With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.
When you hear the terms “safe” and “insignificant” in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: ”Safe to whom”? ”Insignificant for which of us?”
Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed. (http://nukefree.org /… )
1. Yes, there are plenty of safe doses of radiation. To say otherwise is the lie.
It's like saying that swallowing even one apple seed will kill you, because apple seeds contain cyanide.
The fact of the matter is that from a scientific basis, Americans worrying about radiation coming from Fukushima is the worst kind of hysteria. It has NO scientific basis whatsoever, and only people who don't at all understand the subject could say otherwise.
68. You seem to be confused about what the word "research" means. Writing crap on a website is not
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 07:09 PM by Maru Kitteh
1) The website is so poorly edited it's almost embarrassing to read. If this freakin' genius doesn't care enough about the information on his website to proofread it, why should I give it even a moment of serious consideration?
2) The claim that we DO NOT x-ray pregnant women is just stupid. We do.
3) The only people he repeatedly mentions working with are musicians and entertainers. Not great for somebody who expects to be taken seriously by, well, anyone of substance really.
4) The scant bit of "science" that may be located in relation to this subject on the site is based on one report well over half a century old. Even that pitiful bit is not properly cited or sourced. Why don't we just see what Mark Twain had to say on the subject while we're at it?
14. But that's naturally occurring radiation, correct?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 02:52 PM by CoffeeCat
The radiation released in the body from potassium in a banana--is naturally occurring. It comes from bananas. Our bodies are used to it. It comes from the natural potassium in the banana.
However, a radiation cloud from Japan--doesn't contain bananas, does it? It contains Iodine-131 and Cesium which are not naturally occurring. They cause cancer. They are radioactive substances that are not found in food. They are man made.
Isn't there a major difference between ingesting radioactive isotopes/substances---and experiencing a minute amount of naturally-occurring radiation from bananas that our bodies are used to?
Don't radioactive iodine-131 and Cesium, which are being emitted from Japan--nest inside the thyroid and in other organs and cause cancer? Bananas don't cause cancer.
Seems to me that there is a big difference between the impact of RADIATION in naturally-occurring small doses---and RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE INGESTED--is there not?
And it also seems that a cloud of radiation from Japan--can give off a "low level" of radiation--but still contain radioactive iodine-131 and cesium--which could cause cancer and even death in the future. Is that not correct?
16. Your body can't tell the difference between "natural" and "manmade" radiation.
Seems to me that there is a big difference between the impact of RADIATION in naturally-occuring small doses---and RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE INGESTED--is there not?
"ingested" is more significant than external sources of radiation, but an alpha particle from something in side your body is the same as another alpha particle in the same location from an artificial source. Breathing in radon isn't healthier just because the radon comes from the ground.
You body is also "used to" certain levels of external radiation. An "artificial" source 1/100th the activity level of what your body is "used to" does not become more dangerous because it isn't "naturally occuring".
19. K-40 gives off a beta and a gamma ray. Alpha emitters like Plutonium....
are a whole different story.
.... Potassium is also in this category. There are actually three potassium isotopes: K39, a stable isotope, is the most abundant, at 93.26 % of the total; K41 is next in abundance at 6.73 % and is also a stable isotope. The potassium isotope of interest is a radioactive isotope, K40. It is present in all potassium at a very low concentration, 0.0118 %. It has a very long half-life, 1,260,000,000 years. When it decays 89 % of the events give rise to the emission of a beta ray with maximum energy of 1.33 Mev. The other 11 % of the decays produce a gamma ray with an energy of 1.46 Mev.
21. Did you ever hear about the Battelle Laboratories Northwest experiment?
It was infamous inside the nuclear industry. They were trying to find the minimum safe dose of Plutonium-239, so they gave 1 micro-gram each to 5 beagle dogs. Within a few years, ALL the dogs died of bone cancer. The experiment was not continued.
Is a dose that kills one person out of a thousand who receives it a "fatal dose"?
If you take a look at the dose administered to those poor dogs (I'm a beagel fan) and account for the fact that humans are much bigger than beagles, the study you cite says that it takes lots more than a microgram to expect someone to die from it.
They used Plutonium 239. One nanocurie of PU239 is 16.3 nanograms of the material.
The conclusion of the study (as reported in your link) was:
They concluded very tentatively that a dose of more than 1 nanocurie of plutonium 239 per gram of lung tissue could cause premature death
If we assume that humans are equally susceptible, then we're talking about ~2,250 nanocuries (lungs weigh about five pounds) to get the same impact. Convert 2,250 nanocurries to the equivalent weight of PU239 and you're talking about 37 micrograms. Not one.
It's also important to note that they were erring on the side of caution. The low-dose beagles were actually given three to twenty times that amount. Those dogs did die 6-12 years later with malignant tumors, but that also means that some of them died at the age of 13-1/2 after the weight-adjusted equivalent of 700 micrograms of Plutonium... not one...
... and that's the average life expectancy of a beagle.
In short - the study properly supports the idea that Plutonium is a particularly dangerous element. But it doesn't support the notion that a single microgram is a killing dose.
23. No, your facts are not correct. Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it magic.
There is no difference between a Becquerel of radiation from potassium in your body and one from iodine in a reactor. Period. There is no distinction for "natural" radiation versus "unnatural radiation." Cyanide is "natural," and it will still kill you. Sunlight is "natural" and can still give you cancer.
A large enough dose of radiation can increase your risk of cancer. And by "large enough," I mean many hundreds of thousands of times any possible dose floating across the ocean, if not more. A few radioactive particles don't kill you any more than swallowing one apple seed does. That's pseudoscience at it's worst.
37. That a handful of iodine particles reaching the US will kill people.
And that "natural" radiation is somehow different, and completely harmless, while a vastly smaller amount of "unnatural" radiation will kill you dead.
"Don't radioactive iodine-131 and Cesium, which are being emitted from Japan--nest inside the thyroid and in other organs and cause cancer? Bananas don't cause cancer."
"And it also seems that a cloud of radiation from Japan--can give off a "low level" of radiation--but still contain radioactive iodine-131 and cesium--which could cause cancer and even death in the future. Is that not correct?"
7. Different btwn radiation vs. ingesting radioactive particles???
So far, the media reports have been talking about RADIATION LEVELS--whether they are in the air, in the water or even in the milk.
We've been told that the radiation levels are safe.
However, what about radioactive substances like Iodine-131 and Cesium. Is it ok to inhale these substances into your lungs or drink them in milk?
Isn't RADIATION that we are exposed to in the air--hitting the outside of our bodies---different than inhaling and ingesting radioactive substances (such as iodine-131 an Cesium which are being emitted from the Japanese plant)?
"Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed."
47. You have nuggets of facts in your rhetorical questions,...
... but your implications are unfounded.
Yes, some emitters are harmless when outside your body. Alpha particles must be ingested to have an impact on humans. Soft betas are the same. For hard betas, ingestion is worse than not ingesting, but the impact is similar. For gammas and neutron emitters, it doesn't matter much.
55. You're quoting one of the most misunderstood facts about radiation.
The reason there is no "safe" dose is because we can not predict which radioactive particle will kill you. It might be fallout from a nuke plant, or it might be the potassium in a banana you ate years ago. Or it might be from the Carbon-14 your lawnmower released while burning gasoline.
So "no safe radiation" doesn't mean hiding from all sources of radiation (which isn't possible anyway). It means the limits have to be set based on probability, and that you should avoid exposure when possible.
And, to be pedantic, X-rays don't come from nuclear decay.
59. This may seem insulting but it is not intended to be so...
No matter which side one takes on this subject, there is virtually NOTHING that we can do about any of this. It seems, that without adequate background education on this subject, we cannot satisfactorily understand the real problem and sift out the fear-mongering 'The Sky Is Falling' claims.
We throw data around as if it has meaning...even when the data released from different sources does not agree with every account. Might help if more of us understood the actual terms...gosh knows that the media is worse off than we are judging by the media reports. The media itself is hurting more than it helps.
The Berkeley nuke dept has been monitoring radiation levels from the top of their building on the Berkeley campus since this 'event' began. So far, theirs are the only numbers and descriptions that count.
On site radioactive sea water should be released to the ocean...such is the learned opinion of some of our best physicists...the ocean will dilute these materials which will not, in the long run, pollute the oceans more than the daily sewage tonnage that the world pours into it. This was also suggested by Dr Bill Wattenberg who has worked in the nuclear field for years and whose opinions I personally value.
Someone already mentioned this...the OP states that we do not x-ray pregnant women. But, we certainly do under certain conditions...doctors decide and that, after all, is their baliwick. Much of the info in the OP is absolutely fraudulent...other so-called experts giving the public whatever gets the most attention.
Going back to the beginning of this long screed, there is NOTHING that any of can do about this situation EXCEPT to try and nail down whatever facts can be found in the media FROTH.
Reading some of the different numbers on this thread, I find that multi-story piles of coal-fired fly ash have higher numbers than much of what is escaping from the reactor sites.
Thanks to those posters who have repeatedly tried to use facts and not fear-mongering to explain what is plainly a bad situation.
72. I see your line of thought but manufacturing poison without an antidote is insane.
The byproduct of nuclear energy cannot be neutralized. Until there is a truly safe way to dispose of spent uranium we should not use this as a means of energy. Yes small amounts of most things will not immediately kill you but why place land mines all around you hoping they will not go off. These hot spots will decay or be exposed before their danger has expired. I want the future children and other living things to be able to live without that threat.
77. So we should rely on another energy source that produces more poison that we can't neutralize?
Coal plants aren't environmentally wonderful. Heck, the smoke from them is significantly radioactive. And we have no realistic way to capture the CO2 which is causing that little global warming problem.
Yes, nuclear waste is a problem. But there's a lot less of it than coal plant waste.
(Wind & Solar would be lovely, but our grid can't currently handle using only wind and solar.)
I want the future children and other living things to be able to live without that threat.
I'd like them to have a planet with a functioning ecosystem, adequate fresh water and without literal mountains of coal ash. A comparatively small quantity of radioactive waste is less problematic for the future.
85. Is it really being stressed enough to make us stop accepting the insanity of
creating more of a problem than a solution? Is it an over reaction if there is not enough reaction to stop us from poisoning our world? What accident will it take to require us to use energy that will not harm us?
If you dismiss this as fear mongering or hand wringing when a concerned opinion is posted, then where can we go to discuss the seriousness of this and all the ill conceived preposterous missuses of our miraculous and finite earth?
Let's not kick each other for over reaction, but pull together for meaningful action.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.