There are two big challenges to nailing down the exact risk due to low level exposure. The first is that your cannot necessarily tie any given case of cancer to radiation exposure as the cause, so you must correlate statistically while other causes are also involved. The second is that the risk levels are so low that the studies cannot find statistical significance in their findings even when monitoring huge numbers of people. Thus we default to a very conservative LNT model, which like you say is simply easier since it provides us with definable terms.
The biggest health impact was the number of thyroid cancer cases, which was also lower than projected. Thanks to stringent screening, they caught cases earlier than normally would have been detected, and the cure rate was 99% in line with typical early detected thyroid cancer cure rates. What is interesting is that some percent of these children would have gotten thyroid cancer anyhow, their chance of survival were improved by the added screening.
LNT predicted about 4,000 deaths. Actual deaths measured at time of report only 50.
An expected spike in fertility problems and birth defects also failed to materialize, the study found.
"The health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared," Michael Repacholi, manager of the World Health Organization's radiation program, said in a statement.
LNT or not, the risk profile shows the Fukushima area is quite safe. You brought up LNT, which was used to predict Chernobyl health impact, what we have found is that actual health impact is significantly less.
But once again you shift the discussion. At the core of the matter is you inability to coherently talk about it in terms of risk, and that belies either ignorance or unwillingness. Frankly I don't care which one. You will just continue to do what you do, post lists of things that sound scary, which could be done for any number of things we all experience every day.
The guy is basically complaining that USB-C doesn't work well on Apple products. Most of his complaints are due directly to design decisions by Apple... "laptop's precious few USB-C ports", "dongles make Wi-Fi drop on MacBook Pros", etc.
The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.
Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.
But there is potassium in your body all the time, the fact that some leaves and some enters doesn't change the actual exposure, which is fundamentally the same as an exposure from a particle that stays longer. The amount of exposure and related risk is what matters. I see you come up with rationalizations to accept the risks your perceive as natural even though scientifically there is nothing to distinguish them.
It only takes one exposure to sunlight to cause melanoma. You accept that risk and even by your own statement don't apply sunscreen up to a point.
The real issue you have is that you don't understand the relative risk of exposures from something like living in the Fukushima area. The fact that you can't articulate those relative risks compared to things you happily accept every day is telling. You are operating under that same skewed risk perception that the general public has, and not the scientifically demonstrated and well established risk profiles. Or, you have some inherent conspiracy belief and a form of denial similar to those that deny global warming.
If you took time to actually understand the relative risks, you might learn something. But you'd rather stay ignorant to them and just profess a grave danger.
Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.
News for you... there are radioactive particles in your body right now, and there always will be, doing just that. Why are you not worried about that? It should scare the hell out of you. Not to mention all the other toxins in your body that are killing and mutating cells. And there is that sunlight hitting your skin every time you walk outside doing cell damage, how can you dare expose yourself to such dangers?
That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places.
The Japanese limit is hundreds of times lower that the amount where we have been able to measure a detectable statistical increase is health risks, and that is after a tremendous amount of study. Limits don't = risk levels. They are often set for convenience.
BTW, KAOS, you are the one who refused to accept the studies done on Fukushima, where they have determined actual health impacts are much lower than predicted. You ignore long established and proven conservative risk data with some sort of conspiracy claims, where is your risk data and what is your so called 'credible source". All you do is list crap with zero actual risk discussion. Since you ignore risk, you demonstrate your ignorance as that is the only frame in which to discuss radiation health impacts. You have show to be completely incapable of characterizing the risks associations with your long list of FUD line items.
Yes, there is a reason ALARA is a useful principle to practice. Its a practical approach.
The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling.
The risk varies, but within an acceptably low band. Calling it a 'danger' just because it is radiation is a FUD tactic. The "danger" of sun exposure varies as well, should you stay inside?
Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.
The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.
Your perception of the risk from radiation is so far from reality, you've simplified the model to the point of being useless.
That's been my experience of your posts, that all of the knowledge gathered since the 1950s just doesn't exist. You don't understand:
The difference between a radionuclide and the radiation it emits
The difference between internal and external radiation exposure
The difference between being exposed to radiation and having an emitter inside you exposing you 24x7
What bioaccumulation is
That detection in food and water is really hard
That you can eat a radionuclide
That you can drink a radionuclide
That you can breathe in a radionuclide
That some radionuclides appear like different types of micro-nutirents to a matabolism
That it deposits in different parts of the body
That it can be organically bound in the body and not excreted
That organically bound exposure increases absorption of radiation
That it can be chemically toxic
That children are more susceptible than adults
That an effect could be death
That an effect could be cancer
That an effect could be gene damage
That an effect could be failed birth
That an effect could be a birth defect
That an effect could be transgenic disease that effect the next generation
That an effect could be reduced brainweight of, and lower IQ in infants
That there is still stuff we don't know
Then you:
Ignore facts even when they are cited from reputable sources
Don't seem to want to understand
Continue to shill as if you have an agenda
Claim everything is FUD
Minimize the apparent harm
Ignore data collected from unbiased sources
Refuse to accept that some data *is* biased Nuclear PR
Refuse to accept the impact of media blackout for Fukushima
Refuse to accept the work of Ukrainian scientists studying Chernobyl
There is a reason the NRC uses ALARA, figuring out this stuff is complicated and the easiest thing to do so your brain doesn't explode from thinking about it is to keep the potential risk of exposure ultra conservative.
That's it, post a long list of stuff to mask the fact you have no actual data. Radiation risk data is readily available, why don't you ever bother to use it?
Sanchez had been hospitalized for six weeks with radiation poisoning and still wasnâ(TM)t able to expose his skin to sunlight for very long. He was only 41 but looked like an old man, sun-weathered.
He wasnâ(TM)t wearing a shirt and had a large bandage covering his left shoulder and another taped over his hand. Radiation sickness can be fatal, but Sanchez said heâ(TM)d had on a thick jacket that morning and had only carried the cylinder a few meters. âoeLook,â he said, then slowly peeled the bandage to reveal skin that was still seared and pink. Normally, he said, he would have been out in the fields preparing for the summer rains, but he hadnâ(TM)t worked since that morning in December.
Minor symptoms, you say? Good thing cancer is an immediate thing and not a long-term risk after exposure, right?
Yes, minor compared to death, a little pink skin and some bandages aren't so horrible are they? Of course the article you are referencing is long on hyperbole, and doesn't state the reasons he hasn't worked. Maybe Buzzfeed isn't the best place to quote without skepticism. Here's the picture (comes across different than the words);
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzf...
And although his risk goes up he is still not likely to get cancer from this statistically. The 'jacket' would have nothing to do with protecting him, reflecting the ignorance of the article author.
As for Fukushima safety, there are several pieces you can find (if you sort through the FUD articles) that talk about how it is safe to return, here's one of them. People don't even trust their doctors when it comes to radiation fear;
Some doctors told me that while the initial evacuation was necessary, the failure to plan a swift return as radiation levels fell had been disastrous. Apart from a few high-dose areas in the mountains, the psychological risks of staying away exceed the radiological risks of coming back. But the confusion has contributed to a serious loss of trust among the public for medical, as well as nuclear, authorities. “When we try to explain the situation,” says Nollet, “we are seen as complicit in nuclear power.”
Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.
We don't need to do that, we have plenty of evidence already.
But the public has much to learn. Take for example the Mexican Cobalt 60 theft, where the thieves got exposures much much greater than the limits we are talking about. You remember, there were tons of articles about how they were doomed. ("dead men", "doomed", "will soon die", etc) But if you listened to me at the time, I said that was a tremendous over-reaction. The thieves were caught and release with no charges because they were kids and had the crap scared out of them. One of the six had some minor symptoms of exposure, none are expected to have any long term health effects.
So, lesson to be learned, don't believe the FUD. Take time to learn about radiation risk on your own, look at the statistics and compare to risks you happily accept every day in life. You'll find better things to worry about.
He's arguing that it is an acceptable risk in an emergency situation. That's quite different than just "okay", and it is quite dishonest to try to equate the two.
Intellectual honesty is not something that the anti-nuke FUD mongers worry about. They happily take risks every day and must not even realize it, because if they took the same approach as they claim we should with radiation, they'd never get in a car unless they absolutely had to. They'd never expose themselves to sunlight unless they absolutely had to, etc. But rationality is loss when perception is off.
You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.
Yes, you can. And we do know for sure. What prevents us from doing that is the lack of rationality society has with dealing with radiation risk.
You can't be sure you wont' die in a car wreck tomorrow, that doesn't mean we can't make a determination to say its OK to get in a car. And knowing that the risks of living in the Fukushima exclusion zone is less than things like car travel or daily sun exposure, the only thing preventing us is ignorance and those that take advantage of that ignorance to spread radiation FUD. Just like your 'can't be sure' FUD.
Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.
Yes, it is. And we've known that our safety limits have been ultra conservative for quite some time. Its not been a big issue because it hasn't necessarily caused any problematic compliance costs. However, it has caused confusion among the public that would naturally but wrongly assume that 100 times the safety limit must be a high risk danger when in most cases it isn't
The easy answer has always been to always do what you can to minimize exposure, so that's how we've characterized it, lower is better. But when we talk about something like a dirty bomb, its more important to eliminate fear and over-reaction with facts. It would be extremely hard to have a dirty bomb actually harm a large number of people, and if one went off near you the biggest danger would be the physical explosion, not the radiation.
The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.
Because existing subsidies for EVs are limited and could never be sustainable, and it helps to be specific so there is no confusion. Ignoring subsidies when discussing future price points would be, well, ignorant.
Tesla Autopilot has already killed a few people, but it is still safer per mile than the average human,
We haven't seen that data so we don't know. Tesla Autopilot miles should be compared to safety miles of relatively new high end sedans driven in ideal conditions such as limited by Tesla's instructions (highway, non inclement weather, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
There are two big challenges to nailing down the exact risk due to low level exposure. The first is that your cannot necessarily tie any given case of cancer to radiation exposure as the cause, so you must correlate statistically while other causes are also involved. The second is that the risk levels are so low that the studies cannot find statistical significance in their findings even when monitoring huge numbers of people. Thus we default to a very conservative LNT model, which like you say is simply easier since it provides us with definable terms.
The biggest health impact was the number of thyroid cancer cases, which was also lower than projected. Thanks to stringent screening, they caught cases earlier than normally would have been detected, and the cure rate was 99% in line with typical early detected thyroid cancer cure rates. What is interesting is that some percent of these children would have gotten thyroid cancer anyhow, their chance of survival were improved by the added screening.
LNT predicted about 4,000 deaths. Actual deaths measured at time of report only 50.
An expected spike in fertility problems and birth defects also failed to materialize, the study found.
"The health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared," Michael Repacholi, manager of the World Health Organization's radiation program, said in a statement.
FYI;
Chernobyl's Harm Was Far Less Than Predicted, U.N. Report Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
LNT or not, the risk profile shows the Fukushima area is quite safe. You brought up LNT, which was used to predict Chernobyl health impact, what we have found is that actual health impact is significantly less.
But once again you shift the discussion. At the core of the matter is you inability to coherently talk about it in terms of risk, and that belies either ignorance or unwillingness. Frankly I don't care which one. You will just continue to do what you do, post lists of things that sound scary, which could be done for any number of things we all experience every day.
The guy is basically complaining that USB-C doesn't work well on Apple products. Most of his complaints are due directly to design decisions by Apple... "laptop's precious few USB-C ports", "dongles make Wi-Fi drop on MacBook Pros", etc.
USB-C won't charge my Tesla dammit!
Seems like a stream of thought list of statements rather than a cohesive message. Maybe that's the point?
The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.
Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.
But there is potassium in your body all the time, the fact that some leaves and some enters doesn't change the actual exposure, which is fundamentally the same as an exposure from a particle that stays longer. The amount of exposure and related risk is what matters. I see you come up with rationalizations to accept the risks your perceive as natural even though scientifically there is nothing to distinguish them.
It only takes one exposure to sunlight to cause melanoma. You accept that risk and even by your own statement don't apply sunscreen up to a point.
The real issue you have is that you don't understand the relative risk of exposures from something like living in the Fukushima area. The fact that you can't articulate those relative risks compared to things you happily accept every day is telling. You are operating under that same skewed risk perception that the general public has, and not the scientifically demonstrated and well established risk profiles. Or, you have some inherent conspiracy belief and a form of denial similar to those that deny global warming.
If you took time to actually understand the relative risks, you might learn something. But you'd rather stay ignorant to them and just profess a grave danger.
Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.
News for you... there are radioactive particles in your body right now, and there always will be, doing just that. Why are you not worried about that? It should scare the hell out of you. Not to mention all the other toxins in your body that are killing and mutating cells. And there is that sunlight hitting your skin every time you walk outside doing cell damage, how can you dare expose yourself to such dangers?
That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places.
The Japanese limit is hundreds of times lower that the amount where we have been able to measure a detectable statistical increase is health risks, and that is after a tremendous amount of study. Limits don't = risk levels. They are often set for convenience.
^correction - meant studies done at Chernobyl (not Fukushima) have shown health impacts much lower that predicted.
Zero health impacts for Fukushima radiation are expected.
BTW, KAOS, you are the one who refused to accept the studies done on Fukushima, where they have determined actual health impacts are much lower than predicted. You ignore long established and proven conservative risk data with some sort of conspiracy claims, where is your risk data and what is your so called 'credible source". All you do is list crap with zero actual risk discussion. Since you ignore risk, you demonstrate your ignorance as that is the only frame in which to discuss radiation health impacts. You have show to be completely incapable of characterizing the risks associations with your long list of FUD line items.
Yes, there is a reason ALARA is a useful principle to practice. Its a practical approach.
The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling.
The risk varies, but within an acceptably low band. Calling it a 'danger' just because it is radiation is a FUD tactic. The "danger" of sun exposure varies as well, should you stay inside?
Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.
The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.
Your perception of the risk from radiation is so far from reality, you've simplified the model to the point of being useless.
That's been my experience of your posts, that all of the knowledge gathered since the 1950s just doesn't exist. You don't understand :
Then you:
There is a reason the NRC uses ALARA, figuring out this stuff is complicated and the easiest thing to do so your brain doesn't explode from thinking about it is to keep the potential risk of exposure ultra conservative.
That's it, post a long list of stuff to mask the fact you have no actual data. Radiation risk data is readily available, why don't you ever bother to use it?
Sanchez had been hospitalized for six weeks with radiation poisoning and still wasnâ(TM)t able to expose his skin to sunlight for very long. He was only 41 but looked like an old man, sun-weathered.
He wasnâ(TM)t wearing a shirt and had a large bandage covering his left shoulder and another taped over his hand. Radiation sickness can be fatal, but Sanchez said heâ(TM)d had on a thick jacket that morning and had only carried the cylinder a few meters. âoeLook,â he said, then slowly peeled the bandage to reveal skin that was still seared and pink. Normally, he said, he would have been out in the fields preparing for the summer rains, but he hadnâ(TM)t worked since that morning in December.
Minor symptoms, you say? Good thing cancer is an immediate thing and not a long-term risk after exposure, right?
Yes, minor compared to death, a little pink skin and some bandages aren't so horrible are they? Of course the article you are referencing is long on hyperbole, and doesn't state the reasons he hasn't worked. Maybe Buzzfeed isn't the best place to quote without skepticism. Here's the picture (comes across different than the words); https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzf... And although his risk goes up he is still not likely to get cancer from this statistically. The 'jacket' would have nothing to do with protecting him, reflecting the ignorance of the article author.
Some doctors told me that while the initial evacuation was necessary, the failure to plan a swift return as radiation levels fell had been disastrous. Apart from a few high-dose areas in the mountains, the psychological risks of staying away exceed the radiological risks of coming back. But the confusion has contributed to a serious loss of trust among the public for medical, as well as nuclear, authorities. “When we try to explain the situation,” says Nollet, “we are seen as complicit in nuclear power.”
http://e360.yale.edu/features/...
Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.
We don't need to do that, we have plenty of evidence already.
But the public has much to learn. Take for example the Mexican Cobalt 60 theft, where the thieves got exposures much much greater than the limits we are talking about. You remember, there were tons of articles about how they were doomed. ("dead men", "doomed", "will soon die", etc) But if you listened to me at the time, I said that was a tremendous over-reaction. The thieves were caught and release with no charges because they were kids and had the crap scared out of them. One of the six had some minor symptoms of exposure, none are expected to have any long term health effects.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/...
So, lesson to be learned, don't believe the FUD. Take time to learn about radiation risk on your own, look at the statistics and compare to risks you happily accept every day in life. You'll find better things to worry about.
He's arguing that it is an acceptable risk in an emergency situation. That's quite different than just "okay", and it is quite dishonest to try to equate the two.
Intellectual honesty is not something that the anti-nuke FUD mongers worry about. They happily take risks every day and must not even realize it, because if they took the same approach as they claim we should with radiation, they'd never get in a car unless they absolutely had to. They'd never expose themselves to sunlight unless they absolutely had to, etc. But rationality is loss when perception is off.
You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.
Yes, you can. And we do know for sure. What prevents us from doing that is the lack of rationality society has with dealing with radiation risk.
You can't be sure you wont' die in a car wreck tomorrow, that doesn't mean we can't make a determination to say its OK to get in a car. And knowing that the risks of living in the Fukushima exclusion zone is less than things like car travel or daily sun exposure, the only thing preventing us is ignorance and those that take advantage of that ignorance to spread radiation FUD. Just like your 'can't be sure' FUD.
Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.
Yes, it is. And we've known that our safety limits have been ultra conservative for quite some time. Its not been a big issue because it hasn't necessarily caused any problematic compliance costs. However, it has caused confusion among the public that would naturally but wrongly assume that 100 times the safety limit must be a high risk danger when in most cases it isn't
The easy answer has always been to always do what you can to minimize exposure, so that's how we've characterized it, lower is better. But when we talk about something like a dirty bomb, its more important to eliminate fear and over-reaction with facts. It would be extremely hard to have a dirty bomb actually harm a large number of people, and if one went off near you the biggest danger would be the physical explosion, not the radiation.
The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.
A well timed and well placed EMP would probably be a very painful experience for whomever was riding the hoverbike at the time.
As would contact with one of those open blades.
The video is long on fluff and short on any actual flying. Clearly, a long way from practical use.
I'm sure glad we invented these things called portable generators.
Why would you care about subsidy?
Because existing subsidies for EVs are limited and could never be sustainable, and it helps to be specific so there is no confusion. Ignoring subsidies when discussing future price points would be, well, ignorant.
The bigger news here is that 2025 is the near future.
Tesla Autopilot has already killed a few people, but it is still safer per mile than the average human,
We haven't seen that data so we don't know. Tesla Autopilot miles should be compared to safety miles of relatively new high end sedans driven in ideal conditions such as limited by Tesla's instructions (highway, non inclement weather, etc).