just advocate SAFE nuclear power and there is such a thing. Just do that. I'll join you. Everyone wants safe. Safe is great. But abolition of nuclear power? Just stop it.
I call that Responsible Nuclear Advocacy, since at least 2006 - you just get hounded by both sides, the debate has become so polarised people have forgotten how to carry on a meaningful discussion any more.
Often, storing it and using newly mined fuel is cheaper, but 'we have so much nuclear fuel that it isn't currently economic to make efficient use of it' is a really, really bad argument against nuclear power.
That is not the argument against nuclear power, it's the argument against breeder reactors. They produce plutonium, more comes out than what goes in, that's *why* they're called breeders.
Actually, nuke waste is trivial to solve. Simply use it in a gen 4 reactor and then have only 5% of waste and all safe within 200 years.
Dixie Lee Rays said that in the 70's or 80's and it is still not solved. Gen 4's still suffer corrosion and neutron bombardment issues that makes air leak *into* them. Radioactive sodium and water is a very bad combination and humans have proved them selves too unreliable to run PWR and BWR so the stakes are much higher with a fast reactor.
Overcome the materials issues and then it becomes possible. Otherwise you still have many of the problems existing reactor tech does. I presume you mean burners over breeders, btw.
It's not impossible however having a large scale Gen4 installations would take infrastructure planning and construction that would last a century, at the end though would be power infrastructure for the foreseeable future. I just doubt the human race has the political or economic maturity to engage such a project.
creating enormous volumes of material, completely impractical to store and transport without spilling it
Radionuclide don't dilute, they bio-concentrate because they present as micronutrients to metabolisms (plants and animals). You can *disperse* radionuclides, but they will bio-concentrate all over again until they complete their decay cycle.
This goes a long way to answer your question, but requires 3 hours of reading and a thorough` understanding of eighth grade math. It was written by a physicist and contains a lot of numbers. No algebra is required, but it does have a lot of numbers. Most people don't like numbers because they can't argue against them.
No science or sociopolitical knowledge is required as there are no moral judgements made, just numbers.
Thanks for that, I'll check it out. I think one of the biggest issues people forget is the amount of energy that goes into mining Uranium in the first place. Below 200grams U per ton of rock Nuclear is no longer viable due to energetic requirements to get the fuel in the first place. That's even before the energy expenditure on the disposal of the reactor at the end of it's service life.
I think we are at the end of the once through reactor fuel cycle for that reason and burner reactors aren't really viable until materials technology catch up.
Yeah, you're right. Let's just keep burning coal instead. Surely that can't release any radiation.
If you're referring to Uranium in coal, it's not enriched, it's natural, so mostly U-238. It should be collected, so essentially coal has the same problem the Nuclear industry does, radionuclide effluents.
All the research/demonstration ones built so far have had serious failures. No melt-downs, but serious contamination issues or problems that caused the reactors to be written off. They are far from ready for prime time, and melt-down is only one of the risks.
The main issue with this fuel cycle is Thallium, but I haven't been able to dig up if it's 233 or 238. It is pretty nasty stuff to the human genome.
We can have nuclear plants with a more forgiving design so no number of homer simpsons, natural disasters, unnatural disasters, and deliberate sabotage could trigger a meltdown.
citation needed
Oh, he is quite correct. FYI, it was already done at the NRC's request by reactor manufacturers like Westinghouse and GE and a bunch of others. They came up with a pretty good design that may have even made Nuclear power a viable energy source, with features like, it's underground, separated facilities, control room further away - except that it was too expensive.
Instead we got SNUPPS, which what the AP1000 is based on. Reduced thermal containment to reactor heat ratio to reduce the amount of concrete to make it *cheaper*.
That's the Nuclear Industries concept of "progress".
The issue is that humans live for only a short time, even though the ramifications of their decisions go on for many generations after they are dead.
Indeed. The geological timeframe for radionuclide decay is something many people have difficulty getting their heads around. The common myth is that the radioactive effluents of the nuclear industry are harmless, however the mutagenic effects last generations.
Humans are unable to see past their own experiences and are unable to even think about what will happen to their children.
Energy on credit. Defer the costs to a future generation while screaming 'think of the children'
We see it over and over and over again.
Humans are perhaps a bit more intelligent than the yeast in your beer, but only a bit.
I think that the dogmatic skepticism of all the fanbois will destroy the Nuclear Industry, unfortunately the legacy left by their selfishness will be a toxic mess that everyone else will have to clean up.
Yesterday I saw a picture where corrosion had eaten about 7 inches into a huge thick piece of metal in a reactor; but I can't find it today. Really scary.
I think you are referring to Davis Besse where a very fine stream of borated water was squirting onto the inside of the reactor head. Of course the management ignored that the water filters were being changed far more often that specified by the designers, classic case of "shit happens". There was about an inch left before a loss of the reactor.
People make mistakes, in specifying, designing, building and operating equipment; even with things a lot less complicated than a nuclear reactor.
The difference is, with other things, you don't have to evacuate towns (or entire CITIES) for hundreds of years when they fuck up.
I think it plays into the 'humans don't notice small change'. It's the same thinking that killed the space shuttle where they ignored the risks of constant damage to the heat shield and said 'yeah, shit happens' all the way until they lost an orbiter. As you say, with a reactor the stakes are a lot higher.
threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech
I heard it once put Your freedom ends where mine begins
and you to not answering questions. Send data on equipment that can pick up a microgram sized emitter in a ton of lettuce. The information is out there.
assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.
If there is even a need to scan food for radionuclide contamination then it is wise to avoid it. It's not hard to understand.
Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.
You still haven't evaluated the science with citations and references I sent you. You still haven't sent anything to back up your claims. So eat it.
I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is.
I'll avoid it because I understand the process of bio-accumulation as a result of repeated exposure to eating food from that area. Just eat it.
You can call me stupid,
Thanks.
but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation.
Of scanning equipment sensitivity, absolutely - that's why I asked you to send me details of such a machine. You are acting as if you work with them so send me a link so I can see for myself, I am sincerely interested.
You keep avoiding it.
And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.
I am always learning more. I've defended my argument with science on tritium so you are describing yourself. If you have some information to back up what you say, produce it, send me the knowledge. That is one of the reasons the internet exists.
I've been clearly influenced by nuclear PR, and I don't even realize it.
FTFY. I've read the works I sent and others because the nuclear industry is as fascinating as it is hideously complex.
If you want to pretend otherwise, then you are just stupid.
You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.
Well you're talking about detecting radioactivity which isn't isn't molecules and what you are talking about is done in the controlled environment of a lab, not in a food distribution centre. But I'm sure the cost of that equipment and the expertise required to operate and maintain it won't impact the price of lettuce too much, especially if you don't mind paying a premium to eat food that has some probability of heath impacts, then you just eat it.
You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.
Well if you think your belief system will keep you safe then eat it.
I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question.
I'm still chuckling about how you are so confident about eating this food, I'll keep a look out for your Darwin award entry. And people said you wouldn't amount to anything, you'll show them!!!
You should support the nuclear industry by only eating food from fall-out zones to the rest of us don't have to eat it. You eat it!!
How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis?
That's what you call it. I call it providing you with the studies on tritium to expose your dogmatic skepticism, which it did. To answer your question though, it's not unnoticed that you avoided answering the question *again* and turned it around like a predictable fanboi. It's what you do.
I think it's stupid will but if you want to prove how smart you are by taking those odds, then put your faith and awesome risk perception talents into some infallible human operated detection process to protect you from eating food that potentially has radio-isotope fallout from a nuclear accident, and eat it.
Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity.
I think you actually mean, radioactivity level is proportional to radio-isotope content subject to if it is organically bound and how much water is in the food to moderate the alpha, beta and gamma emmissions.
That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand.
Just send me a link to a screening machine that can detect a microgram of plutonium in a pallet of lettuce.
Or show me a mathematical model that accounts for radioisotope uptake and very large spatial variability between and within landscape units and all the other variables used to determine it statistically. Its not that hard to understand.
It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits.
Show me your calculations for a calculated risk go ahead and eat it, Caveat Emptor!!
Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance,
No, Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible.
as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere.
That's 55 million fatal doses. Distributed evenly in the Japanese population about 1 in three people will probably die. If we use Max Levels everyone dies.
Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative).
iWell people gamble all the time, go right ahead.
Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.
Well if you want to take that risk, Bon Apetit! Caveat Emptor!!
I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.
Cite those standards and I'll check them out. The information is out there.
I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.
Well at least I won't have concerns about radio isotopes. Its not that hard to understand.
How disappointing. Given an opportunity to discuss based on science and reason I see that you have chosen the fanboi route. It is clear you are unable to challenge this argument and instead choose to attack me as your only remaining option for a response.
So far, the best you have is a car analogy driven at sufficient max levels to see if the information is out there. You are ridiculous.
I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.
Alternatively, you are ignoring the facts and science and your only remaining option is an ad hom attack to provoke an emotional response. How droll and primitive. It's what you fanbois do though.
For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.
I have, several times and whilst we know exactly how toxic each element is and the dose, you are saying levels and doses in the environment don't matter and are irrelevant to calculating the probability of encountering it in food.
One gram of plutonium released from Fukushima is one million fatal doses.
Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible. You say that I am making excuses whilst ignoring the fact that it is a *reason*, something you are unfamiliar with. Somehow, in your delusion, that is my failing, clearly showing that you are a dogmatic skeptic fanboi.
You are being obstinate to attempt to claw your way back from the fact that your argument has been crushed and that humiliation is too much for you to deal with.
As I have said there is nothing in this conversation for me.
Are you saying it is wrong to evaluate risk using probability and levels of exposure? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.
No, as I have said several times, I am saying you can't calculate probability without knowing levels.
You need to know how much of each radioisotope was released, to determine how many doses were release in the environment. You need it's chemical toxicity and how alpha, beta and gamma energetic it is. Then you need to know how long it's decay cycle is and then repeat it for the daughter products. Then you can start to determine statistic probabilities over time and the effect on populations with modelling.
You have to do that with every radioisotope - because some elements will be benign and some highly toxic, however by understanding what it analogues you can then say what food it is likely to end up in.
Additionally, I specifically mentioned levels of pu-239 (remember 1 microgram) and that you didn't answer how you would detect that in a pallet of food? Further the studies I referenced also mentioned levels and what damage occurred with tritium. How would you detect how much of a particular bit of water is in water? and how much of it will end up being organically bound?
Don't tell me levels don't matter. If you don't know how many doses of what are out there you can't calculate probability at all. Would you expect to know how far you can go in your car without knowing how much fuel you have?
And the Japanese government is withholding that information, as I have said.
Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns? Has it occurred to you I might not be as anti-nuke as you assume?
I've been pretty good humoured with you, so what's it gonna be Mr D? Are you going to be a fanboi or challenge your assumptions?
What do you know, another trite vapid, shallow response empty of reason and fact. Even when I did discuss those vital component you ignore it and pretend you have said something profound.
You're just wrong and can't admit it and now you want to use your expert ad hom attack skills because that's what you do.
Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.
Transgenic disease, decreased brain weight of offspring. However you are more likely to have been exposed to sr-90 or even plutonium. It is in your food chain and ultimately you are likely to be exposed to it because you don't know what steps will reduce your possibility of exposure. I don't care what the probability is because it won't affect me.
More than likely, if you have children, your failure will cause them to suffer because they will be more sensitive to the exposure than you are. Your ignorance won't protect them from that or unnecessary car analogies.
You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk.
No, I answered that. You consistently avoid the fact that data is not available on how much and what types of material were released and are using deception to try and recover your now shattered ego.
It's ok, I know you will become even more dogmatically sceptical and make even more ridiculous arguments about nuclear issues without fact. I want you to.You show traits of being a fanboi. Did you know the nuclear industry calls you a 'useful idiot'?
You've been offered the facts for your lazy disorganized mind and cannot process them because the social proof from Nuclear industry PR has destroyed your objectivity. You've failed so completely to counter a single argument presented in every exchange.
Until you do, you are a waste of time.
What a graceless, sore loser, how sad for you to be so afflicted by group think and unable to challenge you assumptions. The discussion was over long ago, but please continue to make a fool of yourself for my amusement.
Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.
Really? I've just provided you with 'The information is out there'. You're telling me your trite little flippant 'some guy on the internet sentence' is more authoritive than actual peer reviewed scientific research on the subject of Tritium and you 'probably' know better than all those with doctorates in the subject.
What was I thinking how could I believe all those fellows over Mr D from 63 whose overwhelming authority on the subject of radionuclides (a word he just learned but still doesn't quite understand) should ultimately dispel the works of those who are actually paid to do that work.
Quick let's get you over there to make them defend there findings all over again and you can explain to them how wrong they are.
You are a waste of time.
hahahaha - thanks for the cherry on the cake. After thoroughly demolishing your 'argument' about unnecessary car rides and how you said plutonium is good in baby food. I put one of your posts into one of our language analysers and this is what it said about you:
You are explosive, inconsiderate and opinionated.
You are intermittent: you have a hard time sticking with difficult tasks for a long period of time. And you are unstructured: you do not make a lot of time for organization in your daily life.
Experiences that give a sense of well-being hold some appeal to you.
Well I just started to need glasses for reading, but I'm still ok on the computer. Quite an odd attack, btw
Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability.
I never said that, you change the words to suit your attempts at making a point.
That's right, it's annoying isn't it - you have been doing it to me throughout this thread. I'm glad you got that point.
I actually said you need to know the levels AND the probabilities,
Well even if you did you would be wrong because you need to know the levels to understand the probabilty via a statistical analysis.
the max levels are sufficient,
Of what? Radionuclides or Radiation. And which type of radionuclide and testing method?
we know that from the testing.
What we know from Oppenhiemer's research is that a microgram of pu-239 in something is a fatal dose for a human being once ingested. How do you propose to detect a microgram of pu-239 in a pallet full of food that is mostly water, since *water* moderates radiation???
Should every single head of lettuce be scanned to make sure or would it just be easier to not bother scanning it and potentially let someone die a painful death?
How hard is this to understand.
Because you are rambling and making no sense. I've given you several opportunities to stop with your dignity intact. I have been kind and good humoured. The premise of your "argument" has been utterly demolished yet you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Yo might want to worry about what you eat elsewhere.
Yo, maybe, but simple choices of the source of origin are adequate to ensure my food safety for radionuclides. It is highly probable that the east coast of the US was dusted with fallout from Fukushima, you might want to worry about that if you eat food from that region.
Acceptance limits in the EU and US are more than 10 times higher than in Japan, and in turn there is no known or observed health risks at 100 times those levels.
You show me this evidence and all the other things to back your other baseless claims that shows they aren't just pure, unadulterated bullshit.
The information is out there.
Indeed it is, and I am in possession of some to challenge your ignorance, starting with the so called "benign" substance Tritium. Notice the citations are from peer reviewed studies - notice the quality of my references and research. This is the difference between your and my argument, mine is based in fact and yours in fiction.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound
Slashdot Mirror
just advocate SAFE nuclear power and there is such a thing. Just do that. I'll join you. Everyone wants safe. Safe is great. But abolition of nuclear power? Just stop it.
I call that Responsible Nuclear Advocacy, since at least 2006 - you just get hounded by both sides, the debate has become so polarised people have forgotten how to carry on a meaningful discussion any more.
so like the parent said; Uranium doesnt cost anything.
Only externalities of operating a nuclear power plant cost something.
BTW, whats the cost of a hydro plant whose dam wall breaks and kills 170,000 people?
Dunno, what the cost of a nuclear plant that renders 3500 square kilometers of land useless?
Often, storing it and using newly mined fuel is cheaper, but 'we have so much nuclear fuel that it isn't currently economic to make efficient use of it' is a really, really bad argument against nuclear power.
That is not the argument against nuclear power, it's the argument against breeder reactors. They produce plutonium, more comes out than what goes in, that's *why* they're called breeders.
Actually, nuke waste is trivial to solve. Simply use it in a gen 4 reactor and then have only 5% of waste and all safe within 200 years.
Dixie Lee Rays said that in the 70's or 80's and it is still not solved. Gen 4's still suffer corrosion and neutron bombardment issues that makes air leak *into* them. Radioactive sodium and water is a very bad combination and humans have proved them selves too unreliable to run PWR and BWR so the stakes are much higher with a fast reactor.
Overcome the materials issues and then it becomes possible. Otherwise you still have many of the problems existing reactor tech does. I presume you mean burners over breeders, btw.
It's not impossible however having a large scale Gen4 installations would take infrastructure planning and construction that would last a century, at the end though would be power infrastructure for the foreseeable future. I just doubt the human race has the political or economic maturity to engage such a project.
Whatever happened to encasing the waste in glass?
It's not glass, it's called C22 and this paper might help answer that question.
1. dilute it back down
creating enormous volumes of material, completely impractical to store and transport without spilling it
Radionuclide don't dilute, they bio-concentrate because they present as micronutrients to metabolisms (plants and animals). You can *disperse* radionuclides, but they will bio-concentrate all over again until they complete their decay cycle.
Which for pu-239 is 25,000 years
This goes a long way to answer your question, but requires 3 hours of reading and a thorough` understanding of eighth grade math. It was written by a physicist and contains a lot of numbers. No algebra is required, but it does have a lot of numbers. Most people don't like numbers because they can't argue against them. No science or sociopolitical knowledge is required as there are no moral judgements made, just numbers.
Thanks for that, I'll check it out. I think one of the biggest issues people forget is the amount of energy that goes into mining Uranium in the first place. Below 200grams U per ton of rock Nuclear is no longer viable due to energetic requirements to get the fuel in the first place. That's even before the energy expenditure on the disposal of the reactor at the end of it's service life.
I think we are at the end of the once through reactor fuel cycle for that reason and burner reactors aren't really viable until materials technology catch up.
From the article: "has built stronger, higher tsunami walls near the new plant" and "Regardless, the 31-year old reactor"
It's sad that 31 years old counts as 'new'.
Consider that if they had had some really new nuclear plants that Fukushima probably would have already been shut down.
Awesome, so basically if it hadn't been for anti-nuclear protestors, we likely have never had a Fukushima incident.
According to the official report if it hadn't been for collusion between the regulator and TEPCO, we likely have never had a Fukushima incident.
Yeah, you're right. Let's just keep burning coal instead. Surely that can't release any radiation.
If you're referring to Uranium in coal, it's not enriched, it's natural, so mostly U-238. It should be collected, so essentially coal has the same problem the Nuclear industry does, radionuclide effluents.
All the research/demonstration ones built so far have had serious failures. No melt-downs, but serious contamination issues or problems that caused the reactors to be written off. They are far from ready for prime time, and melt-down is only one of the risks.
The main issue with this fuel cycle is Thallium, but I haven't been able to dig up if it's 233 or 238. It is pretty nasty stuff to the human genome.
We can have nuclear plants with a more forgiving design so no number of homer simpsons, natural disasters, unnatural disasters, and deliberate sabotage could trigger a meltdown.
citation needed
Oh, he is quite correct. FYI, it was already done at the NRC's request by reactor manufacturers like Westinghouse and GE and a bunch of others. They came up with a pretty good design that may have even made Nuclear power a viable energy source, with features like, it's underground, separated facilities, control room further away - except that it was too expensive.
Instead we got SNUPPS, which what the AP1000 is based on. Reduced thermal containment to reactor heat ratio to reduce the amount of concrete to make it *cheaper*.
That's the Nuclear Industries concept of "progress".
of gas in this discussion
The issue is that humans live for only a short time, even though the ramifications of their decisions go on for many generations after they are dead.
Indeed. The geological timeframe for radionuclide decay is something many people have difficulty getting their heads around. The common myth is that the radioactive effluents of the nuclear industry are harmless, however the mutagenic effects last generations.
Humans are unable to see past their own experiences and are unable to even think about what will happen to their children.
Energy on credit. Defer the costs to a future generation while screaming 'think of the children'
We see it over and over and over again.
Humans are perhaps a bit more intelligent than the yeast in your beer, but only a bit.
I think that the dogmatic skepticism of all the fanbois will destroy the Nuclear Industry, unfortunately the legacy left by their selfishness will be a toxic mess that everyone else will have to clean up.
Things still fail, shit still happens.
Yesterday I saw a picture where corrosion had eaten about 7 inches into a huge thick piece of metal in a reactor; but I can't find it today. Really scary.
I think you are referring to Davis Besse where a very fine stream of borated water was squirting onto the inside of the reactor head. Of course the management ignored that the water filters were being changed far more often that specified by the designers, classic case of "shit happens". There was about an inch left before a loss of the reactor.
People make mistakes, in specifying, designing, building and operating equipment; even with things a lot less complicated than a nuclear reactor.
The difference is, with other things, you don't have to evacuate towns (or entire CITIES) for hundreds of years when they fuck up.
I think it plays into the 'humans don't notice small change'. It's the same thinking that killed the space shuttle where they ignored the risks of constant damage to the heat shield and said 'yeah, shit happens' all the way until they lost an orbiter. As you say, with a reactor the stakes are a lot higher.
threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech
I heard it once put Your freedom ends where mine begins
So, now you are moving to
and you to not answering questions. Send data on equipment that can pick up a microgram sized emitter in a ton of lettuce. The information is out there.
assuming the equipment is not capable, nor the operators. Again, that comes not from any insight or understanding, but more from lack of knowledge and misconceptions. It is quite easy to operate radiological test equipment.
If there is even a need to scan food for radionuclide contamination then it is wise to avoid it. It's not hard to understand.
Still stuck on your subjectiveness, aren't you. I don't see anything in this post above that is thought out as far as a scientific risk.
You still haven't evaluated the science with citations and references I sent you. You still haven't sent anything to back up your claims. So eat it.
I am confident that eating the food is fine because I understand the levels we are dealing with and just how low risk it is.
I'll avoid it because I understand the process of bio-accumulation as a result of repeated exposure to eating food from that area. Just eat it.
You can call me stupid,
Thanks.
but you clearly are the one here that does not understand the underlying methods. You have demonstrated it multiple times in our conversation.
Of scanning equipment sensitivity, absolutely - that's why I asked you to send me details of such a machine. You are acting as if you work with them so send me a link so I can see for myself, I am sincerely interested.
You keep avoiding it.
And instead of admitting you really don't have the knowledge, you just retreat and call me stupid. Very scientific of you.
I am always learning more. I've defended my argument with science on tritium so you are describing yourself. If you have some information to back up what you say, produce it, send me the knowledge. That is one of the reasons the internet exists.
I've been clearly influenced by nuclear PR, and I don't even realize it.
FTFY. I've read the works I sent and others because the nuclear industry is as fascinating as it is hideously complex.
If you want to pretend otherwise, then you are just stupid.
You really think detecting the radioactivity from a micro-gram of any radioisotope is difficult? Common lab equipment these days can detect molecules in parts per trillion.
Well you're talking about detecting radioactivity which isn't isn't molecules and what you are talking about is done in the controlled environment of a lab, not in a food distribution centre. But I'm sure the cost of that equipment and the expertise required to operate and maintain it won't impact the price of lettuce too much, especially if you don't mind paying a premium to eat food that has some probability of heath impacts, then you just eat it.
You can easily detect even a remotely unsafe concentration of plutonium or radioactive source from quite some distance.
Well if you think your belief system will keep you safe then eat it.
I'm still chuckling about hour kilograms of plutonium question.
I'm still chuckling about how you are so confident about eating this food, I'll keep a look out for your Darwin award entry. And people said you wouldn't amount to anything, you'll show them!!!
You should support the nuclear industry by only eating food from fall-out zones to the rest of us don't have to eat it. You eat it!!
How is you ignore such a central thing in your so called "scientific" analysis?
That's what you call it. I call it providing you with the studies on tritium to expose your dogmatic skepticism, which it did. To answer your question though, it's not unnoticed that you avoided answering the question *again* and turned it around like a predictable fanboi. It's what you do.
I think it's stupid will but if you want to prove how smart you are by taking those odds, then put your faith and awesome risk perception talents into some infallible human operated detection process to protect you from eating food that potentially has radio-isotope fallout from a nuclear accident, and eat it.
Do let me know how it turns out for you.
Isotope content is proportional to level of radioactivity.
I think you actually mean, radioactivity level is proportional to radio-isotope content subject to if it is organically bound and how much water is in the food to moderate the alpha, beta and gamma emmissions.
That is why they use that method to screen. Its not that hard to understand.
Just send me a link to a screening machine that can detect a microgram of plutonium in a pallet of lettuce. Or show me a mathematical model that accounts for radioisotope uptake and very large spatial variability between and within landscape units and all the other variables used to determine it statistically. Its not that hard to understand.
It is the most effective way to measure. The content is under the limits.
Show me your calculations for a calculated risk go ahead and eat it, Caveat Emptor!!
Your question of how many kilograms of plutonium are in the food is a prime indicator of your ignorance,
No, Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible.
as there was likely less than 55 grams in total released to atmosphere.
That's 55 million fatal doses. Distributed evenly in the Japanese population about 1 in three people will probably die. If we use Max Levels everyone dies.
Intensive screening plant and ground testing throughout the district shows plutonium contamination is quite minimal (that might be an overstatement, but I'll be conservative).
iWell people gamble all the time, go right ahead.
Even with that, screening ensures it is not a problem.
Well if you want to take that risk, Bon Apetit! Caveat Emptor!!
I have ignored no facts, you just like to present only partial info and claim you do not have enough info to judge safety when there are clear standards and methods to do so and they are being followed.
Cite those standards and I'll check them out. The information is out there.
I hate to inform you that similar methods are used to screen toxins from foods we all eat regularly.
Well at least I won't have concerns about radio isotopes. Its not that hard to understand.
How disappointing. Given an opportunity to discuss based on science and reason I see that you have chosen the fanboi route. It is clear you are unable to challenge this argument and instead choose to attack me as your only remaining option for a response.
So far, the best you have is a car analogy driven at sufficient max levels to see if the information is out there. You are ridiculous.
I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.
Alternatively, you are ignoring the facts and science and your only remaining option is an ad hom attack to provoke an emotional response. How droll and primitive. It's what you fanbois do though.
For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.
I have, several times and whilst we know exactly how toxic each element is and the dose, you are saying levels and doses in the environment don't matter and are irrelevant to calculating the probability of encountering it in food.
One gram of plutonium released from Fukushima is one million fatal doses.
Until you can convince the Japanese government to provide data on how many kilograms of radioisotopes are released calculating probability is not possible. You say that I am making excuses whilst ignoring the fact that it is a *reason*, something you are unfamiliar with. Somehow, in your delusion, that is my failing, clearly showing that you are a dogmatic skeptic fanboi.
You are being obstinate to attempt to claw your way back from the fact that your argument has been crushed and that humiliation is too much for you to deal with.
As I have said there is nothing in this conversation for me.
Are you saying it is wrong to evaluate risk using probability and levels of exposure? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.
No, as I have said several times, I am saying you can't calculate probability without knowing levels.
You need to know how much of each radioisotope was released, to determine how many doses were release in the environment. You need it's chemical toxicity and how alpha, beta and gamma energetic it is. Then you need to know how long it's decay cycle is and then repeat it for the daughter products. Then you can start to determine statistic probabilities over time and the effect on populations with modelling.
You have to do that with every radioisotope - because some elements will be benign and some highly toxic, however by understanding what it analogues you can then say what food it is likely to end up in.
Additionally, I specifically mentioned levels of pu-239 (remember 1 microgram) and that you didn't answer how you would detect that in a pallet of food? Further the studies I referenced also mentioned levels and what damage occurred with tritium. How would you detect how much of a particular bit of water is in water? and how much of it will end up being organically bound?
Don't tell me levels don't matter. If you don't know how many doses of what are out there you can't calculate probability at all. Would you expect to know how far you can go in your car without knowing how much fuel you have?
And the Japanese government is withholding that information, as I have said.
Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns? Has it occurred to you I might not be as anti-nuke as you assume? I've been pretty good humoured with you, so what's it gonna be Mr D? Are you going to be a fanboi or challenge your assumptions?
You're just wrong and can't admit it and now you want to use your expert ad hom attack skills because that's what you do.
But go on pretending.
Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.
Transgenic disease, decreased brain weight of offspring. However you are more likely to have been exposed to sr-90 or even plutonium. It is in your food chain and ultimately you are likely to be exposed to it because you don't know what steps will reduce your possibility of exposure. I don't care what the probability is because it won't affect me.
More than likely, if you have children, your failure will cause them to suffer because they will be more sensitive to the exposure than you are. Your ignorance won't protect them from that or unnecessary car analogies.
You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk.
No, I answered that. You consistently avoid the fact that data is not available on how much and what types of material were released and are using deception to try and recover your now shattered ego.
It's ok, I know you will become even more dogmatically sceptical and make even more ridiculous arguments about nuclear issues without fact. I want you to.You show traits of being a fanboi. Did you know the nuclear industry calls you a 'useful idiot'?
You've been offered the facts for your lazy disorganized mind and cannot process them because the social proof from Nuclear industry PR has destroyed your objectivity. You've failed so completely to counter a single argument presented in every exchange.
Until you do, you are a waste of time.
What a graceless, sore loser, how sad for you to be so afflicted by group think and unable to challenge you assumptions. The discussion was over long ago, but please continue to make a fool of yourself for my amusement.
Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.
Really? I've just provided you with 'The information is out there'. You're telling me your trite little flippant 'some guy on the internet sentence' is more authoritive than actual peer reviewed scientific research on the subject of Tritium and you 'probably' know better than all those with doctorates in the subject.
What was I thinking how could I believe all those fellows over Mr D from 63 whose overwhelming authority on the subject of radionuclides (a word he just learned but still doesn't quite understand) should ultimately dispel the works of those who are actually paid to do that work.
Quick let's get you over there to make them defend there findings all over again and you can explain to them how wrong they are.
You are a waste of time.
hahahaha - thanks for the cherry on the cake. After thoroughly demolishing your 'argument' about unnecessary car rides and how you said plutonium is good in baby food. I put one of your posts into one of our language analysers and this is what it said about you:
You are explosive, inconsiderate and opinionated.
You are intermittent: you have a hard time sticking with difficult tasks for a long period of time. And you are unstructured: you do not make a lot of time for organization in your daily life. Experiences that give a sense of well-being hold some appeal to you.
We've found that it is quite accurate.
Well I just started to need glasses for reading, but I'm still ok on the computer. Quite an odd attack, btw
That's right, it's annoying isn't it - you have been doing it to me throughout this thread. I'm glad you got that point.
Well even if you did you would be wrong because you need to know the levels to understand the probabilty via a statistical analysis.
Of what? Radionuclides or Radiation. And which type of radionuclide and testing method?
What we know from Oppenhiemer's research is that a microgram of pu-239 in something is a fatal dose for a human being once ingested. How do you propose to detect a microgram of pu-239 in a pallet full of food that is mostly water, since *water* moderates radiation???
Should every single head of lettuce be scanned to make sure or would it just be easier to not bother scanning it and potentially let someone die a painful death?
Because you are rambling and making no sense. I've given you several opportunities to stop with your dignity intact. I have been kind and good humoured. The premise of your "argument" has been utterly demolished yet you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Yo, maybe, but simple choices of the source of origin are adequate to ensure my food safety for radionuclides. It is highly probable that the east coast of the US was dusted with fallout from Fukushima, you might want to worry about that if you eat food from that region.
You show me this evidence and all the other things to back your other baseless claims that shows they aren't just pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Indeed it is, and I am in possession of some to challenge your ignorance, starting with the so called "benign" substance Tritium. Notice the citations are from peer reviewed studies - notice the quality of my references and research. This is the difference between your and my argument, mine is based in fact and yours in fiction.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound
They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).
Absolute gold!!!