WHY IT IS MISLEADING TO COMPARE JAPAN'S RADIATION RELEASE TO "BACKGROUND RADIATION"

[grahamhgreen]

"The bottom line is that there is some naturally-occurring background radiation, which can - at times - pose a health hazard (especially in parts of the country with high levels of radioactive radon or radium).

But cesium-137 and radioactive iodine - the two main radioactive substances being spewed by the leaking Japanese nuclear plants - are not naturally-occurring substances, and can become powerful internal emitters which can cause tremendous damage to the health of people who are unfortunate enough to breathe in even a particle of the substances, or ingest them in food or water. Unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas - which our bodies have adapted to over many years - cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances.

And unlike naturally-occurring internal emitters like radon and radium - whose distribution is largely concentrated in certain areas of the country - radioactive cesium and iodine are spreading not only nationally, but world-wide.

At the very least, it is important to note that each individual internal emitters behaves differently. They each accumulate in different places in the body, target different organs, mimic different vitamins and minerals, and are excreted differently (or not at all). Therefore, comparing radioactive cesium or iodine with naturally occurring radioactive substances - even those which can become internal emitters - is incorrect and misleading.

This is not to say that we're all going to get cancer. Most of use probably won't. This is solely an attempt to counter the misleading propaganda from apologists"


http://projectpangaia.blogspot.com/2011/03/comparing-japans-radiation-release-to.html



This is a great refutation of the nukers argument that that eating and breathing radioactive cesium and iodine are no different that a suntan.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Thank you for this.

Prepare yourself for an onslaught of nukers who will gladly drink their iodine 131 laced milk.

K&R!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

9. Am I on your Ignore list yet?

Japan has just as great, if not more problems from from the damage from the earthquakes and tsunami that cause 20,000+ dead so far.
The nuclear reactor problem was directly cause by the land the reactors are on dropping almost 4 feet, including the 23 foot seawall protecting the nuclear site. If that had not had happen, there most likely would not have been a problem in the first place.
At the start of the earthquake automatic controls shut down all of the reactors. The earthquake caused no damage to the reactors.
But it takes time to get rid of the heat form the cores. Everything was working as it should till the tsunami hit and stopped the emergency generators powering the cooling pumps and isolated the reactor site from access from the rest of the island. And even then there was no problem with the reactors until the last resort batteries running the cooling pumps ran out of juice and the pumps stopped.
That site is the least of Japans worries now.

[damntexdem]

13. And the nuclear contamination should be a worry for thousands of years.

And a worry for those downwind -- such as the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world.

The legacy of Fukushima will long outlast the cleanup and rebuilding from the tsunami, and it will be a world legacy.

[flamingdem]

14. How about the corruption in our own US plants and falsified safety inspections

Manager at CA nuclear plant sues over firing, claims whistleblower retaliation

The Orange County Register reports that a manager at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station claims he was fired after reporting safety concerns, according to a suit filed today.

According to the suit, a nuclear power watchdog group received in February 2010 calls and emails from workers in the plant regarding shortcuts on testing new generators, safety violations, and a "culture of cover-up." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission then sent a letter to Southern California Edison regarding the "chilling effect" of the work environment at the plant, the suit claims. The letter was to make sure the company encouraged workers to speak up about safety concerns.

The suit claims that when Diaz told his boss, Pamela Panek, about concerns brought to his attention by other employees, he was told not to address the complaints. According to the suit, management also told the employees they should not have talked to him about the problems.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/30/manager-at-ca-nucl...

[grahamhgreen]

17. What size nuclear disaster would get you to be against nukes? Loss of a city, state, country or

continent?

[grahamhgreen]

30. Come on RC, you can answer this question

What size nuclear disaster would get you to be against nukes? Loss of a city, state, country or continent?

If we lost a continent, surely you would be against nuclear power, yes?

[grahamhgreen]

35. Please, there must be some limit to the size of a nuclear disaster from a power plant that

you would deem unacceptable.

Would the loss of a city, state, country or continent do it for you?

[tahrir]

37. it is delusional to believe that is "the least of their worries now'

you are not on my ignore list, but definitely on my no confidence list.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. KICK! People need to see this! n/t

[crickets]

4. THANK YOU!

I am so tired of hearing that this and that exposure is comparable to a plane flight or a chest x-ray.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Exactly !!!

The stuff spewing out of these busted reactors isn't the same as watching too much TV.

Totally cynical spin across the newsphere. Where are the real journalists?
You know, the ones with brains and the ability to discern the truth?

[Raschel]

6. Thank you for this post.

[RC]

7. Half lives of

Iodine-131 has a half-life of only eight days.
Cesium-137 has a half-life is about 30 years,

[wickerwoman]

19. And if you're reexposed every day for the possible *years*

that the Japanese government is saying it's might take to stop the release of radioactive materials?

Knowing the half-life is meaningless without also knowing the amount of the dose, how often you are exposed to it and the cumulative effects of continuous reexposure.

[BrightKnight]

8. The half life of the radium in coal ash is 1600 years. iodine 131 = 8 days, cesium137 = 30 years

Radioactive coal ash is used as land fill for shopping malls and housing developments. It is also used in cement. Perhaps your home and your child's school were built with radium.

[uppityperson]

11. Huh, I thought OP said "cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new".

Information is good, but it needs to be complete information as a little bit can be more frightening than enough.

[grahamhgreen]

20. So why is Obama pushing nukes and coal? It makes no sense.

Look at this chart, we should be using wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, tidal, wave, and lastly natural gas. Coal and Nukes should be off the table.

[BrightKnight]

25. WOW! The capacity factor for wind is only 35% and solar is only 25%.

The capacity for nuclear is 90%. You would have to build a wind farm more than 3 times the nominal output to compete with nuclear or coal. Also, the power produced by wind is very inconsistent. An off shore wind farm would cost about 6 times what nuclear plant would cost to produce the same power based on these numbers.

Nuclear plants will most likely be replaced with coal plants. We can probably agree that this is not a good idea but that is what will happen.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Even so, wind is cheaper. Morever,

the chart does not take into account the externalized costs of cancers and disasters associated with coal and nukes.

Obviously natural gas is the way to go if you just can't stand to embrace the future and have to burn some fossil fuels to get your energy fix.

The fact is, fossil and nuke fuel will always rise in price, whereas the price of wind will remain free.

How much will wind cost 10 years from now? How bout uranium?

[BrightKnight]

29. Per DOE numbers the capital cost off shore wind is about 6 times nuclear.

You would have to triple the nominal capacity of off shore wind to produce the same amount of energy as a coal or nuclear plant. Also, the amount of power produced by wind is very inconsistent.

The DOE chart is listed in post 20.

I do not see economies of scale reducing the cost of wind power much.

The externalities associated with coal are outrageous and I would argue far higher than anything else. We are going to end up with a lot more coal.

[grahamhgreen]

33. On shore wind is cheaper than nukes and similar to coal, and the price of wind is consistently free,

whereas the price of fossil and uranium will rise.

There is no reason to go with coal at all, if we must use fossil fuel, natural gas produces less CO2 and is 1/2 the price of coal.

The nuclear industry is trying to set up a coal vs nuclear straw man, the answer is neither.

All we really have to do is build a lot of windmills.

[BrightKnight]

36. On shore wind is about 3 times the cost of nuclear if you compensate for capacity.

This might get you the same amount of power over a period of time but the availability is highly variable.

The availability of energy from off shore farms is more consistent but the capacity factor is the same. Off shore wind equipment lasts longer because the wind speed and direction are more consistent. The nominal capacity is irrelevant. You have to look at the actual energy produced.

[grahamhgreen]

42. Cost per mwh includes capacity. Nukes do not include disasters and waste storage.

[BrightKnight]

48. It does not include the capacity factor. - n/t

[grahamhgreen]

51. Yes, it does! Which is very cool! (link)

"In the table below, the levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

[w4rma]

45. Not if a nuclear plant goes into meltdown. Then the price of nuclear is uncalculable.

Because there isn't enough money in the world to clean it up and put things the way they were before. I have no problem with paying 3 times as much for wind power.

Also, how much is it to store decayed nuclear fuel?

[BrightKnight]

47. What is the cost of global warming, acid rain, hundreds of millions of tons of coal ash per year?

What did it cost to rebuild New Orleans? How much does it coast to store the hundreds of millions of tons of toxic, radioactive coal ash generated in the US each year? How do you get the mercury out of tuna and the rest of the ecosystem?

We both might be willing to triple our electricity bills. We might be willing to endure the recession that would follow. We might be willing to accept the trade imbalance as other countries choose cheap electricity.

There is no way most of my neighbors are going to accept a rate increase anything like that. They are going to say screw you and screw the environment.

[underseasurveyor]

10. Bookmarked and rec'd

Eat it pro-nukers :P

[damntexdem]

12. First of all, because it's not either/or.

The Fukushima radiation will affect its victims IN ADDITION TO background radiation.

It also matters what form the radiation takes -- e.g., inhaling radiation is more harmful than being externally radiated. "Background" radiation can take different forms, including radon gas -- which can be inhaled; so background radiation is differentially dangerous. Fallout from an explosion (non-nuclear, but blowing tons of radioactive particles into the air) at Fukushima creates a high risk of inhalation. Likewise, ingestion is a risk, as in drinking radioactive water and eating radioactive food.

[truedelphi]

39. And even if you and your family don't directly inhale the radiation particle

The fish you eat next week, the cow's milk you drink, etc, all can be contaminated with various nucleotides that have half lives of a gazillion years.

Other than that- it's perfectly safe!

[flamingdem]

15. Fukushima: 137,000 fatalities from cancer projected from spent fuel fires - Brookhaven National

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HzYGju59bk


http://www.fairewinds.com /

The reactors are "stable but precarious".

Lots of gasses and liquids being released to the environment. NYT reports 200 tonnes being poured in daily, if it's going in it's coming out 1. as radioactive steam 2. as radioactive water.

Indications off site reveal releases are very large. Evacuation levels out beyond evac zone. Trenches are so radioactive they can't get readings, in the ocean 3,000x standards, this is not from the airbourne releases. It's from the trenches because they're the only sources large enough to cause this.

Serium is being detected indicating serious damage likely the fuel pool unit #4. 70% of the fuel in 3 reactors are melting. Stacks don't work radiation on the ground. In Fukushima exposures 500-100 times higher, way higher than envisioned two weeks ago.

Especially of concern today is the burning of fuel pools - 137,000 fatalities from cancer have been projected from this kind of event in a Brookhaven National Labs study.

People believed containment would contain but it is not.

http://www.fairewinds.com/

[Junkdrawer]

16. Yes, but what about bananas? Huh? Huh?

And don't get me started on bricks....

[BrightKnight]

23. The all natural, free range, organic coal ash radiation is yummy good for you. - n/t

[grahamhgreen]

27. This is a straw man. We do not need coal, either. The human race has progressed past these tech-

nologies:

[BrightKnight]

40. Read the capacity factor column! King Coal is the path of least political and economic resistance.

Coal is what we have and what we are going to get. We are going to get accelerated global warming and millions more tons of coal ash per year. We are going to get more acid rain and more heavy metal contamination. In a few years tuna will be too toxic for anyone to eat.

Most of my neighbors are not going to pay the extra price for renewable energy. Energy bills are sky high as it is. The are going to choose the cheapest option available. Perhaps you live in a different economic reality.

[grahamhgreen]

41. Cost per mwh includes capacity. Coal and nukes are history.

[BrightKnight]

46. It does not. - n/t

[grahamhgreen]

52. "In the table below, the levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity facto

In the table below, the levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology."


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. The thicker the head, the less danger to radiation of the brain?

:evilgrin:

[Sabriel]

21. Then I guess several FUD posters on DU will suffer no harm at all.

Judging by their skull thickness, they're safe.

[Iggo]

22. WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Fukushima simply illustrates why it is a fools errand to build nuke plants. First, wind is cheaper,

second, when you add in the costs of just one disaster, the price of nuclear becomes prohibitively expensive.

What size nuclear disaster would you need to prove to you that we should abandon nukes? Loss of a city, state, country or continent? Would any disaster be large enough for you to realize it is an outdated technology, like a paddle wheel steam boat?

[Hissyspit]

34. "The worse they can make it appear?"

It's a DISASTER. For some, it IS the end of the world.

Please...

[Zorra]

31. More lies spread by anti-nuke environmentalist hippie communists.

Radiation is essential to maintain good health.

Take X rays for example. Essential to health in so man cases.

AND...it is an indisputable fact that radiation can kill 100% of all harmful viruses and bacteria in the body.

Don't believe the dirty hippie Greenpeace types. They've been spreading their anti-nuke propaganda since the early 1960's.

Nuclear energy is completely safe and clean.

More info at Nuclear Industry Owners Association Website: xxx.wekil4buks.orc

[bvar22]

32. Relax...they're just venting a little steam.

Don't worry your pretty little head.
I know "science".
Nuclear Power Plants are PERFECTLY safe,
and they are GREEN too!
Don't worry.
Be Happy.
Go Shopping.
Trust me.
!CONSUME!

Has mankind EVER produced even a simple machine that was Fail Proof?

[yawnmaster]

38. wait...how have our bodies adapted to K40 over the years??? that is saying that...

our bodies have adapted to occasional beta and gamma decay of isotopes. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950PhRv...79..490S)
Or are you saying it is the low level to which our bodies have become accustomed?

[underseasurveyor]

43. Just now on the 11pm news

Same misleading BS. You're in no danger from radiation... blahblahblah AND they use the banana comparison :eyes:

Tomarrow I think I'll email them with some news.

[marions ghost]

44. excellent info thank you

Long but informative. Everyone should read this. From the link:

(It's not about bananas :banghead:)

"...But cesium-137 and radioactive iodine - the two main radioactive substances being spewed by the leaking Japanese nuclear plants - are not naturally-occurring substances, and can become powerful internal emitters which can cause tremendous damage to the health of people who are unfortunate enough to breathe in even a particle of the substances, or ingest them in food or water. Unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas - which our bodies have adapted to over many years - cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances."

[PCIntern]

49. Hearty K and r. n/t

[Snoutport]

50. kick for the weekend