Having the Energy Department control radiation health research makes as much sense as giving tobacco companies the authority to see if smoking is bad for you.
Last month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) heralded an Energy Department funded study indicating that evacuation zones around nuclear power stations might not be needed after a major nuclear accident. The study, which exposed mice to radiation levels comparable to those near the Fukushima nuclear disaster, found no evidence of genetic harm. "There are no data that say that's a dangerous level," says Jacquelyn Yanch, a leader of the study. According to the MIT press release "current U.S. regulations require that residents of any area that reaches radiation levels eight times higher than background should be evacuated. However, the financial and emotional cost of such relocation may not be worthwhile, the researchers say."
It's quite a leap to claim that evacuation zones around nuclear power plants might not be needed based on the chromosomes of 112 irradiated mice. In a devastating critique, blogger, Ian Goddard points out that the MIT study excluded extensive evidence of genetic damage to humans living in a radiation-contaminated environment. Although doses in a peer-reviewed study of 19 groups of children living near Chernobyl were consistently lower than the MIT mouse study, most showed lasting genetic damage from radiation. "MIT's presentation of its study as the first scientific ever examination of the genetic risks of living in a nuclear disaster zone is pure science fiction, not fact," Goddard concludes.
Even more troubling, the Obama administration reduced emergency preparedness in case of a major nuclear accident in a quiet announcement made six months ago, right before Christmas -- virtually guaranteeing minimal media attention. Given that the number of people living near nuclear stations has grown four-and-a-half times larger since 1980, a move in the opposite direction would make more sense. Yet, the government's low priority for radiation protection is underscored by the Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General, who recently reported as radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear site drifted over the U.S., 20 percent of EPA's radiation monitoring stations were out of service for more than 6 months.
Also, during early stages of the Fukushima accident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officially doubled the baseline annual public radiation dose from the environment by adding medical procedures. According the NRC this dose, " has not been shown to cause humans any harm." Although medical radiation exposures have soared over the past several years, unlike accidental nuclear power releases, an x-ray involves a choice by the patient and doctor. Moreover, in 1970, the world's largest human study of pregnancy x-rays reported that NRC's harmless dose more than doubles the risk of childhood cancer.
Observations based on radiation-exposed humans have long been considered of greater scientific importance, some which were obtained with a callous lack of ethics. In March 1954, after the U.S. exploded an H-bomb in the Marshall Islands that released a roughly comparable amount of cesium-137 as the Fukushima accident, Japanese fishermen and Marshallese were exposed to life-threatening doses of radioactive fallout while forcing Japan to confiscate four million pounds of fish. Two years later, medical advisors to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now DOE) secretly recommended returning the Marshallese people to their homes after being told they would be living in "by far the most contaminated place in the world." At the meeting an AEC expert stated," it would be very interesting to go back and get good environmental data... when people live in a contaminated environment... While it is true that these people do not live, I would say, the way Westerners do, civilized people, it is nevertheless also true that they are more like us than the mice."
Given this well-documented history of deception, why is the government reducing nuclear emergency preparedness and claiming no harm from radiation exposure, right after a major nuclear power disaster? The answer lies in the fact that since the 1940's, the United States remains a major pillar of nuclear support here and around the world. Currently, about 70 percent of the Department of Energy's $26.3 billion budget goes for nuclear activities -- not including $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new U.S. power reactors being sold by Japan's failing nuclear industry.
The Energy Department is also the main source of funding for radiation health research -- much like having the tobacco industry determine the safety of smoking. This conflict-of interest is not new. Several prominent scientists on the nuclear payroll in the 1950's and 60's vigorously claimed that radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests was harmless. Some went so far as to assert that fallout might be beneficial because increased radiation-induced genetic mutations could weed out the weak.
This problem was not lost on congressional investigators over the past 35 years. They have revealed the government's suppression of incriminating data, blacklisting of uncooperative researchers, unethical human experiments, and submission of fraudulent research in federal court. By the late 1980's DOE was forced to move funding for radiation research to public health agencies. This all changed 10 years later, when the Republican-controlled Congress restored DOE's monopoly control.
Things have gotten to the point that the agency gave a $1.7 million grant to MIT, last month that will address among other things, the "difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance" of nuclear power. MIT has also received millions of dollars from Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), which is responsible for the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
This conflict of interest has tragic dimensions. The government and nuclear industry still face the costly disposal of enormous amounts of radioactive waste and profoundly contaminated "sacrifice zones" at the Energy Department's nuclear sites. Not to mention tens of thousands of sick nuclear workers, uranium miners, military veterans, experiment victims, and nuclear test "down-winders," who are receiving billions of dollars in compensation after being put in harm's way on behalf of splitting the atom.
not merely on radiation quality, but also, and particularly for α-rays with their
short ranges, "
Yet the pro nuke regulators used the same external whole body mass instead of the 1000 irradiated cells which get 20 Million sieverts. They claim .7 sieverts. (for a 1 micron Pu239 ingested particle).
WHO corrupt: IAEA - Agreement WHA 12-40 The IAEA vets WHO doc on health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#IAEA_.E2.80.93_Agreement_WHA_12.E2.80.9340
Who corrupt http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl
some 99% of the DOE budget goes to nuclear matters. Who do you think runs that place?
Together these folks have been able to suppress they knowledge that nuclear power has probably killed 6M people so far.
They have created a set of radiation health and measurement guild lines that are flawed and ignore the really ot low dose LNT cancer as applied to whole populations. ICRP and IAEA claim that they don't have to count radiation exposure below .1 grays.
Our EPA disagrees:
Some recent research has cast doubt on the LNT assumption, but the
BEIR VII Report concluded that these results in no way constituted compelling
evidence against LNT.Especially contentious is the extrapolation to low doses and dose rates.
Generally speaking, epidemiology cannot be used to detect and quantify the
carcinogenic effects of radiation at doses below about 100 mGy of low-LET
radiation because of limitations on statistical power (Land 1980, Brenner et al.
2003)." http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/assessment/draft-RGCRMPUSPv1.pdf
Anyone doing the slightest research on actual peer review studies will find objective evidence that low dose radiation reduces cancer incidence because it stimulates the prevention and repair of DNA damage, along with removing damaged cells and cancer cells.
Common sense will tell you that all organisms have been exposed to low dose radiation through millions of years of evolution and have learned to adapt to it.
Mr. Alvarez, have you ever considered the real harm you're doing by spreading this misinformation, along with spreading an irrational fear of radiation that distracts people from the real problems in this world? Let alone the massive amounts of money spent on unnecessary over-regulation of harmless low level radiation?
In 1980 and in 1991, T.D, Luckey published two landmark volumes: “Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation,” and “Radiation Hormesis,” CRC Press. With over a thousand references each, these books struck a chord with several Japanese scientists, and they began doing experiments with mice, and then clinical work with humans, demonstrating the beneficial effects of full-body and half-body irradiation for curing cancer.
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/07/radiation-victims-are-not-black-swans.html
The use of fluoroscopic x-ray monitoring during the treatment of tuberculosis was common between 1920 and 1960 and has provided some interesting data on cumulative exposures that are both above and below the 100 mSv "threshold of uncertainty."
The results reported by Howe et al are consistent with those found by Boice et al16 where, compared to untreated patients, those tuberculosis patients exposed to 10 to 1000 mSv had a relative risk of 1.2 which was found to be not statistically different from 1.00. In this study, the observed to expected ratio for breast cancer incidence ranged from 0.59 to 0.75 for doses in the range of 470 to 700 mSv for women of age > 25. This suggests a hormetic effect below 700 mSv. In both of these studies, significant risk appeared above 1000 mSv and appeared dose dependent which is consistent with high dose studies and not in dispute.
Today, multiple and frequent exposures to x-rays at single doses from 10 to 100 mSv for the purposes of imaging would be unusual, although occasional exposure during some interventions would fall in this range.
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/radiation_and_cancer_risk.htm
We do not really know the truth about the major floods and what damage they caused to the nuclear power plants they affected along the banks of the river, but I suspect that there were serious problems in those areas. However I do not expect anyone in the nuclear industry at management or higher level and whose life depends on working in the nuclear industry to care in the short term what happens to those millions of people who live nearby. It is just a matter of time before we get into the real life China Syndrome scenario and anyone who poo-poos this is either living in a dream world or is being paid hansomely by the nuke industry or the government.
Nuclear power is dangerous for us all and Germany and others have made that Big Boy commitment to the people of the world. It seems that they are actually bigger than the rest of the bully countries like the US, Russia and China..
I imagine you can make two clicks?
The article is not really bad, just weak in content and peripheral to the point. The press release on the other hand builds a pile of nonsense on top of what's a reasonably harmless, irrelevant and shoddy paper.
You certainly can get the research that you pay for.
“The mouse data – our mouse data – shows a very bizarre thing... We irradiate mice, we breed them, and then we analyse their children. Strangely enough, mutation rate in these children is substantially higher than that in control animals. So these children are genetically unstable... And it’s not only this data obtained in my group – there’s plenty of similar data obtained in Japan, Canada, United States. We don’t know why, but there’s sort of memory, traveling from parents to their children, and this memory can destabilise the offspring, or the children. So, somehow, the memory of parental irradiation travels to them and makes them unstable.”
http://web.me.com/antonybutts/After_the_Apocalypse/Radiation_Science.html
25,687 approved for compensation of USD $1.7 billion.
http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca.html
http://www.justice.gov/civil/omp/omi/Tre_SysClaimsToDateSum.pdf
Division of Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation (DEEOIC):
Part B (radiation-induced cancers):
53,835 claims approved for compensation of USD $4.4 billion.
http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/weeklystats.htm#1
One government agency appears to need to talk to another, and compare notes on objective evidence, scientific research, populations studies, radiation dose risk, documented health impacts, and a great deal more.
Cut them of the sugar teat....cut them all off
BTW natural gas will not have a problem.
Killing gasification of biomass though.........bridge and then we can can make the jump.
Or do you like pollution?
LMAO
http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-and-both-houses-of-congress-eeoicpa-compensate-cold-war-warriors-cleanup-workers
Thank you.
wow, unbelieveable.....
first
The article is primarily about the effects of various levels of radiation exposure. It did not touch on the relative sizes of various sources of exposure. If one believes the conservative (pessimistic) Linear no-Threshold theory, then public health impacts are directly proportional to the collective dose (i.e., the dose to individuals times the number of people exposed).
Well, the fact is that the nuclear power industry is responsible for a tiny fraction (~0.1% or less) of the collective exposure humanity is exposed to. The great majority comes from natural background radiation sources and from medical exposures. Even the two large accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima have barely affected humanity's overall collective exposure over the last 50 years (they are a barely measurable blip). In addition to all their other, much more serious pollutants, coal plants are responsible for more collective exposure than nuclear plants are.
If radiation exposure, even at low levels, is as horrible as the author seems to believe, and one made an all out, but objective, effort to reduce public collective exposure, the nuclear power industry shouldn't receive any attention at all, it being a negligible source of expsure. The entire effort would be focused on reducing medical exposures and natural background sources such as radon in homes. Spending huge amounts to reduce the possibility of nuclear plant accidents to even lower levels would be deemed a criminal waste of resources in that very important effort.
Multiple factors that all contribute to a disease.....take a minute and wiki radon and smoking.
For both natural and man-made radiation sources, there are many external sources and internal sources of exposure. (For example, cosmic/solar radiation is an external source, whereas the naturally-occurring isotopes in many of the foods we eat are internal.) For both natural and man-made sources, there are alpha emitters, gamma emitters and beta emitters, with the energy of emitted particles spanning the entire energy spectrum for both natural and man-made sources. Both have radioactive daughter products.
The way various isotopes (and any daughters) behave in the body (such as how long they reside and if the concentrate in certain organs) is fully accounted for, for both natural and man-made sources, by the dose calculations, which are a well-developed science. Dose is an accurate measure of biological damage from radiation, and any health effects will scale with dose, period, whether it is from natural or man-made sources.
BTW, I agree that radon and smoking are significant sources of exposure, and probably disease. They represent sources of public exposure that are thousands if not millions of times larger than any received from nuclear power.
Nuclear power is an insignificant fraction of public exposure for any type of radiation, external or internal, beta, gamma or alpha.
You need to address the energy deposition over time, and not the fact that a daughter product decays.
If you want to get technical, you sleep next to someone who emits radiation to you - 2 mrem a night.
If you say "thats not internal dose" it doesnt matter. The use of "equivalent dose" or "effective dose" per ICRP makes all radiation effects equivalent when the unit of Sv is used. This factors in energy and organ dependent radiation weighting factors that are the proper construct, not some ambiguous "hot particle".
Didn't think you were that dumb.
Oh just a banana or do you have that figured out yet?
It's a trap.
I man might get trapped, and he will put up with any pain and torture, and live.
just to kill the trapper when he comes back
The statement that "NRC's harmless dose" doubles the risk of childhood cancer is clearly impossible. Note that he doesn't say what that dose is. He must be referring to the 100 mrem/year limit for members of the public. Even according to the very conservative (pessimistic) Linear no-Threshold assumption, that dose rate results in a cancer risk of 0.004% per year, or a few tenths of a percent over a lifetime.
As for NRC's emergency response position, it's saying that Fukushima has shown us that RAPID evacuation is much less necessary than originally thought, since it is becoming more and more clear that a rapid release of a large amount of radioactivity is not credible. Despite destroyed infrastructure (roads, etc..) that hampered the speed of evacuation, no members of the Japanese public received a significant dose. No deaths occurred, and no measurable future public health impact is projected. The main impacts of such events are longer-term, with local regions being off limits to long-term habitation, unless cleaned up.
10 milli starts to have effects even in adults.
Portsmouth Naval yard with badge data showed increases of acute lymphacytic leukemia- corrected for chemical exposures, myeloid also increased.
But if you are not in the unluckies, I guess you don't care if there a ten times as many unluckies as the used to be.
Then fetal tissue that is constantly changing.....yeah, you know everything about the atom......right.
LMFAO
Natural background radiation levels vary from ~200 mrem/yr to well over 1000, and no health effects or correlations are observed. In fact, no clear evidence of any health impacts (increased cancer risk) exists for exposures under 10 REM (i.e., 10,000 millirem).
The NRC (and world) "precautionary" standard of 100 mrem is conservatively set at a factor of 100 lower (for reasons I can't fathom). The use of this standard "creates" problems where none actually exists, leading to needless expense, fear and suffering.
Seriously, how can anyone be concerned over an exposure (or increase) of 10 mrem/yr when natural background is several hundred mrem/yr and overall exposures (including medical) average ~600 mrem/yr.
Again, if one were really concerned about public radiation exposure (for some reason), the focus should be on natural sources such as radon, and medical exposures, which are the source of virtually all public exposure.
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/06/25/fukushima-watch-a-false-alarming-weekend-at-oi/
The campaign to reassure the Japanese public that the electric power industry is capable of smoothly operating nuclear power plants is encountering some glitches.
Just a week after the government gave the green light to start up two nuclear reactors in the western town of Oi, more than two dozen alarms rang out at the plant. That came after three days after a separate alarm was triggered mid-week.The operator of the reactors, Kansai Electric Power Co., and the main regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said that alarms did not signal any problems at the plant — the first to be allowed to restart following last year’s Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Specifically, alarms rang 24 times between 11:35 p.m. Saturday and 12:54 a.m. Sunday. Two additional alarms sounded shortly after 8 a.m. Sunday.
......But a 12-hour delay Wednesday in disclosing an alarm indicating a temporary falloff in the water level of the cooling tank for a generator at the Oi plant prompted criticism — and thus the decision to disclose even small incidents like the ones from this past weekend......
Deny, lie, repeat often .....radiation is good for ya', ya' know.
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Explosives-found-near-Swedish-nuclear-power-plant-3654205.php
Sweden ramped up security at its three nuclear power plants Thursday after a small amount of explosives without a triggering device was found on a forklift on the grounds of the country's largest atomic power station, authorities said.
......With police providing little information, a terror expert speculated it might have been an attempt to test the security system of the Ringhals power plant with a later attack in mind.