radiation

[billi]

http://www.truth-out.org/science-skew-nuclear-power-industry-after-chernobyl-and-fukushima/1325956958

The ABCC studied but did not treat radiation effects, and many survivors

were reluctant to identify themselves as survivors, having no wish to bare their health problems to US investigators and become mired in bureaucracy and social stigma.  But sufficient numbers did voluntarily come forth to make this the largest—and longest—study of radiation-related health effects ever.  No medical study has had such resources lavished on it, teams of scientists, state of the art equipment: this was Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) funding.  Since it is assumed in epidemiology that the larger the sample, the greater the statistical accuracy, there has been a tendency to accept these data as the gold standard of radiation risk.   

The Japanese physicians and scientists who’d been on the scene told horrific stories of people who’d seemed unharmed, but then began bleeding from ears, nose, and throat, hair falling out by the handful, bluish spots appearing on the skin, muscles contracting, leaving limbs and hands deformed.   When they tried to publish their observations, they were ordered to hand over their reports to   US authorities. Throughout the occupation years (1945-52) Japanese medical journals were heavily censored on nuclear matters.  In late 1945, US Army surgeons issued a statement that all people expected to die from the radiation effects of the bomb had already died and no further physiological effects due to radiation were expected.   When Tokyo radio announced that even people who entered the cities after the bombings were dying of mysterious causes and decried the weapons as “illegal” and “inhumane,” American officials dismissed these allegations as Japanese propaganda

[Outtasight]

I`m in Fukushima prefecture now, at my in-laws in Miharu.

They are starting to provide radiation maps for exposure levels from the plant now, with much of the prefecture shown as delivering a 1 milliSievert dose to residents from dust and so on blown by the wind.

On TV on a popular show called something like "Q" (question).  They use simple kids graphics and models to discuss all sorts of topics from the Euro credit crisis to long term effects of radiation exposure.  The "contestants" who are used to explain things to were a typical family of mum, dad and a 7 year old girl.

In a scene resembling Sesame Street, with a model man (in the style of the man from the kids "Operation" game by MB) and some furry muppet arrows to represent alpha, beta and gamma particles they explained the depth of penetration of the types of particle to the body, their differing potential for causing cancer when both exposed externally or if accidentally eaten or breathed in.

The family (especially the girl) sat almost dumbfounded by the explanation with visible jaw-dropping.

The radiation exposure is a fact now that the Japanese are facing up to and informing the public in a very direct way as to what to expect in the years ahead.

No doubt the AEC will be interested in the long term study results...

[spaces]

The truth-out page makes hard reading for anyone with a conscience - and gently corrects those who are in denial to the affects of prolonged low-level radiation. Science will eventually discredit itself even more if allowed to be controlled to such an extent by vested interests and Governments. It's another danger of having such a large proportion of the population employed (directly or indirectly) by Govt. 

The argument that climate change isn't further increased by nuclear power simply doesn't hold water - nuclear means units of electricity which come with low (even negative) marginal costs - and the true economic (not to mention environmental) cost is rarely mentioned. It follows that more and more electricity leads to more and more factory production of unnecessary various tools and gizmos which require power to work, with the all the packaging, transportation and disposal problems these create.

The UK's brushing under the carpet of the Japanese disaster should be a scandal.

[dimogga]

The UK's brushing under the carpet of the Japanese disaster should be a scandal.

The UK's?

http://www.facebook.com/iaeaorg
is interesting. I don't think they've updated about Japan for months.

[spaces]

Germany really does stand out as very far-sighted. Will be interesting to watch over the next 20-30 years.

[dimengineer]

Germany really does stand out as very far-sighted. Will be interesting to watch over the next 20-30 years.

It will. But not for the reasons I think you refer to. All stuff comes with risks - and whilst radiation does have risk, its impossible to look at them in isolation - you have to look at relative risk. What are the alternaives, and how risk are they. I personally remain confident that the overall risks of man made radiation compare well to the alternatives.
In the end, we've already had close to 70 years of data.......

[spaces]

Germany really does stand out as very far-sighted. Will be interesting to watch over the next 20-30 years.

In the end, we've already had close to 70 years of data.......

And tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years' half-life radionuclides dispersed and being dispersed into our oceans, seas, rivers, atmosphere, land and everything which lives in, on or off it.

[wookey]

1mSv is about 1/4 of the annual average natural dose, or about 1/8th of the average annual natural dose in Cornwall. So that is presumably a small increase for people in the area if it was previously a low-radiation area, but essentially it's in the 'much less risky than crossing the road, absolutely normal risks of life' range.

People's jaws may drop on the TV, but that's not got much to do with objective risks.

This is helpful everytime someone gives you a radiation dose number in order to apply some perspective.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[spaces]

Please be aware of the difference between external and internal radiation effects. Background radiation doses and medical X-rays are different from radionuclides ingested into your body, where a tiny amount of radiation (from the perspective of existing outside the body) close up to your body's cells will cause plenty of damage. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation.

[wookey]

True. How much of that 1mSv is internal? As you say, that's important.

[dimengineer]

What will get you is ingesting an alpha emitter.  They tend to be the larger elements - the worst one overall is naturally occuring radon, cos you breathe it in. Gets deep into the lungs, spitting out alphas as it goes, which do a lot of damage.

[guydewdney]

And hundreds of thousands of years' half-life

um - that means its almost perfectly stable - and emits almost nothing - like radon in the granite here in the south west (combatted by a plastic sheet....)

[spaces]

And hundreds of thousands of years' half-life

um - that means its almost perfectly stable - and emits almost nothing - like radon in the granite here in the south west (combatted by a plastic sheet....)

rather like a politician - taking a word out of its context and using it to your own ends. 

[spaces]

Trying to substantiate Helen Caldicott's assertion that Turkish apricots are radioactive following the Chernobyl catastrophe, (since the UK govt is still preventing sheep from over 300 Cumbrian and Welsh farms from reaching the human food chain - does that mean cat and dog food is the place this lamb goes?) I gave up looking - all Google's results were discussions about Dr Caldicott's comments.

However I came across this: http://www.barc.ernet.in/publications/nl/2011/2011070803.pdf and so then tried to work out how much a kilo gray is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_%28unit%29) and how radiating our food could possibly be of any danger.
 
Getting nowhere fast at this late hour, Google came up with this gem - http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_apricotseedsVale.html - which made me realise that we are probably at as great or greater danger from the US govt than eating Turkish apricots. Which I love. Although those from the Hunsa valley are the nicest I've ever eaten.

[wookey]

I don't think they are prevented from entering the human food chain - they are just moved to eat from lower pastures for a few weeks until their radioactivity levels are deemed low enough to be acceptable. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-13196041

Caldicott does stir up a lot of argument. In the couple of clips I've seen she talked a great deal of emotive nonsense, but she is supposed to be an eminent expert. I could not reconcile these two pieces of information in the little I saw. Colour me 'not impressed' so far.

re the 'hundreds of thousands of years' quote. Did you not mean to imply that their long-lasting nature was bad and this made the emission a worse thing? That's how it read to me. Guy was just pointing out that it's not that simple. long-lasting = less radioactive, which is at least a 'better thing', if not exactly a 'good thing'.

It's helpful to say what links are rather than require people to read them to find out what you are talking about. So, to save everyone else the bother:  that barc.ernet.in link is a report on the effectiveness of gamma radiation and calcium chloride dipping on preserving fruit (both very effective, especially in combination).

The whole rad, rem, Roentgen, Curie, Gray, Seivert, Becquerel thing is rather confusing. This page seems to sum it up quite well: http://www.radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm

So the internal/external exposure is called 'dose equivalent' and 'committed dose equivalent' respectively, both measured in Seiverts and the latter evaluated up to some future time, such as 50 years. More recently these have been replaced by the very similar  'equivalent dose' and 'committed equivalent dose' which allow for threshold effects. Heh , no wonder it's all a tad confusing!

A kilo Gray is an awful lot of radiation. 5Gray over the whole body will kill you in 14 days. 1Gray to hair cells will make your hair fall out. 10 Gray will make it permanent.

So it seems that fruit is several hundred times more radiation resistant than people. (Apples get 100-500 Gray, peaches 1000-2000 Gray) in those BARC tests.