anyone who is not sure (or who is sure it is safe) should read on nuclear power

The European Study on Radiation Risk conclusions (link)

while this does not sort out workers and civilians it provides the foundation for my overall concern and analysis.

I will say this:

I worked in the nuclear industry briefly.

I worked on NRC hearings re: waste storage. I that capacoity I worked qith whistleblowers and some of the toip experts in the field (including one member of the current NRC)

I worked on the staff of a Congressman whose committee included nuclear plant safety and I researched these issues (including exposure levels and risk and cost/benefit analysis)

I grew up in a nuclear community where I was and am a downwinder.

This study pretty much sums up the problems and the issues:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

Their conclusions/summary is that man made nuclear radiation is killing ans will kill tens of millions.

Workers get it (exposure) in the highest doses usually and they get it first. The nuclear industry, like the tobacco industry, is covering up the reports on the dangers.

[thelordofhell]

38. Radiation leak in Japan means only ONE thing..........

Godzilla's coming......lun for rife!!

:yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks:

[NutmegYankee]

42. OMG!! COME QUICKLY!! WOLVES ARE EATING MY SHEEP!!

Just Kidding...


Did you know that Potassium K40 (0.012% abundance) is radioactive with a half life of 1.25 billion years. You take it in every time you eat a banana or potato. K40 occurs in natural potassium (and thus in some commercial salt substitutes) in sufficient quantity that large bags of those substitutes can be used as a radioactive source for classroom demonstrations. In healthy animals and people, K40 represents the largest source of radioactivity, greater even than 14C. In a human body of 70 kg mass, about 4,400 nuclei of K40 decay per second.<6>


Even worse than Strontium 90, since you need potassium to live.

Cheers

[Liberation Angel]

45. Strontium 90 causes bone cancer. tissue cancer and leukemia

"Strontium-90 is a "bone seeker" that exhibits biochemical behavior similar to calcium, the next lighter Group 2 element. After entering the organism, most often by ingestion with contaminated food or water, about 70-80% of the dose gets excreted. Virtually all remaining strontium-90 is deposited in bones and bone marrow, with the remaining 1% remaining in blood and soft tissues. Its presence in bones can cause bone cancer, cancer of nearby tissues, and leukemia. Exposition to 90Sr can be tested by a bioassay, most commonly by urinalysis."

strontium 90 on Wikipedia is where I got that quote

It is man made and is created by the nuclear energy process.


EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PRODUCES AND EMITS THIS SHIT AND IT IS KILLING US ALL

[proteus_lives]

51. "EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PRODUCES AND EMITS THIS SHIT AND IT IS KILLING US ALL"

Really?

Oh man, I guess I better get to the doctor. Wait! What good will that do? He has it too!!

:rofl:

[Liberation Angel]

85. It is killing us slowly so ...

go see the doctor

but yeah he or she will probably die from cancer too if they got dosed

[proteus_lives]

88. You never fail to make me laugh.

Thanks for that.

[Nihil]

53. Breaking: Death count (employees + civilians) just announced.

Zero.

We now return you to your headless chickens interspersed with
pointless celebrity revelations.

:eyes:

[SidDithers]

55. Well said...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

59. Nope: see this: Cancer, miscarriages, hypothyroidism, mongoloidism, leukemia, birth defects

MILLIONS have died from man made radiation exposure due to all sources INCLUDING Nuclear power plant operations.

And PLEASE don't forget Chernobyl.

Radiation from Chernobyl got into the jet stream and landed on U.S. soil and got into our air and water and food. It was measured in the rain in the NY and the Northeast among other places.

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

[Nihil]

62. Really? Was that "MILLIONS" in Cruas (France) or "MILLIONS" in Hamaoka (Japan)?

Or maybe it was ZERO in both and people just decided to take the
opportunity to say "CHERNOBYL!!!!" again?

:eyes:

I'm so glad that you remind us that no-one ever suffers from
"cancer, miscarriages, hypothyroidism, mongoloidism, leukemia,
birth defects" without nuclear power stations ...

(Yes, this is sarcasm directed at someone who is incapable of
differentiating between reports of trivial events correctly
handled and an almost-suicidal act of gross stupidity.)

[Liberation Angel]

81. Millions of cancer deaths from radioactive waste/emissions

globally.

The deaths of these workers from their exposure would probably not happen for a decade or so depending on how they were exposed (whether they ingested, inhaled or absorbed it). If they got external doses it might not be as bad, but it might be depending on their health and genetic makeup.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

114. you keep referencing a study that references a MODEL

but not real data.

sP

[Overseas]

57. K&R. Because too many want to pretend nukes are safe. //nt

[Liberation Angel]

60. Thanks - I posted the European Study so that folks can inform themselves

and have a basis for refuting the lies posted everywhere about the
safety" of nuclear energy.

It is a crime imho

[Overseas]

102. And look at the success of Nuclear Industry PR

evident in the replies. They've got the "Hey, I'm a Hot Debunker" group rallying to their defense, showing off how tough they are in being unafraid of nuclear power by slamming those who have lived through 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and other leaks in nuclear power plant history. And debates about which municipalities will host the waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years.

The industry has done well in tamping down the anti-nuclear forces. Guess that shut down of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant and their continuing struggles to stash the radioactive waste have gotten them them step up their efforts to present nukes as sensible alternatives. After all, aside from the major meltdowns, the usual leaks are invisible, and their harm is largely invisible in the immediate aftermath of their accidents and waste storage.

Sad to see so many rushing to the defense of very expensive power that needs to be guarded 24/7/365, controlled by strong centralized power companies, and subsidized very heavily with laws that protect the companies from the long-term consequences of their product.

Nuclear power maintains the status quo of needing major power resource companies to remain in control of the distribution of the power needed to fuel our economy.

Solar allows power distribution to be decentralized a lot more. Can't have that now, can we? No no no, solar is too expensive. Solar is too expensive. Please repeat. Solar is too expensive. You don't want your town to be energy independent. No no. Solar is too expensive.

Especially when the long term damage from nuclear plants' fuel and waste storage is just more of The Big C-- and there are so many causes of cancer in our modern industrialized societies.

[Liberation Angel]

58. Once again: European Study conclusions on nuclear deaths/cancers infant mortality/miscarriages

Conclusions:

9. The committee reviews the evidence which links radiation exposure to illness on the basis that similar exposures define the risks of such exposures. Thus the committee considers all the reports of associations between exposure and ill health, from the A-bomb studies to weapons fallout exposures, through nuclear site downwinders, nuclear workers, reprocessing plants, natural background studies and nuclear accidents. The committee draws particular attention to two recent sets of exposure studies which show unequivocal evidence of harm from internal irradiation at low dose. These are the studies of infant leukemia following Chernobyl, and the observation of increased minisatellite DNA mutations following Chernobyl. Both of these sets of studies falsify the ICRP risk models by factors of between 100 and 1000. The committee uses evidence of risk from exposures to internal and external radiation to set the weightings for the calculation of dose in a model which may be applied across all exposure types to estimate health outcomes. Unlike the ICRP the committee extends the analysis from fatal cancer to infant mortality and other causes of ill health including non-specific general health detriment.

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

12. The committee lists its recommendations. The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers. This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment.

More at link: http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm


SO: Those who claim there is NO EVIDENCE for deaths from nuclear power plant operations are in denial of reality and ignorant of studies by qualified scientists who actually CARE about humanity.

This study addresses ALL sources of man made radiation INCLUDING Nuclear power operations which leak and emit radionuclides AND weapons testing from 1945 on.

[hayu_lol]

65. Please, by all means, compare your nuke data with that...

from coal fired power plants, the mines and mining that supplies them, and the waste ponds like those that just collapsed.

Otherwise, this entire thread is written by a 'chicken little' watching the sky fall.

Really cute the way you stuck in the bit about tobacco.

[Liberation Angel]

70. I am not comparing nukes to coal plants, BUT...

I do claim that the effects are worse overall in terms of cancers and types of radionuclides emitted.

I do not support coal energy either as a solution to our energy needs.

Red herring.

As for the nuke/tobacco comparison it is very apt: since proving a given cancer (say lung) is caused primarily by the exposure to one factor (smoking or nuclear esposure) is hard to do exceop epidemiologically.

If you smoke and work in a nuke plant your risk of lung cncer increases by something like a factor of ten. WHICH caused it? Which was the PRIMARY cause of the lung cancer.

The problem is that EVERY exposure plays or may play a role in the development of cancer and the bog nuclear corporations, like Tobacco companies, have used this as their primary defense against personal injury lawsuits and liability.

If you die of brain or bone cancer and ypu live next to both a chemical plant AND a nuke plant WHICH can you (or your family, rather) prove is the culprit?

If you ever saw "A Civil Action" you may remember the comapny claiming that MAYBE it was the teflon cookware that gave people drinking chemicals in their water from a Monsanto plant cancer and NOT the chemicals.

The reason that there has been little litigation on this is that there is not a law firm operating that has the resources to go up against the Nuclear monsters of the global corporate energy/weapons conglomerates. Remember, too, that those who produce energy with nukes can also produce bomb-grade nuclear materiel.

[rd_kent]

64. Thanks, ensho, more "NUKE EVENTS" that are much ado about nothing.

But keep posting, its fun to watch....

[Liberation Angel]

71. Fun to watch workers exposed to deadly radiation?

That is what you think this is about?

Fun?

To see that workers were exposed and may get sick and even die (maybe years from now) but in any event are damaged by the exposure (as radiation exposure is cumulative in terms of harm).

Funny?

And you believe that being aware of such events is much ado about nothing when it is a heads up about possible harm and danger to our community.

We all HOPE such events are not harmful, but I am grateful to know about them.

Your response is disturbing.

[rd_kent]

73. Your response is evidence that you DID NOT READ THE LINKS.....

Try rereading them and then tell me how much danger or exposure anyone received. The article states that the amount of exposure (only in Japan, as that was the only one where any radiation leaked) was minimal and not serious or cause for concern. You should worry about how much radiation you are exposing yourself to when you talk on your cell phone......

[Liberation Angel]

77. They received what amounts to an ANNUAL dose of radiation from the nuke plant

if you were at the plants perimeter (I.e permitted dose)

The fact is that this may be the equivalent of an xray or two BUT the reality is that they may well have inhaled particulate or had their skin exposed thereby absorbing some of the radioisitopes into their bodies (which is not like just getting an xray at all).

they may have breathed in the radiation.

The type of radiation is different from an xray as it is in liquid or solid form in the water which they were exposed to and had to clean up.

The lies that there is no health consequence or danger from this exposure is standard bullshit from nuclear energy propagandists, and that is what the media reports say: no harm. But that is a lie.

And yeah I read the reports in some detail.

[Statistical]

93. liquid radiation? solid radiation? really. In what fantasyland physics book did you learn that.

Radiation is energized subatomic particles.

alpha radiation is an energized He-4 nucleus
beta radiation is an energized electron
gamma radiation is an energized proton
neutron radiation is an energized neutron

Please let me and rest of scientific community what a "liquid proton" or "liquid electron" looks like.

[Occulus]

95. Shit like that is why Liberation Angel is NEVER to be taken seriously

I learned that a long, long time ago, and LA's subsequent posts only reinforced that opinion.

[Liberation Angel]

106. You know

posts like that violate the rules against personal attacks

[Liberation Angel]

105. The radiation is IN the liquid and solid nuclear emissions and effluents from nuclear power plants

or didn't they teach you that?

Your post is just silly, demeaning, insulting and not very bright.

[Confusious]

120. No, you just put it

So no one could understand. Someone with "expertise" in the area would never be so sloppy.

[Confusious]

119. You didn't read in enough detail

If you had some expertise ( which you don't. liquid radiation, WTF is liquid radiation? no one with expertise would be so sloppy ) and put it in a reasonable form, I might listen.

[Liberation Angel]

131. Radiation is IN the liquid effluents and waste water from nuke plants

its really simple.

[caraher]

75. Wow.

You can certainly choose to believe the "European Committee on Radiation Risk" (which to be clear, has no affiliation with the EU or any government or large scientific body. But unless you are either addicted to conspiracy theories or uninterested in hearing anything about radiation exposure other than that it's the most deadly thing in the universe, I wouldn't recommend it. Their whole purpose is less to arrive at realistic assessments of radiation risks than to come up with arguments that the risks are greater than we think.

From the UK Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)analysis of ECRR's critique of standard radiation risk assessments:

In conclusion, the weight of evidence and considerations of biological plausibility argue against ECRR's thesis that ICRP's risk assessment methodology seriously underestimates risks from internal emitters. Furthermore, ECRR's proposed methodology is arbitrary, and does not have a sound scientific basis. There are many misrepresentations of ICRP, misunderstandings, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims in the ECRR report. It compares poorly with the detailed justification and referencing of published data characteristic of ICRP reports. In general, there is a good understanding of the risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation. Uncertainties in dose estimates for internal emitters are greater than for external radiation because of the necessity of estimating the time-course of exposure of different body tissues, but these uncertainties do not correspond to the large underestimates of risk claimed by ECRR. For these reasons the ECRR report cannot provide a basis for changing radiological protection standards.

Not surprisingly, ECRR condemns CERRIE in the strongest possible terms. They could scarcely do otherwise, since obviously all the mainstream radiation risk assessment organizations are clearly part of the same conspiracy to maintain silence while the nuclear industry murders us all.

The sad part of all this is that like all industries, the nuclear industry stands in great need of close regulation on safety issues. When paranoia replaces reason among loud voices critical of their activities, industry is more likely to get away with dismissing even the legitimate worries as unworthy of attention.

[SidDithers]

76. Excellent post...

and nice job digging deeper on euradcom.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

79. Oh please

These are industry hacks who dismiss the ERCC study and report

see my post above this one

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. oh, but the study you reference only has the PUREST of intent

what a joke and proof of your utter blindness to anything that might conflict with your view...

sP

[Liberation Angel]

78. You cite CERRIE which, according to this report, are industry hacks

'"These radiation protection advisory commissions, and their offspring, the radiological advisory bodies in most countries like Britain's National RadiologicalProtection Board (NRPB, which shares many personnel with ICRP, yet cites the latteras an 'independent source' of advice), now publish advice on dose limits andprotection which becomes incorporated into law. They control the perception ofhazard from all things nuclear. They are all, however, lineal descendants of the first NCRP committee, staffed by people who all had interests in the development of theuse of radiation. They remain, to this day, a revolving door through which members of the nuclear establishment or those with research ties to it, pass in and out.?"

http://www.hleg.de/Gr_audit.pdf


Your claim regarding "paranoia" is bullshit and an insult.

I worked in the industry in a department which dealt with health risks from nuclear radiation exposure to workers and the public.

I also worked on a Congressional staff for a subcommittee which dealth with nuclear safety issues.

There is nothing paranoid about these studies. They are solid studies by the ECRR which is dismissed by industry hacks.

It is like trusting the NRC in THIS country not to promote the nuclear industry as it has done for generations (back to its inception as the AEC The NRC is ALSO an industry revolving door for industry lobbyists (for the most part - there are exceptions on the staff).

I have studied the history, worked with industry whistleblowers and participated with experts in NRC hearings.


I suggest a little more research on the info at the link which lays out the problems with analysis of radiation exposure risks and models and conflicts of interest such as the CERRIE report writers.

so cut the bullshit derogatory slurs about paranoia.

[caraher]

97. Bear in mind that you just called Chris Busby an ex-"industry hack"

I've seen ECRR materials that trumpet among his credentials his status as an ex-member of CERRIE - and he is one of the (small number of) scientists whose studies you support! It seemed like he was OK with being in that group until the group's conclusions diverged from his views. And Busby, "Scientific Secretary" for ECRR, has essentially distanced himself from the scientific community, preferring self-publishing to peer review according to people I'm sure will be denounced as "industry hacks" (that is to say, by scientists who do participate in the conventional peer review process). http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0952-4746/24/4/E02/jr44e1.pdf?request-id=d57be8f4-a1b0-4430-a1ca-aded182597cf">CERRIE member Richard Wakeford writes, "Chris Busby, for example, is apparently quite prepared to self-publish reports containing glaring errors in data and/or analyses; nonetheless, the findings are duly given publicity in the media, presumably a principal objective." Earlier he remarks, "Chris Busby is essentially an aspiring politician who happens to have scientific qualifications—he is the Green Party’s spokesperson on science and technology and has stood for election to the European Parliament—and, in my view, his actions must be seen in this light. It would be asking too much of him to make substantial concessions on the very issue that has brought the media publicity that provides the fuel to drive a political career."

"Paranoia" is intended not so much as an insult but a description. I would use the same word to describe the stance of people honestly swayed by the global warming deniers - they, too, have to believe in a global conspiracy of the scientific community to suppress the truth because of some nefarious motive. I'll grant that some conspiracy theories are true, and not every case of belief in a conspiracy belies paranoia. But like global warming denial, this is a case where it's extremely difficult to construct believable scenarios under which so many different scientists across the globe could possibly be missing what the dissident voices say is the actual truth.

[Liberation Angel]

109. I did not, there are dissenters in Cerrie as there have been in the NRC

but I stand by my opinion that by and large these government organizations are largely designed to PROMOTE the nuclear industry and downplay or deny the risks and dangers and actual harm of nucler power plant emissions of mutagenic (mutation-causing) and carcinogenic (cancer causing) radiation waste and byproducts..

As for the scientific community - there are plenty of jobs in the nuclear industry and none (for all practical purposes) in the antinuclear community, so their bread is buttered on that side. Most academic research etc is desinged to promote the industry. But denial plays a huge role as does the very fact that ultimately the decisions on risks and the fuding of studies to assess the risks are controlled by politicians who can be bought off by the nuclear industry.

The nuke industry can drown out opposition views with the massive money it brings in (remember it alo produces bombs and weapons of mass destruction with massive pentagon contracts for bamb grade materials etc) and can pummel its opponent scientists or whistleblowers (I have worked with some whistleblowers and it is frightening what happens to them).

To make this sound like a tin foil hat analysis and compare my position to that of a global warming denial is the lowest sort of disparagement of my person and position to try to justify a personal attack. Not cool. Most insults ARE descriptions.

I am not "honestly swayed" as you put it. I worked in the industry and dealt with the environmental helth and safety issues in a number of capacities. After carefully studying all the data available I came to believe the evidence that nuclear power plant emissions are deadly and massively so in terms of people exposed and people sickened and people (and babies in utero especially) dead.

I find the most credible scientists and epidemiologists at www.radiation.org The Radiation and Public Health Project

and I believe it is urgent for people to educate THEMSELVES so they do not fall for the corporofascist lies that nuclear power is peachy and safe.

[caraher]

117. Did I not just see a subject line like this:

"You cite CERRIE which, according to this report, are industry hacks"

That certainly smacks of name-calling, and I didn't see any qualifiers like "mostly"

The thing is, I don't have a horse in this race. I do think there's good reason to re-examine the effects of low-level radiation, I'm not thrilled about the widespread use of depleted uranium in weapons (though I'd stop far short of the rhetoric I've seen calling it nuclear genocide), and there seems little question that the uranium mining business has had more than its share of scandals. Your rhetoric, including characterization of scientists with whom you agree as the only ones who care, is intrinsically polarizing. For instance, upthread is the claim

"Those who claim there is NO EVIDENCE for deaths from nuclear power plant operations are in denial of reality and ignorant of studies by qualified scientists who actually CARE about humanity."

which suggests that the scientists who fail to find such evidence persuasive do not "CARE about humanity." I don't see how this advances your cause in any way.

I might add that I am a physicist myself (though I don't work in nuclear physics today, I used to work in positron emission tomography and was a "radiation worker" in that capacity, so I do know at least a little about conventional radiation protection theory and practice). If someone wants to tell me that we don't know much about low-dose radiation biology, I'm listening. But when I go to the sites you recommend I see so much that tells me that the scientists doing this work are less interested in science than advocacy. For instance, from Chapter 2: Basis and Scope of the Report of the 2003 ECRR report we read

The committee believes that in the search for scientific objectivity it should 'look out of the window', rather than following the trend of increasing dependence on processes of mathematical modelling. Thus the committee has considered the results of studies published in the peer-review literature and also reports, books and articles which have not been submitted for peer review.

Well, one can certainly choose to do that. But it ain't science! To suggest one can develop any meaningful risk assessment without mathematical modeling is absurd on its face. And admitting into a survey like this "reports, books and articles which have not been submitted for peer review" pretty much proclaims a deliberate decision to divorce one's work from the scrutiny that allows real science to recover from mistakes.

It's certainly possible that ECRR is right and all of mainstream radiation health science is wrong. I also recognize that there is an asymmetry in career possibilities for scientists in these areas that gives rise to non-paranoid questions about possible bias in studies. But there was no profit motive in scientists determining that chlorofluorcarbons damaged the ozone layer. All the cards have always been stacked against scientists who studied first the possibility and then the reality of anthropogenic global climate change. Yet in these cases, the process worked. We went from "everyone knowing" CFCs were inert and harmless to banning their widespread production and use. We're in the middle of a huge fight against the biggest entrenched interests you can imagine on climate change, and on the science side the voices raising concern are winning. In the end, if you do your science and have the arguments, the data lead you to the right conclusions. If ECRR truly has the facts on their side, the best move is to work through the scientific community, and be responsive to legitimate criticisms of their work (of which there are many, even of the best science).

The 2003 report is clearly developed with a policy goal in mind, propped up by cherry-picked findings. Even logical consistency takes a beating. For instance, in the executive summary we read "The committee concludes that releases of radioactivity without consent can not be justified ethically since the smallest dose has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm." This implies, for instance, that it is ethically unjustifiable to burn wood, since all wood has a certain fraction of carbon-14 and therefore, in being burned, radioactivity is released. What is the counter to this? That what you mean is that only radiation released by the nuclear power industry is subject to this ethical argument? That only radiation released by the nuclear power or nuclear weapons industries has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm?

[SidDithers]

118. Kick for another excellent post in this thread...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

121. Well, it seems like you have a horse in this race...promoting nukes and disparaging critics

as paranoid.

You raise a few arguable points:

I have sited numerous links/sites and you pull out ONLY one quote on objectivity: the ECRR panel concluded that ONLY using Peer reviewed materials and peer reviewed mathematical models was NOT ENTIRELY RELIABLE and utilized additional materials. Since I do not have a copy of the full report I cannot say that such reports are unreliable, but I think that as a scientific analysis there is a lot to be said for anecdoatle research in general and that peer reviewed journals are not the only source of reliable data. They DO mathematical analysis and modelling but not using SOLELY peer reviewed journals. In other words they have used research and data which comes from additional sources (AND have used peer reviewed data) making the study MORE reliable in many ways imho.
The other links are to peer reviewed studies and other studies in many cases which have not been published - but they key thing is that NONE OF THEM discount or ignore peer reviewed studies but incorporate them into the results. Not all peer reviewed studies are equal by any means and MANY are financed by industry in the same way that pharmaceutical industries finance studies for publication while hiding the fact that they are pushing an agenda. At least the no nukes folks are clear on what they want: no more nuclear pollution..

Now scientists who want peer reviewed 100% certainty will claim that this is not science BUT I will tell you that if someone does an unpublished study you should not nd cannot DISCOUNT it solely because it is not in a peer reviewed publication or journal. The wieght of credibility may be affected but use of such studies and reports is STILL science like it or not and published or not.

You can claim it "ain't science" but that doesn't mean you are correct. After all has your research on this point been subject to peer review and published??? I thought nt. but it is still a valid OPINION worthy of consideration.

The issue of name calling refers to namecalling against DU members/posters not governmental bodies and my critique was broadly for the organizations not indivuduals, A valid critique from you but I still do not think it is worth the fuss. It shows some in depth effort to rebut. Fair enough. I have already provided my response.

Your assertion that it is "possible that ECRR is right and all mainstream radiation health science is wrong" is based on a flawed premise.

All radiation health science does not disagree with ECRR. In fact the only group that has responded in depth is the CERRIE group which I have already shown is biased towards the industry. That hardly makes them ALL RADIATION HEALTH SCIENCE at all. It nakes them industry promoting hack science. Defend them all you want but his argument FAILS for you. Depending on pronuclear government bodies tasked to promote the industry is not reliable nor do they represent all radiation health science or scoientists. i know plenty of scientists who feel the current industry/government models are completely flawed.

On the issue of consent to irradiation you make a pretty interesting point: It should be OKAY for government and industrial entities to kill us with radiation and expose us to dangerous amounts of it because we permit citizens and individuals to heat with wood which also has some radiation in it.

Two things: One, radiation in wood is NOT man made (unless it is wood which is polluted by nuclear plant emissions and effluents).

Two: individuals can be and are regulated in what and how they can burn and pollute the environment, but carbon 14 is hardly as dangerous or carcinogenic when ingested as Strontium 90 and radi-iodine which are absorbed by the thyroid, bones and soft tissues. I know of NO data which suggest that radioactive carbon is absorbed and causes mutations and cancers IN ANY WAY as serious and harmful as nuclear emissions of man made radionuclides.

Your arguments sound like a very strong support for the nuclear horse while ignoring and denigrating the truth of the nuclear nightmares

[caraher]

124. Before you brought all this up I'd never heard of ECRR, Busby, CERRIE, etc.

I will admit to one "bias:" faith in the scientific process. That is what leads me to largely dismiss the reports you favor - their failure to hew to the same standards of scholarship that allowed us to strongly suspect, then know, that we were harming the ozone layer and ("Climategate" notwithstanding) change the climate. You are attributing to me a pro-nuclear bias based on exactly one fact: that I disagree with you.

You claim to have "shown" me that CERRIE was "biased toward the industry." Let's look at CERRIE membership. Here's the member list along with their affiliations, straight from the CERRIE web site:

CERRIE Chairman:
Professor Dudley Goodhead
MRC Radiation and Genome Stability Unit
(Professor Goodhead retired from the MRC unit in 2003)

CERRIE Members:
* Mr Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign
* Dr Chris Busby
Green Audit
* Dr Roger Cox
National Radialogical Protection Board
* Professor Sarah Darby
Clinical Trial Service Unit, University of Oxford
* Dr Philip Day
Department of Chemistry, University of Manchester
* Dr John D Harrison
National Radialogical Protection Board
* Dr Colin Muirhead
National Radialogical Protection Board
* Mr Peter Roche
Greenpeace UK (until March 2004)
* Professor Jack Simmons
Formerly University of Westminster
* Dr Richard Wakeford
British Nuclear Fuels plc
* Professor Eric Wright
Department of Molecular & Cellular Pathology
University of Dundee

The tally I see is 1 from the nuclear industry (Wakefield), 4 government scientists (Goodhead, Cox, Harrison, Muirhead), 4 academics (Darby, Day, Simmons, Wright), Peter Roche of Greenpeace, Chris Busby, and Richard Bramhall. I appreciate that the government scientists have an arguable vested interest in continuing to have an industry to regulate, and that the academics may have similar indirect career-related conflicts of interest.

But explain this to me: what conceivable motive would the representative from Greenpeace have for failing to join in the dissenting report? This is a guy who's bio on Wikipedia reads:

Pete Roche helped set up the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace (Scram) in 1976, which opposed the construction of Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian. Roche helped organise 10,000-strong rallies at the site in the late 1970s and 1980s. Buildings were occupied at the site and the group used non-violent direct action.

Does this sound like a pro-nuke hack to you? Does this sound like someone easily intimidated into silence? Who would be easily bought off?

Moreover, according to Bramhall's organization and sources sympathetic to Busby and Bramhall (the dissenting members), Dr. Day was in fact nominated to CERRIE by Friends of the Earth. A revealing notice from activists against use of depleted uranium reads,

CERRIE Fails to Find Agreement

The Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), which was set up by former environment minister Michael Meacher to review models used to estimate health risks from radioactive materials, has failed to include the minority report of dissenting scientists from 'The Low Level Radiation Campaign' (LLRC). Scientists representing Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were among those who agreed not to include the opinion of LLRC and the exact reasons their opinion was not included are not clear at this point.

Michael Meacher has reacted angrily to the news, accusing the final report of giving a one-sided establishment opinion. What is clear is that the failure of CERRIE to reach a position on the dangers of low level radiation is a grave disappointment for all those who campaign on the issue and were hoping it represented a unique opportunity for an authoritative new understanding of the issue. The minority report is being released by LLRC and copies can be obtained by emailing [e-mail]

(By the way, I can download CERRIE's report and other materials for free, while the dissenting report seems to be available only for cash. From Green Audit: "The Minority Report is available at £25 + £2 / €30 Euro + €5 / $30 US dollars + $8.00. Students and campaigners can apply for copies at a concessionary price of £15.00." How costly is creating a downloadable .pdf? The minority report sounds more like a fundraiser than anything else...)

So by my tally, there were at least 4 CERRIE members with impeccable anti-nuke credentials, of whom only two joined in the dissent. The two people who had no motive to be anything other than receptive to the alternative theory apparently walked away from years of study unconvinced.

This lends great credence to the "Reflections on CERRIE" editorial in the Journal of Radiation Protection by the one clear representative of the nuclear industry on the committee, Richard Wakefield. Wakefield claims there are at least two excellent reasons only CERRIE replied in depth to the ECRR report: it's not good science, and CERRIE was a body created specifically to try to gain mainstream acceptance for ECRR's ideas. The effort failed; hence Meacher's reported anger. Wakefield says,

When, in September 2001, I was invited to become a member of (what was at that time referred to as) the Working Group of the Consultative Exercise on Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters it was not without some apprehension that I accepted. Earlier, in July 2001, the then UK Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, announced that a review of the risks to health of radionuclides deposited within the body was to take place. The LLRC web-site had made no secret of the discussions between Michael Meacher and the anti-nuclear activists Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall that had preceded this announcement. My view of these discussions was inevitably influenced by the strong opinions on this subject that had previously been expressed by Michael Meacher—for example, in February 1987, he (as the then chief spokesman on health for the Opposition) had issued a press release concerning the role of radiation in the raised levels of childhood leukaemia reported in some areas near nuclear installations in Britain, claiming that children living in these areas ‘have literally grown up in killing fields’....

I felt that the first meeting of the Working Group had confirmed my suspicions that we had been brought together largely to consider (and, presumably, endorse) the views of Chris Busby. For some while, Chris Busby had been loudly proclaiming that the models underlying the risk estimates associated with exposure to radiation from internally-deposited radionuclides were seriously in error and that risks to health were being grossly underestimated by authoritative bodies such as the ICRP.... It is somewhat ironic, given the circumstances leading up to the consultative exercise, that the CERRIE process permitted the Committee members to conduct a detailed and critical review of the work of Chris Busby, much to its detriment....

During our third meeting it was announced that the Working Group of the Consultative Exercise on Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters had transmuted into the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (which, conveniently, allowed the acronym to remain unaltered). This seemingly innocuous name-change could be interpreted as an attempt to create an alternative to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), a group of independent experts mandated to advise the UK Government on matters concerned with radiation and health. Discontent with COMARE had already been expressed on the LLRC web-site because of that Committee’s serious criticism of an earlier study by Chris Busby of childhood leukaemia in Wales, which led to the remarkable suggestion by the LLRC that COMARE showed a bias towards the nuclear industry. It appeared to some of us involved with CERRIE that this transformation from consultative working group to committee might be intended as a means of circumventing COMARE, which was displaying an awkward inclination to examine the scientific evidence rather than applauding the political correctness of a study’s conclusions. Indeed, Chris Busby, in a letter to the editor of Essex County Standard in March 2003, bluntly stated, ‘I feel that you should know that the question of risk from these kinds of exposures was taken away from COMARE by the government in July 2001 and passed to a new Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters, CERRIE, of which I am a member.’ This description of the role of CERRIE vis `a vis COMARE was patently incorrect. Attacks on COMARE continued at the LLRC web-site, culminating in a call on the Government to disband the Committee. Interestingly, this call was echoed by Michael Meacher (who had left Government in June 2003) in a House of Commons Early Day Motion in July 2004....

In the Foreword of the ‘minority report’ produced by Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, Michael Meacher states: ‘Science can be only trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures that guarantee freedom from bias.’ One can only wholeheartedly agree with this. However, Michael Meacher goes on to criticise CERRIE for producing an unsatisfactory and partial report, which led to the need for a separate ‘minority report’. I believe that the majority of the members of CERRIE worked hard and in good faith to write an informed and balanced, but where necessary critical, report based upon the available scientific evidence, and that we intended the report to be inclusive of all views. The Committee should not be criticised for exposing the serious failings of studies supposedly supporting one particular extreme position, or for what I perceive to be the intransigence of two members of the Committee that underlaid their requirement of a separate ‘minority report’. One can only hope that important lessons have been learned from the experience of CERRIE as to the optimum process of obtaining an appropriately knowledgeable and comprehensive review of scientific evidence to inform policy. Then the trials of CERRIE will have been worthwhile.

I agree with the statement that "...the no nukes folks are clear on what they want: no more nuclear pollution..." But this is the problem - the policy goal obscures deliberation over just what constitutes "pollution." I'm neither a "no nukes" nor "pro-nukes" person -- I want safe, science-based policies that protect health and the environment. There are many excellent reasons to be anti-nuke -- unresolved waste storage issues, weapons proliferation concerns, questions about how sustainable the nuclear fuel supply is, environmental and worker safety impacts of uranium mining. Busby has an interesting, plausible-sounding theory about radiation damage to cells that CERRIE found is inconsistent with other scientific data. Should he continue to pursue research into his theory? Absolutely. But he must, if he is to be taken seriously by people who do not come to the table convinced that artificial sources of radiation are evil incarnate, subject his work to the scrutiny of knowledgeable people in the relevant fields as a first resort. Evidently his work was unable to sway even the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth reps on CERRIE, whom he and Bramhall evidently expected to rubber-stamp as in agreement with their policy preferences. That speaks volumes.

Concerning my challenge regarding burning wood... my reductio ad absurdum addresses not on the (assuredly different!) relative radiological hazards of C-14 and any particular artificial isotope, but on the principle advanced by ECRR that there exists no morally acceptable level of emission of radioactive material. If you are maintaining that exposure to radiation C-14 poses literally zero risk of cancer you can maintain logical consistency, but at the cost of all scientific credibility. My point is that the standard ECRR suggests for moral hazard is impossible to maintain with any consistency. It is intended to be used as a club against only those activities they wish to stop, and not applied to myriad other situations involving release of radioactivity.

[Liberation Angel]

125. Okay, but using as justification the one clear nuclear hack as reliable is disingenuous

I would have to refer to the following. let folks read these reports with quotes from the participants, and let people decide for themselves.

BTW - the fact is that, at least according to the Times of London, the committee members were threatened with lawsuits if they included the minority report in their final. That MIGHT explain why the reps from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth did not support publishing it.

But let folks read the OTHER SIDE of the STORY about how the environmental minister was sacked and the minority green members of the committee were threatened.

Finally, I have indeed linked sites which have peer reviewed studies.

The assertion by the industry hack's attack on Busby was at the heart of the comflict. This is what the industry does: it uses hack scientists and promoters to discredit legitimate research usually with lies and damn lies, threats and intimidation which is clearly what happened here. I do appreciate some of the links you have provided because they make it clear that the CERRI report is TOTALLY unreliable and DOES represent pronuke and industry promoting views while disregridng data and studies which do not meet their pronuke agenda. YOUR links make that clear.

But read these folks:



see

Sunday Times 1st August -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1198060,00.html



Independent 8th September 2004 -

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=559316



Guardian 8th September 2004 -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1299369,00.html

They make some of this gobbledygook clearer and explain WHY the scientists who are telling us nuke radiation is killing us, especially children, near nuke plants should be listened to and that NO NUKES are part of any safe solution for energy problems.

Jesus is it OKAY to irradiate children near nuke plants with man made radionuclides which cause leukemia. One death in a thousand is too many. One in ten thousand is too many. AND that means ALL the children in that community (and their moms and dads and loved ones) are getting dosed. Maybe they won't get leuemia. maybe they will get bone cancer in 30 years. But WTF? Is that OKAY with you?

Even Cerri found the risks ten times higher than previously admitted. Busby et al say it may be hundreds of times that for low level exposure. It IS complex but it is not so complex than any idiot can see it is NOT a good idea to drench our communities and children with radionuclides which may well kill them.

[caraher]

128. And the reason the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth folks went along was?

This really devastates your thesis that CERRIE did not give Busby's ideas a fair trial, in my opinion. What is their motive?

The new articles you link say things like

"The main report of the expert committee is believed to say that the risks from radiation for leukaemia could be up to 10 times the current estimate. But it failed to mention the theories of the committee members Richard Bramhall and Chris Busby, who examined cancer clusters and concluded that radiation from Sellafield and other nuclear plants could be responsible."

Far from it - these theories receive substantial attention in the CERRIE report. From p. 25:

The two Committee members who had been involved in formulating the alternative methodology given in the 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR, 2003) outlined their approach. The intention was to remedy perceived deficiencies in the ICRP methodology in a simple and pragmatic manner by introducing additional weighting factors, w_J as a biophysical hazard factor, and w_K as an isotope biochemical hazard factor. An example given in the ECRR report is that 90-Sr binds to chromosomes and also has sequential beta emissions, from 90Sr and subsequent decay of 90Y (see Chapter 3), attracting a w_J of 10 and w_K of 30, a total enhancement of 300. However, other members pointed to a lack of evidence for risks from 90Sr that were orders of magnitude greater than expected. They also noted that w_J and w_K values given in the ECRR report (ECRR, 2003) for a range of radionuclides were not accompanied by any evidence or references. The majority of members were not persuaded of the scientific merit or validity of the ECRR (2003) approach on this matter.

Pages 50-58 are a discussion of Busby's "Second Event Theory," and there are many discussions of the epidemiological findings Busby points out.

The problem is that whether I or anyone else think it's OK to irradiate children and their families with anything that will cause leukemia or other cancers. It's that the evidence that this is happening is poor. Evidently representatives from such pro-nuke groups as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are either unpersuaded or "think it's OK" to spew radioactive carcinogens. I'm betting it's the former.

And from what I've seen of Busby's other writing, he does seem to consistently favor sensationlism over facts. For instance, immediately after the war in Iraq Busby asserted that a spike in uranium detected at monitoring stations in a small area of the UK

"... shows that rather than remaining near the target as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away...”

Busby’s report shows that within nine days of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire. On two occasions, levels exceeded the threshold at which the Environment Agency must be informed, though within safety limits. The report says weather conditions over the war period showed a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards.

Trouble is, there's no evidence at all that these monitoring stations detected depleted uranium. After all, those monitoring stations exist because of their proximity to the UK's nuclear weapons complex - isn't it far more plausible that the source was nearby? Especially given that otherwise we are asked to believe that uranium from the war in Iraq floated across Europe and deposited itself in a localized area without elevated levels being observed all across Europe.

His second-event theory is not an absurd theory as far as I can tell (since I'm not a biologist I don't know enough to evaluate some of the cellular biology details) - it simply doesn't happen to correctly explain the data. Cancer clusters are a statistical inevitability - they should be investigated, but with the understanding that for any rare disease pure chance indicates that a certain number of clusters can occur without implying any causation. I think Busby is probably well-meaning, but his public claims too often defy common sense, and he is excessively reluctant to expose his work to the scrutiny of scientists. I've read enough to conclude that while he could be right, his public positions seem driven rather transparently by the policy recommendations he hopes to make (close nuke plants, end use of DU munitions). The sad part is that these may well be the wisest policies even if he is dead wrong; but this sniping from the fringes does more to erode his credibility than anything else.

[Liberation Angel]

130. The ENTIRE committee was threatened with Defamation Lawsuits if they didn't go along

You must have missed this in the Times article I linked:

"Lawyers at Defra, the environment ministry, have sent letters to all 12 members of the committee warning them that they could be sued for defamation if they include Bramhall and Busby’s minority report."

If you rely on the CERRIE report to conclude that evidence of leukemia or toher cancers in children and adults is poor then you miss the whole point of mine that the entire CERRIE report was invalid due to pro-industry bias. OF COURSE they are going to claim the evidence is not sufficient and spent so much energy attacking the pro-environmental minority re
Cancer clusters primarily around nuclear power plants are NOT a statistical inevitability as much as you want to spin it that way. This is really obfuscation (although a pretty civil and well calculated one) BUT it is at least better than attacking the people opposed to nuclear power as paranoids. You admoit that yoy you don't know enough to evaluate the detais but then claim the "theory" doesn't correctly explain the data.

I guess when you get into the esoterica of the data it can be mystifying which is why I depend on scientists I trust who are unbiased and not working for the industry.

I have seen the baby teeth studies of children near nuke plants and the reports of the radiation and public health project has published data and reports in peer reviewed journals.

You are blaming the victims here (those who speak out) as fringedwellers sniping irresponsibly. They TRIED to work with the CERRIE process but were threatened and harassed and ultimately marginalized by the industry hacks who controlled the process.

INDUSTRY HACKS CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN AN UNBIASED WAY. They have a financial incentive to cover up the harm. A HUGE financial incentive. Environmentalists opposing nuclear power have very little financial incentive to lie about the data: they get attacked, threatened and intimidated and harassed and marginalized. There may be exceptions but on a credibility scale the industry promoters have less than zero credibility on any of their claims or science as compared to those whose motive is not profits but safety.

[Liberation Angel]

126. Government gags experts over nuclear plant risks (Re: Cerrie report)

Government gags experts over nuclear plant risks
Mark Gould and Jonathan Leake

A BITTER row has broken out inside a government safety committee after two of its experts were barred from voicing fears that radiation from nuclear installations poses a greater threat than previously thought.
Government lawyers have blocked a minority finding written by the two from being included in the committee’s final report — which follows a three-year investigation into the effects of low-level radiation.

Dr Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, members of the committee examining radiation risks from internal emitters, believe that the risk of cancer from low-level radiation dangers is greater than realised.

They claim that previous methods of calculating the effects of emissions on people living near nuclear installations have underestimated the risk by a factor of up to 300.

If correct, the study could explain the clusters of cancer and leukaemia cases found close to nuclear installations in north Wales and Essex and near Sellafield in Cumbria. But the claims have divided members of the committee, with some supporting the gagging while others have accused civil servants of censorship.

Sunday Times 1st August 2004

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article464333.ece

[Liberation Angel]

127. Guardian article: (Former Environmental Minister) Meacham Rails at "Biased" Cancer report

Meacher rails at 'biased' cancer report

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 8 September 2004 01.58 BST

The former Labour environment minister Michael Meacher yesterday accused a government committee he set up to assess the health effects of low-level radiation of suppressing a report on the possible cause of childhood leukaemia.

He called the alleged suppression "criminally irresponsible", saying he had formed the committee so as to reflect all opinion on the contentious issue and so that a report could be published putting all the facts before the public.

Instead the final report gave a one-sided establishment opinion, he said, which did not "accommodate a full and fair representation of all views".

Mr Meacher was speaking at the launch of a minority report of the expert committee which says that radiation doses to children across Europe who developed leukaemia could have been up to 100 times larger than suggested by official estimates.

The report says that inhaled, man-made, radioactive particles such as Strontium 90 or plutonium from Chernobyl or Sellafield can lodge in the body or foetus and bombard and damage cells. This, particularly in the unborn, would be enough for children to develop leukaemia or other cancers.