Some of these people feel they are justified in misleading and misrepresenting, because of their "cause". They don't care about their credibility as they know they will continue to to find followers and those that simply accept what they say. We find some of those folks right here on Slashdot as well. And if you present them with facts, in the end they can just claim conspiracy and coverup.
Here is something to help you better gauge the risks. The exposure received by this worker is closer to the zero mark than the next mark above it (250).
When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit. There are plenty of surveys of area contamination and details are published annually (link below). Exposures are tightly monitored. You can measure internal contamination quite easily, it is done in portal monitors every time a worker leaves the site.
The 1600 is a meaningless estimation. If you did into it, it is the deaths of elderly (all over 66 years) most of whom were already ill and hospitalized. They blamed all of those that died on the Fukushima evacuation. Then, a 'community panel' also determined if any deaths after the evacuation may have been caused by the 'stress' of the evacuation, and those elderly deaths were included as well. It is also important to note that if the panel assigned the death to Fukushima, then that family gets compensation. Amijojo knows this as it was discussed previously here on Slashdot. But he has not problem in pushing the number anyhow.
There is a difference in the statistics, so it is good you point this out. The 1.5% US stat is the probability to contract Leukemia in one's lifetime, the incidence rate in Japan you cite is the number of new cases of Leukemia in a given year. Yours is the better number to use. Thanks.
You are off by a factor of 100.
43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.
It's about 0.013%
Not 1.5%
No,
Approximately 1.5 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with leukemia at some point during their lifetime
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...
Of course, leukemia kills many of its victims rather quickly, so at any given time there is not 1.5 percent of the population with leukemia.
No, they did not determine there is a causal link, the author of this particular article you chose did write it so as to mislead you into believing. Read some other articles that more accurately explain it please.
And not to mention the 1600 deaths thrown in for effect are not radiation related, and not even from Fukushima, but basically any elderly person who has died in the area since the accident. It is sad that the anti-nuke crowd must rely misleading headlines and twisted statistics. How pathetic they are.
The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that "it can't be ruled out". Of course we can't prove the negative, but based our many years of studying radiation exposure at these levels, there is a much greater likelihood that this was just another case of cancer, and not caused by exposure at Fukushima.
Unfortunately out of thousands of people, there are going to be cancer cases (1.5% leukimia rate in the US), and so of the thousands of workers (over 45,000 according to reports) that have been at Fukushima, there are going to be some people with cancers, and some with leukemia. But one thing is for certain, every single case will come with the "cannot be ruled out" disclaimer, and get misleading headlines.
An accurate headline should read, "one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer". In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. In a given group of 45,000 people, we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
According to established radiation science and statistics, it is highly unlikely that this cancer is from exposure at Fukushima. He might be lucky that he and his family will receive significant compensation, unlike the many Leukemia sufferers who never worked at Fukushima.
Lets all hope he can get top notch treatment and beat it, and same for the many other Leukemia sufferers that don't get the headlines or the compensation.
They are only talking about a two shipments for research purposes. Not all the fuel from anywhere, and not any more shipments. They are clear in their intentions, but in the light of political hyperbole, I guess its OK to assume there is some big secret, after all, how can you prove there isn't some big secret. Ignorance and irrational fear drive too much bullshit these days. This fuel is absolutely nothing compared to the Cold War waste many of these facilities are dealing with already.
One shipment would be used to research fuel recycling techniques. The other would be used to research what happens to the fuel when it is placed in storage casks for years or decades.
Just remember, people say stupid things on here and stand behind them. When you post things that are easily misinterpreted due to a choice of words that can be interpreted in different ways than you intend, and given the likelihood someone will assume that you are staying on topic when you are not, you bear some responsibility. It would be nice if you understood that, but I'm not sure you do.
Is anyone surprised by this? Even a little bit? I don't know what it is about the Chinese, but they seem to think that if one repeats one's denials enough, the plainly observable truth will just go away. How else would you explain their straight-faced, utterly disingenuous denials?
Based on comments by a few in the original discussion of this topic, the answer seems to be...yes.
So, in your mind saying the magic words "in all fairness" should mean to everyone else that the point you are making irrelevant and should be ignored?
Sorry for not catching on to that. My fault entirely to miss something so obvious. Had I read that properly, I would have appropriately ignored your irrelevant comment.
The topic was clearly on the point of energy usage of drone vs vehicle. Your "fight" point was clearly not on that topic, added nothing to the discussion but rather used a subjective term to confuse it. If it makes you feel better to blame that confusion on me, then I guess you feel better.
fight is not a physics term, it has no meaning. If your intent was to use that term to change the context of the discussion to something completely irrelevant to it, then you succeeded.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of these people feel they are justified in misleading and misrepresenting, because of their "cause". They don't care about their credibility as they know they will continue to to find followers and those that simply accept what they say. We find some of those folks right here on Slashdot as well. And if you present them with facts, in the end they can just claim conspiracy and coverup.
It is very frustrating.
Here is something to help you better gauge the risks. The exposure received by this worker is closer to the zero mark than the next mark above it (250).
http://jmsc.hku.hk/sites/healt...
When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit. There are plenty of surveys of area contamination and details are published annually (link below). Exposures are tightly monitored. You can measure internal contamination quite easily, it is done in portal monitors every time a worker leaves the site.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/...
Apologies for my crappy typing above.
The 1600 is a meaningless estimation. If you did into it, it is the deaths of elderly (all over 66 years) most of whom were already ill and hospitalized. They blamed all of those that died on the Fukushima evacuation. Then, a 'community panel' also determined if any deaths after the evacuation may have been caused by the 'stress' of the evacuation, and those elderly deaths were included as well. It is also important to note that if the panel assigned the death to Fukushima, then that family gets compensation. Amijojo knows this as it was discussed previously here on Slashdot. But he has not problem in pushing the number anyhow.
Just remember, death rates are lower than incidence rates. To be fair, Japanese incidence rates are lower than US as another poster pointed out above.
I smell your fear or anything labelled 'radioactive'. Have any facts to back up you assertions? Don't bother, I know the answer.
There is a difference in the statistics, so it is good you point this out. The 1.5% US stat is the probability to contract Leukemia in one's lifetime, the incidence rate in Japan you cite is the number of new cases of Leukemia in a given year. Yours is the better number to use. Thanks.
You are off by a factor of 100. 43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.
It's about 0.013% Not 1.5%
No,
Approximately 1.5 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with leukemia at some point during their lifetime
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... Of course, leukemia kills many of its victims rather quickly, so at any given time there is not 1.5 percent of the population with leukemia.
You are just coming up with bullshit you must have picked up from some anti-nuke blog. No, workers have not ingested cesium.
No, they did not determine there is a causal link, the author of this particular article you chose did write it so as to mislead you into believing. Read some other articles that more accurately explain it please.
So far, Fukushima workers as a group are experiencing much lower than normal Leukemia rates. Where is that headline?
if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has developed cancer more than a year afterward."
A pretty good deal for the worker considering natural background exposure can be over 10 times that, and airline crews get twice that per year.
that depends certainly upon the irradiation level... and some of the Fuk workers received a pretty high irradiation dose.
No, none of them got high doses.
And not to mention the 1600 deaths thrown in for effect are not radiation related, and not even from Fukushima, but basically any elderly person who has died in the area since the accident. It is sad that the anti-nuke crowd must rely misleading headlines and twisted statistics. How pathetic they are.
There are many news articles out on this today. The one linked to in this summary has to be the worst written and most inaccurate one I've seen.
The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that "it can't be ruled out". Of course we can't prove the negative, but based our many years of studying radiation exposure at these levels, there is a much greater likelihood that this was just another case of cancer, and not caused by exposure at Fukushima.
Unfortunately out of thousands of people, there are going to be cancer cases (1.5% leukimia rate in the US), and so of the thousands of workers (over 45,000 according to reports) that have been at Fukushima, there are going to be some people with cancers, and some with leukemia. But one thing is for certain, every single case will come with the "cannot be ruled out" disclaimer, and get misleading headlines.
An accurate headline should read, "one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer". In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. In a given group of 45,000 people, we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
According to established radiation science and statistics, it is highly unlikely that this cancer is from exposure at Fukushima. He might be lucky that he and his family will receive significant compensation, unlike the many Leukemia sufferers who never worked at Fukushima.
Lets all hope he can get top notch treatment and beat it, and same for the many other Leukemia sufferers that don't get the headlines or the compensation.
Newsflash: There are people live in RVs and Trucks. Film at 11.
One shipment would be used to research fuel recycling techniques. The other would be used to research what happens to the fuel when it is placed in storage casks for years or decades.
INL is the perfect place to do this work.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/...
Just remember, people say stupid things on here and stand behind them. When you post things that are easily misinterpreted due to a choice of words that can be interpreted in different ways than you intend, and given the likelihood someone will assume that you are staying on topic when you are not, you bear some responsibility. It would be nice if you understood that, but I'm not sure you do.
In all fairness, I am fighting to not laugh.
Is anyone surprised by this? Even a little bit? I don't know what it is about the Chinese, but they seem to think that if one repeats one's denials enough, the plainly observable truth will just go away. How else would you explain their straight-faced, utterly disingenuous denials?
Based on comments by a few in the original discussion of this topic, the answer seems to be...yes.
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
So, in your mind saying the magic words "in all fairness" should mean to everyone else that the point you are making irrelevant and should be ignored? Sorry for not catching on to that. My fault entirely to miss something so obvious. Had I read that properly, I would have appropriately ignored your irrelevant comment.
The topic was clearly on the point of energy usage of drone vs vehicle. Your "fight" point was clearly not on that topic, added nothing to the discussion but rather used a subjective term to confuse it. If it makes you feel better to blame that confusion on me, then I guess you feel better.
fight is not a physics term, it has no meaning. If your intent was to use that term to change the context of the discussion to something completely irrelevant to it, then you succeeded.