What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Faire Winds has another video out which discusses why Arnie Gundersen doesn't think that the ****ashima plants will go "China Syndrome": http://fairewinds.com/content/fukush...china-syndrome

But, he has some warnings about radioactive water leaking into the environment.

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Fairewinds released a video discussing the news about how Japan is going to "treat" the radioactive materials collected from the Fukashima plants and around the country -- DUMP them in Tokyo Bay!.

[woodsmoke]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?



woodsmoke

[MoonRise]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

I agree with you Woodsmoke. By the way love the Max Headroom avatar there! Not many people remember him!

[SteveRiley]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

x 10, woodsmoke.

Jerry -- I had not known of this organization before you posted the link to their video. Thanks for sharing. I'll be following their work -- the research appears highly credible.

[woodsmoke]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Moonrise

I put max headroom up just as a lark because I couldn't get rid of the Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky last night!

Yeah Max is cool!

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Japanese officials RISE the maximum radiation dose allowable to 20mSv/year, and then lie about the long term effects of low level radiation. This disinformation is countered by the results of a long term, 15 country study of over 400,000 people who worked in nuclear reactor plants.
http://vimeo.com/35212151

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Just found this interesting Fukashima Facts site, with real-time radiation readings for major US cities.
http://www.fukushimafacts.com/Defaul...ion%20Readings

[woodsmoke]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Hi GG
It is quite amazing that the information is available. However, to my mind, it would be much more useful information if there was some way to place it into context such as having the option to have included with each city's readout an "overal average" of the eithe the continent or the "region" or "regions".

An example being that when the Russkies did an above ground test many decades ago, it was carried to the U.S. on the "jet stream" and the people on the west coast went nuts, as they always do, but the radiation dumped on the midwest, and ,curiously, "everybody"(meaning the news media) lost interest.

But anyway, the ability to place a particular city's situation into context would probably be a nice option.

woodsmoke

[kubicle]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Japanese officials RISE the maximum radiation dose allowable to 20mSv/year, and then lie about the long term effects of low level radiation. This disinformation is countered by the results of a long term, 15 country study of over 400,000 people who worked in nuclear reactor plants.
http://vimeo.com/35212151

I had not known of this organization before you posted the link to their video. Thanks for sharing. I'll be following their work -- the research appears highly credible.

I think that fairewinds is an anti-nuclear lobby group and not an "impartial research institution", so their "information" needs to be taken with the same pinch of salt you'd take with pro-nuclear information.

Some common radiation dosages:
Single Chest CT or X-ray: ≈10+ mSv
Natural background radiation: ≈2-100+ mSv/y (depends on where you live)
Smoking a pack of cigarettes/day: ≈50 mSv/y
(For comparison the japanese increased the dosage limit to 20mSv/y)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Dose_examples


1. Yes, radiation will increase cancer rates (but it does this everywhere in the world, not just near fukushima...no matter where people live some of them will develop cancer due to radiation.

2. As far as the radiation affecting especially women and children, one has to keep in mind that we're talking about lifetime risks and that women live longer than men and children live longer than old people, so it's not that strange that a young girls (who have 75 years to live [on average]) have a much higher risk than a 40 year old males (who have 30 years to live [on average]) to develop cancer from radiation exposure during their lifetime.

3. The BEIR VII research paper also estimates that 42 people out of 100 will develop cancer in their lifetimes from causes other than radiation (and this risk is also higher on young girls for the same reason as above...they'll have more time [on average] to develop cancer).

To me the video seems like unscientific fear-mongering, twisting statistical data and omitting important comparisons to reach a goal.
"Look at how many disintegrations in a kilogram of locusts...that must be a lot, right?"

EDIT: fixed quotes

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Of course Fairewinds is an anti-nuclear group. That's never been hidden, nor is it the issue.

The issue is the difference between two schools of thought: those who say that there is a threshold for radiation below which it is safe, and those who believe that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation. The video on Fairewinds begins with Arnie Gunderson introducing another anti-nuclear advocate who presents the results of a study of over 400,000 workers in the nuclear industry in 15 countries over the period of time nuclear power has been deployed. It shows the relationship between cancers and mSv doses as low as 2mSv/y. The average background radiation is 300 mRem or 3mSv.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/safe-0105.html

Federal Standards, Permissible Levels Of Radiation Exposure to Whole Body (1994 unless noted otherwise)

Millirems above natural background levels (average 300) and medical radiation:

25,000 (250mSv) -Astronauts, per Space Shuttle mission. This also was the annual occupational limit for adults from World War II through 1950.

15,000-1950 to 1957 occupational limit per year for adults, including radiation workers and soldiers. Limit changed in 1957 to 5,000 millirems (50mSv).

5,000- (50mSv) (Since 1957) Occupational limit per year for adult radiation workers, including soldiers exposed to radiation. It is "as low as reasonably achievable; however, not to exceed 5,000 millirems." It is recommended that lifetime cumulative exposure is not to exceed the age multiplied by 1,000 millirems (10mSv).

500 (5mSv) -Occupational limit per year for a minor under 18 exposed to radiation. An embryo or a fetus of a pregnant worker exposed to radiation (a new regulation as of Jan. 1, 1994) is not to exceed more than 500 (5mSv) cumulated total millirems before birth, and it is recommended that the exposure of a fetus be limited to no more than about 50 millirems(0.5mSv) above background levels per month.

[kubicle]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

The average background radiation is 300 mRem or 3mSv.

That is probably in the ballpark of the *average natural level in the us*.

However,
1. the levels vary per location both within united states and around the world. Like I said, 2-100+ mSv depending on where you live.

2. You also have to count in unnatural sources (man-made/medical/occupational sources) that roughly doubles the radiation the annual dose for US denizens (this is of again just an average, some have lower and some higher dosages).

And just because the japanese raised the dosage limit, it doesn't actually mean that the dosage *is* 20mSv/y (the average dose is likely quite a bit smaller).

The issue is the difference between two schools of thought: those who say that there is a threshold for radiation below which it is safe, and those who believe that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation.

I don't doubt that there are studies that support both claims. But the video seems to exaggerate the risks quite a bit by interpreting the data rather freely. And the whole debate is somewhat pointless in the sense that regardless of whether small dosages are harmful or not, we all get small dosages of radiation continuously (it's just a fact of life).

study of over 400,000 workers in the nuclear industry in 15 countries over the period of time nuclear power has been deployed. It shows the relationship between cancers and mSv doses as low as 2mSv/y.

Do you have a link for the study, I'd rather look at it directly than through the (what I consider heavily partial) video? A few questions that come to mind are:
1. Is it correlation or causation (and how did they reach that conclusion).
2. Are the doses "as low as 2mSv/y" on top of their background radiation dosage. (If not, how did they account for differences in background radiation...and if it is, their radiation doses weren't really 2mSv/y).

Of course Fairewinds is an anti-nuclear group. That's never been hidden, nor is it the issue.

IMO it is, one-sided information is worthless...you yourself probably wouldn't put much credibility in microsoft produced data (or how microsoft would present data collected by others)

[GreyGeek]

Re: What "might happen" with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388693
A 15 country study submitted in 2005, again in 2007:

Abstract

A 15-Country collaborative cohort study was conducted to provide direct estimates of cancer risk following protracted low doses of ionizing radiation. Analyses included 407,391 nuclear industry workers monitored individually for external radiation and 5.2 million person-years of follow-up. A significant association was seen between radiation dose and all-cause mortality [excess relative risk (ERR) 0.42 per Sv, 90% CI 0.07, 0.79; 18,993 deaths]. This was mainly attributable to a dose-related increase in all cancer mortality (ERR/Sv 0.97, 90% CI 0.28, 1.77; 5233 deaths). Among 31 specific types of malignancies studied, a significant association was found for lung cancer (ERR/Sv 1.86, 90% CI 0.49, 3.63; 1457 deaths) and a borderline significant (P = 0.06) association for multiple myeloma (ERR/Sv 6.15, 90% CI <0, 20.6; 83 deaths) and ill-defined and secondary cancers (ERR/Sv 1.96, 90% CI -0.26, 5.90; 328 deaths). Stratification on duration of employment had a large effect on the ERR/Sv, reflecting a strong healthy worker survivor effect in these cohorts. This is the largest analytical epidemiological study of the effects of low-dose protracted exposures to ionizing radiation to date. Further studies will be important to better assess the role of tobacco and other occupational exposures in our risk estimates.

And an analyses 6 months ago:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743784
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFil.../1313155169469

and used as support three months ago:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3231876/

BUT, the table the video talks most about is from the Dartmouth analysis of the BEIR V and BEIR VII reports combined with the 15 country study, and it is on page 8 -- Table 8 -- attached below.

Sure, it's one sided, the side I agree with. With the NCR rubber stamping the nuclear industry requests and opinions, supported by my tax money, I feel I have the right to express a dissenting opinion as forcefully as I can.

[kubicle]

Re: What &quot;might happen&quot; with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

Thanks for the links, those'll certainly provide an interesting read for me.

At a quick glance, though, this:

and used as support three months ago:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3231876/

study is about reducing the radiation dosage of medical patients, and the conclusion is that radiation dosages of patients can be reduced with a proper strategy (they reduced it from 80 to 30 mSv with a reduction strategy). It doesn't, however, offer any conclusions of the effects of the radiation received (It isn't part of the study, the patient group is way too small for that kind of analysis anyway.)

Sure, it's one sided, the side I agree with. With the NCR rubber stamping the nuclear industry requests and opinions, supported by my tax money, I feel I have the right to express a dissenting opinion as forcefully as I can.

Certainly, I have no problem with that . I highly value all opinions, even those I don't fully share. I hope you give me the same courtesy for being a bit more skeptical (this skepticism spans to "industry" studies as well, wouldn't take them at face value either). IMO sensationalism is still a mind-killer.

I do agree that radiation causes cancer. But I don't think that low levels of radiation is something most people would need to worry about. (It's the same thing with viruses, people [generally] fear the Ebola while they have little fear for viruses that they are much more likely to die from, like the common [non-avian] influenza). And while radiation may cause cancer, many sources of radiation will OTOH prolong and improve lives in other ways. And after all, people have a 100% lifetime risk of dying :P. For an analogy: People that cross a street 10 times a day have a 25% percent higher risk (on average) of getting hit by a bus than people crossing a street only 8 times. Is the risk really relevant to most people (or should people avoid crossing the street because of the risk?)

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not opposing the studies (don't have an informed opinion of them yet, as I haven't read them), just the sensationalist way the video uses/interprets the data.

EDIT2: First thoughts on the large study:

Conclusions: These estimates, from the largest study of nuclear workers ever conducted, are higher than, but statistically compatible with, the risk estimates used for current radiation protection standards. The results suggest that there is a small excess risk of cancer, even at the low doses and dose rates typically received by nuclear workers in this study.

This suggests that there isn't really anything that surprising in the study, the data is statistically compatible with current radiation protection standards, and that the excess risk suggested by the study is small (at the dosage ranges studied).

Results: The excess relative risk for cancers other than leukaemia was 0.97 per Sv, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.97. Analyses of causes of death related or unrelated to smoking indicate that, although confounding by smoking may be present, it is unlikely to explain all of this increased risk. The excess relative risk for leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was 1.93 per Sv (< 0 to 8.47). On the basis of these estimates, 1-2% of deaths from cancer among workers in this cohort may be attributable to radiation.

Which means that 98-99% of deaths from cancer were caused by something other than radiation. And this doesn't even include all the other causes of death (accidents and illnesses other than cancer, for example). So, even the long-term exposure to radiation levels in excess of the common population seems to convey a relatively small risk of dying of radioactivity induced cancer (they were hundred times more likely to die from cancer caused by something else than radiation and much more likely to die from something else completely).

There are also a lot of "suggests" and "maybes" in there, the study is based on statistical analysis (and all it's limitations). The correlation seems to be there (statistically significant, but small), but it's not hard proof of causality (I personally have no problem accepting the conclusion, though). I would be surprised if radiation didn't increase cancer risks (but so does eating grilled food).

EDIT3:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFil.../1313155169469

This study focuses on radiaton effects of medical imaging, so it isn't directly applicable to prolonged exposure (receiving 10 mSv from a single scan is generally considered more harmful than a dose of 10 mSv over a span of a year [10 mSv/y]). Of course there is probably some correlation between the two.

Some excerpts from the study conclusions:

For mortality from all solid cancers combined, the lifetime risk estimated here is less than that in previous evaluations, mainly because the risk projected to arise several decades after exposure is lower than before.
...
This had the effect of reducing the overall solid cancer risk per unit of radiation dose by around 8% compared to the previous dosimetry system.
...
The risks of radiation-induced cancer calculated in this report are consistent with others calculated internationally.
...
While the risk of cancer from ionising radiation from medical imaging is small, collectively it can produce a potential hazard.

Nothing really surprising there either, risk is small but in a large population there can be some cases of medical imaging induced cancer (of course the benefits generally outweigh the risks).

In short, I really don't see anything in the studies that would support the outlandish claims in the video. That is just my opinion, of course

[GreyGeek]

Re: What &quot;might happen&quot; with the Japanese Nuclear plants?

As long as everyone is free to express their own opinions without ridicule or censorship then the playing field is level. 8)

The point the film made, and I feel the data in Table 8 supports it, is that low level radiation causes more cancers in children of both sexes, and it women. When TEPCO & NIC raised the level of "safe" raditation around Fukashima from 2 to 20mSv/y, that action was more because of politics than science, since US officials were advising Americans to evacuate the region as far south as, and including Tokyo. If it's not science then what were the political reasons? The biggest reason I can think of is that it precludes lawsuits if rates of cancer in the region rise. The video and associated research points out that TEPCO cited Atom bombing survivors as proof of the safety of raising the standard, but there is a significant difference between continual exposure of a low level radiation (especially one that was raised artificially to 10X the previously accepted level of "safety") and the one-time short exposure of higher intensity Gama radiation most A-Bomb victims experienced.

We also have the problem of the NRC, a commission designed to REGULATE the nuclear industry, acting as a sock puppet for them, rubber stamping their every request, defending them in every controversy. When I was in grad school taking an Engineering Physics class there were debates about the life times of the nuclear reactors, and we were told that they were designed to last for 40 years. Now, they are singing another tune, claiming that they'll last for 100 years, which utter nonsense.

Consider the Bellefonte Nuclear plant. Paraphrasing one report ... designed in the late 1960s, it has never received an NRC operating license. Only four reactors of this design were ever ordered anywhere in the world and of those four, only one operated in Germany for 100 days following a two year "shake down", never to be restarted again. Two of these four reactors, at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, have been sitting in a partial state of completion for almost 40 years on the banks of the Tennessee River in northeast Alabama. While they were sitting "mothballed," people without nuclear training were allowed into the reactors to strip key components and scrap metal for salvage from critical systems within the reactors. The vital documentation chain was interrupted and components cannot now be certified. The design behind this plant dates back to the 1960s and construction was started almost 40 years ago in 1974. The never-completed Bellefonte nuclear reactors are Babcock and Wilcox, Mark C "205," a unique reactor design best described as a special edition antique, with potential problems and TVA management also knows there are potential serious safety issues with Bellefonte. Proponents say not to worry, the unique design at Bellefonte is "not a big deal," it's just a larger version with more nuclear fuel rods of the "177" design and there are seven of these operating around the country. But, TVA has no history with any B&W reactors; they currently operate Westinghouse (Sequoyah 1 & 2 and Watts Bar 1) and General Electric (Browns Ferry 1, 2 & 3) reactors. Let's not forget that Three Mile Island was a B&W nuclear design. A Mark C "205" reactor design has never operated in the U.S., nor ever been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and thus does not provide a safety track record with which to evaluate the design performance.

I advocate caution over greed. The big elephant in the nuclear power debate is the privatization of the profits and the socialization of the costs. A few people stand to make a lot of profit if Bellefonte goes on line, but NO can tell me with a straight face that the unit costs of the electricity produced for the next 100 years, if it lasts that long, include paying for keeping the public safe and secure from contamination by Bellefonte's radioactive waste products for the next 10,000 years.