Posted on 06/13/2012 10:58:45 AM PDT by ransomnote
A landmark study on Hiroshima survivors comprehensively disproves nuclear lobby spin about ionising radiation being safe at low doses. Noel Wauchope reports.
The nuclear industry has a long history of concealing the truth about low dose radiation
This week, a new report about low dose ionising radiation was published — one that should put a spanner in the works of the nuclear lobby. It is called ‘Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases’.
First of all, let me explain why this report is so important and so timely.
It’s now just over a year since the tragic Fukushima disaster. So the nuclear lobby thinks that it’s time to restart the nuclear renaissance, and to get people to stop worrying about ionising radiation.
To this end, the industry, and particularly the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have projects under way.
In particular, there are two important projects going on — seemingly unrelated ones. But they are, as a matter of fact, closely related. Both aim to dampen the public concern about ionising radiation — indeed, to promote acceptance of “low level radiation”:
One sets out to downgrade nuclear emergency procedures. The other aims at discrediting the scientifically accepted model on the cancer risk of low level radiation — known as the Linear No Threshold model (LNT), which states that there is no level below which ionising radiation is not harmful, with risk increasing with each added unit of radiation. Project 1 – weakening emergency safety standards.
The USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have, in recent times, quietly downgraded nuclear emergency procedures. In particular, the new rules almost entirely ignore the radiation hazard. You can read more about this here.
Among the changes to the original 1979 program for nuclear emergency action, they have eliminated the requirement that local responders always practise for a release of radiation. Also, there is a new requirement that some planning exercises incorporate a reassuring premise — that no harmful radiation is released. As this article comments:
‘ many state and local emergency officials say such exercises make no sense in a program designed to protect the population from radiation released by a nuclear accident …
‘… The Japanese disaster reinforced such worries when officials told some towns beyond 12 miles from the disabled plant to evacuate. The U.S. government recommended that Americans stay at least 50 miles from the plant. Soil and crops were contaminated for scores of miles around. At one point, health authorities in Tokyo, 140 miles away, advised families not to give children the local water, which was contaminated by fallout to twice the government limit for infants. ”
And the NRC and FEMA plan to review their procedures soon — in all likelihood, to continue their history of watering down safety standards, even to wholly ignore problems hen encountering violations at the nation’s aging reactors. (This is detailed by David Worthington in ‘US nuclear safety regulations softened by industry influence’.) Project 2 – discrediting the radiation risk model
The U.S. Department of energy funds research projects worldwide that promote the theories of “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive radiation”.
from wiki
The Independent Australian is an Australian quarterly current affairs and politics magazine. Founded in 2003, the magazine describes itself as "politically incorrect" and "socially and culturally conservative." It deals with issues ranging from immigration and multiculturalism to environmental conservationism and sustainability.
Perhaps not. But there is a larger problem. Humankind needs power. But all that power that we get is in some way dirty. Nuclear is self-explanatory. Hydro kills huge lands and little fishes. Coal is radioactive and mining destroys lands, and all that smoke is not good for us either. Oil is getting harder to obtain. Solar is not energy-efficient, and semiconductor manufacturing is very poisonous. What do we have left?
There is an alternative, though. We can reduce our energy consumption. But if we do so then we have to reduce the population as well, since primitive farming (with animals for motive force) will not be able to feed 6+ billion people, especially when majority of them will have no jobs. We don't even have enough arable land for 6 billion newly minted peasants. Humans are alive and well today largely because modern intensive agriculture can feed us.
Without energy modern medicine will cease to be. We will be thrown back into middle ages where a horse was the best vehicle you could hope for. Plague and other maladies would become commonplace without proper sanitation (that requires energy.)
I don't want to say that TEPCO and their ilk should be allowed to do whatever they want, unchecked. However it's not enough to say "this won't work" - we need to have a plan, a list of things that will work. I haven't seen such a plan yet - a plan, at least, that does not decimate the population.
Besides, let's assume for the moment that we let 9/10 of the people to die off. The survivors go back into caves. But is such a life worth it? You probably will live longer near Fukushima than in a cave far away from it. The first cold winter, pneumonia, no antibiotics, and you are done for. A newborn's chance of survival would be also pretty low. But Gaia would be happy, I guess.
I haven’t read the study and really don’t intend to. These studies generally all use the Linear No Threshold model to extrapolate risk from very high doses of radiation (with very poor dosimetry) to low levels of radiation exposure. I think the LNT concept is dubious at best. I do think studies of medical exposure where there is some basis of the dosimetry and its link to cancer are worthwhile.
how are you supposed to avoid low doses of ionizing radiation? it’s naturally occuring. You can’t go outside, eat food, or heaven forbid you fly. I agree with mountainlion, sounds like no background in radiation. BTW which types of radiation are ionizing? :)
Especially ones with an agenda.
Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation composed of particles that individually can liberate an electron from an atom or molecule, producing ion-pairs. [...] US Federal Communications Commission material defines ionizing radiation as that with a photon energy of greater than 10 eV (equivalent to a far ultraviolet wavelength of 124 nanometers). [link]
They even offer an example:
The exposure caused by Potassium-40 present within a normal person.
I guess there is a huge market out there for some process to remove Potassium-40 from everyone and everything that lives :-) After that is done, the next task would be to remove all the granite rocks from Earth, somehow. Ultimately, of course, since Earth is inherently radioactive, we have to get rid of the planet.
I was associated with the Aussies while in the USAF and they were top notch people and remade my political definition of conservative. In the US I stand to the right of Reagan but in Australia, we would both be seen as left leaning pinkos. On the other hand, Australia is the country that gave us Wikileaks and Assange too.
“A landmark study on Hiroshima survivors comprehensively disproves nuclear lobby spin about ionising radiation being safe at low doses. Noel Wauchope reports.”
I’ve only gotten through this first sentence...but when I read something like this, I immediately DISCREDIT the source.
You say: “I have studied radiation and the effects of Hiroshima. Which study are you referring to and where is it. Lets look at the original information and not at a hit piece of a study”
But your prior posts like #4 and #17 show a shocking lack of scientific knowledge and/or an intent to manipulate and distort. If you were an expert - you’d enhance the public’s understanding of radiation but I see you threw everything in there but bananas in an attempt to confuse and misinform. Not worth spending my time talking to an ignorant shill.
Thank you for the link, Freedommom. Gunderson has done excellent work - that is why the pro nuke shills hate him so much.
John Gofman, the ‘father of plutonium’, was a well respected physicist and medical physician right up until the day he told his superiors that radiation was harmful to human health and his studies proved it. I’ve seen quotes where the nuclear lobby portrays him as the most irrational incoherent person etc. and yet he has a nice long history of discovering radioactive elements, supplying Oppenheim with material on demand, pioneering the work in cholesterol (LDL/HDL) and ‘elegant’ experimental designs which proved the relationship between low dose radiation and breast cancer. When posting on a board with nuke shills, you are going to see Gunderson and Gofman ridiculed as crazies or tree-huggers - and the people doing the ranting will be nuke shills who have no credibility at all.
BEIR VII report has a similar sentence in their report. It’s something like ‘contrary to what the nuclear industry would like to believe...’ and it’s there because the medical community seems to be frustrated by the way that the nuke industry has commandeered, or tried to, the reporting of medical consensus. Nuke shills HAVE to claim BEIR VII and all other medical reports are biased or lack credibility because it says things they don’t want to hear - it points to their liability to the public and if there’s anything nuke apologists will never accept, is accountability for their actions. So - yes you discredit medical reports you don’t like. I am not surprised.
“But there is a larger problem.”
The larger problem is that the public, and the will of the people, is being undermined by an industry subsidized and leveraged by their government. It’s a corrupting arrangement and the public is lied to, shouted down, and regulated out of participating in the proper governance and risks associated with resources.
and nuke shills attacking peer reviewed medical research spanning about 50 years have NO agenda....
“So - yes you discredit medical reports you don’t like. I am not surprised.”
You may be fine with biased reporting, when the bias is on your side. I’m not good with it, regardless of which side they favor.
As to your nuke hysteria - you might want to check on just what happened to all the people that were supposed to get cancer and die from the Chernobyl plumes. They never materialized. Sure, if you’re dropping concrete above a melted-down reactor, you were toast - but for the millions and millions of people downwind, nothing. Also, the place has turned into an animal refuge now, just due to lack of people. Some of those animals are very hot, but they thrive.
Of course I made up everything above (as you would see it), so just ignore the UNBIASED work and live in your paranoid world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.