I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
My god, there are hundreds of pages of data in those reports. I don't know what you expect me to research for you, but I'm tired of you ignoring tons of published information and then challenging me about details. I pointed you directly to starting points, but you would rather claim you know some big thing that these established doctors don't. What a waste.
No. There is no other research. That 'Study" from Toshihide Tsuda that was put forth that claimed thyroid association with Fukushima actually used the data from the studies these experts are performing, but purposely cherry picked that data and misrepresented it. The experts that conducted this study have very clearly explained why the conclusions of Toshihide Tsuda are bunk and that Tsuda clearly did not know what the data even meant.
Tsuda has no expertise in these matters. I'll believe the cancer doctors that are doing the work and can actually explain it properly.
So many studies, here is a summary of just one of the many;
“It is a solid, unusually large study of individuals exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation,” says epidemiologist Jørgen Olsen, director of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center in Copenhagen. The finding implies that some cases of leukaemia will even be caused by a high level of natural background radiation, he adds, “though the increased risk for an individual is going to be vanishingly small”.
Please, what matters is actual exposure to people, not radiation levels at which nobody is exposed. Yes, high radiation exposure can cause cancer. Nobody is arguing that it cannot. Just spouting on about 'radiation causes cancer' is useless. Sunlight causes cancer too. Don't go outside!
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself. There are some high dose CT scan studies that may show a correlation, but they have problems reconciling that CT scan patients are a higher risk group for all diseases to begin with. Then there are some radon exposure studies that show lower cancer rates in high exposure areas. As a whole, the only thing that is certain is that effects at low doses are so small they are very hard to statistically model and get consistent results. So they stick with LNT because that is all they have.
They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article from March 2012, the year after the disaster;
"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."
50 years, got it? Also
"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."
Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.
Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
They have not said there can be no effect. Theoretically there can be but statistically it is shown that there probably won't be. Due to uncertainly of impacts at these low levels (due to the fact that the impacts are so small they are hard to measure with any statistical significance) the conservative approach is assume there may be and do the testing/screening. One could make a case that it is unneeded, but due to the public fear mongers and to ease concerns, the testing makes sense. Also, it can provide us with more useful data on the topic.
So far, it appears they caught some cases of thyroid cancers that existed prior to the accident, and these cases were caught earlier than they normally would have. So those kids are lucky in that sense, as the likelihood of successful treatment for them is now higher.
Obviously the cancer rates are going to go up, especially for the workers at the plant. It's biology. Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
Congratulation, you win the aware for the highest concentration of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in two lines of text.
The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,”
Which is exactly what you would expect when you begin thorough sensitive screening that has not been previously performed. It was the initial screenings where a majority of the cases were discovered, then much less in subsequent screenings.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't get the press that the bullshit study articles did. Our media is in a sad state.
uggh. You are saying TEPCO is covering up dose information but point to a report that says nothing of that sort, and doesn't even cover the timeframe since the event. We know the exposure information as there is much study that has been going on by multiple parties. So if you want to just point to that report every time you want to fall back on the cover up excuse, there is not much I can do to respond. Bottom line is, we have very good and very detailed exposure and contamination information.
The IAEA is the expert body on this type of thing. That is why you need to pay attention to their finding and reports. Unlike all those that make un-backed claims or twist data or information, the IAEA publishes the detailed data set, the methods, the formulations of the results, and the results. If you want to dismiss them because they support safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology, then please find another credible body that presents anything close to what they do. The best way for them to support safe and peaceful nuclear is to be accurate and credible. They have proven to be over the years.
There is no benefit to the nuclear industry or the IAEA to underplay the release data. If they show lower exposure data than reality, and then if the cancer rate is higher than they claim, that would do great damage to the industry. As we have seen, the health impacts of Chernobyl are certainly not worse than the IAEA reports on that event. Since after 75 years of multitudes of studies on radioactive exposures, its clear that the health impacts of exposures as we see from Fukushima event are statistically negligible.
You can take the holier than thou tact, but you undermine it with dismissal and reliance on cover up claims. I just call it like I see it.
So your basic argument is "don't worry about how hard the habitat you want to build is, just make sure that you can fit a piece of furniture anywhere in it"?
That is not at all what I said, that is your attempt to distort what I said to make a point. I said it makes sense to decide what structure is best first, when the building of it is not likely to be significantly more difficult either way. Your assumption that curved building is tremendously easier than straight is not one that I share with you.
I recognize that curved structures are better in general for pressure boundaries. But that implies a continuous curve and not varying ones as shown in the artist's depiction. But a straight wall can be an effective pressure boundary as well.
So, yes, there could be a case where internal space efficiency is sacrificed for other factors. That does not mean that is the best way to go, nor does is negate my point that round interior spaces are less efficient for use.
And another very good reason to use straight wall construction is for adding adjacent structures that share walls with existing ones. If you are starting a new habitat in space, you are likely better off starting small and adding. For that approach, a hexagonal straight wall structure might be optimal.
I was not concerned with the specific construction method. I was just saying that curved walls make interior space use less efficient, and rectangular structures allow more complete use of that interior space. I honestly don't think the robotics one way or the other is going to be an issue once you've already overcome the challenge of getting to Mars. Decide what structure is best, then determine the robotics required, not the other way around.
As for an automated building, there are already prototypes of building robots out there, and the ones that are working the best so far build straight walls. Just search on house building robots and you'll see how simple they can be.
If you've ever tried to furnish the inside of a round room, or fill storage space with round walls, you'd know how much space is difficult to use. Making it spherical jsut makes it worse. Just because round is a natural shape does not mean anything. Crystals have a naturally rhombic elemental structure.
Actually, autonomous straight wall construction is simpler because the robot only needs to operate horizontally an vertically in the plane, then you just re-orient for each wall. Even with spherical structures, you will have interior walls and therefor corners, and curved corners are certainly more problematic that straight ones. Bringing closure to the top of the sphere becomes a challenge as well. Yes, there is the benefit of arcing support during construction, but you can put an arched roof on a straight wall structure if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
My god, there are hundreds of pages of data in those reports. I don't know what you expect me to research for you, but I'm tired of you ignoring tons of published information and then challenging me about details. I pointed you directly to starting points, but you would rather claim you know some big thing that these established doctors don't. What a waste.
You clearly can't read through a successive thread, can you?
Good, you should have expected that from Tsuda. But somehow you didn't challenge him on that, did you? I suppose you will still cling to his bunk.
OK. "Radionuclide Absorption"
I can say it too. Sounds scary. Do you really think you are on to some big thing that these doctors don't fully understand?
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
No. There is no other research. That 'Study" from Toshihide Tsuda that was put forth that claimed thyroid association with Fukushima actually used the data from the studies these experts are performing, but purposely cherry picked that data and misrepresented it. The experts that conducted this study have very clearly explained why the conclusions of Toshihide Tsuda are bunk and that Tsuda clearly did not know what the data even meant.
Tsuda has no expertise in these matters. I'll believe the cancer doctors that are doing the work and can actually explain it properly.
“It is a solid, unusually large study of individuals exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation,” says epidemiologist Jørgen Olsen, director of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center in Copenhagen. The finding implies that some cases of leukaemia will even be caused by a high level of natural background radiation, he adds, “though the increased risk for an individual is going to be vanishingly small”.
http://www.nature.com/news/res...
And here is a picture, since you don't seem to do any research on your own of the many published and easy to find studies;
http://hamaoka.chuden.jp/engli...
Seriously, I am supposed to cite the thousands of studies performed over the last 75 years?
I'll help you get started, but the hell if I'll do your work for you.
https://www.google.com/search?...
The IAEA reports show contamination maps. I'm not sure what else you expect.
Please, what matters is actual exposure to people, not radiation levels at which nobody is exposed. Yes, high radiation exposure can cause cancer. Nobody is arguing that it cannot. Just spouting on about 'radiation causes cancer' is useless. Sunlight causes cancer too. Don't go outside!
I'd equate my effort to the effort you expended coming up with points that can be substantiated.
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself. There are some high dose CT scan studies that may show a correlation, but they have problems reconciling that CT scan patients are a higher risk group for all diseases to begin with. Then there are some radon exposure studies that show lower cancer rates in high exposure areas. As a whole, the only thing that is certain is that effects at low doses are so small they are very hard to statistically model and get consistent results. So they stick with LNT because that is all they have.
Sorry , "win the award". Typo.
They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article from March 2012, the year after the disaster;
"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."
50 years, got it? Also
"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."
Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.
Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.
Good post.
I think by the time you *need* printed teeth, the bacteria pretty much has done its thing.
Yeah, but then you can bite people without infecting them.
^classic!
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
They have not said there can be no effect. Theoretically there can be but statistically it is shown that there probably won't be. Due to uncertainly of impacts at these low levels (due to the fact that the impacts are so small they are hard to measure with any statistical significance) the conservative approach is assume there may be and do the testing/screening. One could make a case that it is unneeded, but due to the public fear mongers and to ease concerns, the testing makes sense. Also, it can provide us with more useful data on the topic.
So far, it appears they caught some cases of thyroid cancers that existed prior to the accident, and these cases were caught earlier than they normally would have. So those kids are lucky in that sense, as the likelihood of successful treatment for them is now higher.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation, people!
Particularly when you don't even have correlation.
Obviously the cancer rates are going to go up, especially for the workers at the plant. It's biology. Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
Congratulation, you win the aware for the highest concentration of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in two lines of text.
The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,”
Which is exactly what you would expect when you begin thorough sensitive screening that has not been previously performed. It was the initial screenings where a majority of the cases were discovered, then much less in subsequent screenings.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't get the press that the bullshit study articles did. Our media is in a sad state.
uggh. You are saying TEPCO is covering up dose information but point to a report that says nothing of that sort, and doesn't even cover the timeframe since the event. We know the exposure information as there is much study that has been going on by multiple parties. So if you want to just point to that report every time you want to fall back on the cover up excuse, there is not much I can do to respond. Bottom line is, we have very good and very detailed exposure and contamination information.
The IAEA is the expert body on this type of thing. That is why you need to pay attention to their finding and reports. Unlike all those that make un-backed claims or twist data or information, the IAEA publishes the detailed data set, the methods, the formulations of the results, and the results. If you want to dismiss them because they support safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology, then please find another credible body that presents anything close to what they do. The best way for them to support safe and peaceful nuclear is to be accurate and credible. They have proven to be over the years.
There is no benefit to the nuclear industry or the IAEA to underplay the release data. If they show lower exposure data than reality, and then if the cancer rate is higher than they claim, that would do great damage to the industry. As we have seen, the health impacts of Chernobyl are certainly not worse than the IAEA reports on that event. Since after 75 years of multitudes of studies on radioactive exposures, its clear that the health impacts of exposures as we see from Fukushima event are statistically negligible.
You can take the holier than thou tact, but you undermine it with dismissal and reliance on cover up claims. I just call it like I see it.
So your basic argument is "don't worry about how hard the habitat you want to build is, just make sure that you can fit a piece of furniture anywhere in it"?
That is not at all what I said, that is your attempt to distort what I said to make a point. I said it makes sense to decide what structure is best first, when the building of it is not likely to be significantly more difficult either way. Your assumption that curved building is tremendously easier than straight is not one that I share with you.
I recognize that curved structures are better in general for pressure boundaries. But that implies a continuous curve and not varying ones as shown in the artist's depiction. But a straight wall can be an effective pressure boundary as well.
So, yes, there could be a case where internal space efficiency is sacrificed for other factors. That does not mean that is the best way to go, nor does is negate my point that round interior spaces are less efficient for use.
And another very good reason to use straight wall construction is for adding adjacent structures that share walls with existing ones. If you are starting a new habitat in space, you are likely better off starting small and adding. For that approach, a hexagonal straight wall structure might be optimal.
http://www.mathsinthecity.com/...
I was not concerned with the specific construction method. I was just saying that curved walls make interior space use less efficient, and rectangular structures allow more complete use of that interior space. I honestly don't think the robotics one way or the other is going to be an issue once you've already overcome the challenge of getting to Mars. Decide what structure is best, then determine the robotics required, not the other way around.
As for an automated building, there are already prototypes of building robots out there, and the ones that are working the best so far build straight walls. Just search on house building robots and you'll see how simple they can be.
If you've ever tried to furnish the inside of a round room, or fill storage space with round walls, you'd know how much space is difficult to use. Making it spherical jsut makes it worse. Just because round is a natural shape does not mean anything. Crystals have a naturally rhombic elemental structure.
Actually, autonomous straight wall construction is simpler because the robot only needs to operate horizontally an vertically in the plane, then you just re-orient for each wall. Even with spherical structures, you will have interior walls and therefor corners, and curved corners are certainly more problematic that straight ones. Bringing closure to the top of the sphere becomes a challenge as well. Yes, there is the benefit of arcing support during construction, but you can put an arched roof on a straight wall structure if you want.
Curved structures look nice, but straight walled structures are much more space efficient and generally easier to construct.