More radiation phobia ands anti-nuclear scare mongering. How ridiculous

Why do these anti-nuclear arguments never provide context. For example could have said:

Let's use a quantitative measure to compare consequences; e.g. fatalities:

- caused by Fukushima related radiation doses = 0

- caused by Tsunami = 20,000 to 28,000

- caused by dam failure = 12

- caused by cut back in electricity = hundreds to thousands but no measure available

- caused by oil fires due to the earthquake = ?

- Fatalities that would have occurred if the power was generated by fossil fuels instead of nuclear = ? (rough guess 5000 per year for say 20 years = 100,000)

Get some perspective!

Peter Lang - you're the one that needs some perspective.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that you pro nuclear lobbyists just trot out the same old irrelevant platitudes about illnessa and death caused by radiation. Namely - that these don't exist.

I am reminded of the tobacco lobby. How long they fought, and still fight their illogical (but profitable) campaign that the only deaths from tobacco resulted from fires started by a careless smoker.

They just didn't want people to understand the longer term results of lung, throat, and bladder cancer.

Thyroid abnormalities in children are just a vey early sign of the ill effects of ionising radiation. But they are a portent of what is to come later - thyroid cancers, and then other cancers. Sure, these deaths will not come in the immediate future - just the same as the deaths caused by cigarette smoking.

What they should use is the data from Chernobyl which had about 30x the radiation output.

Here there were an additional 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, which because of regular screening achieved a nearly complete success rate in treatment. The area around Chernobyl showed an incidence of deaths from cancer no different to similar areas.

With careful monitoring it is unlikely that the area near the Fukushima reactors will have serious consequences from the fall out.

Please, Shadow Minister, this is serious.

>>What they should use is the data from Chernobyl which had about 30x the radiation output.<<

There is no place in the nuclear argument for either facts or logic. What is required is a call to our deepest emotions and fears, supported by extrapolations of the most expansive sort.

A basic need that this article fulfils, in spades: the gut-wrenching plea to "think of the children".

Classic.

Pericles
no its you who should be serious.
jimbonic
it is you who should get some perspective.

Go back and look at the article. 35.5 per cent of children with abnormal thyroid growths.. what? Thyroid cancer certainly is a problem in children with radiation exposure.. the one, verified problem after Chernobyl concerned an excess of thyroid cancers in children in the district. But I was under the impression they took some time to turn up and wasn't a third of all children, for what was a far more serious incident. You will note that the article doesn't give any indication of what incidence of abnormal growths you'd expect in any given group of children, and the report linked to the story is in Japanese.

Further down the story you will see a claim that 60 per cent of children in the area under 12 tested positive for diabetes.. again what? Since when has diabetes been a major result of comparatively small doses of radiation and affecting more than half of a given population? Someone's got their figures mixed up..

I'm beginning to suspect that the article is sraight hysteria.

Curmudgeon has it spot on. There is just so much in this article that is unsaid.

The reason this story has any play at all is that earlier (2001) studies in Nagasaki children found thyroid nodules at a rate of only about 1%.

Here is the study. http://1am.sakura.ne.jp/Nuclear/kou131attach2.pdf

So 36% in Fukushima... wow, that's bad, right? Let's see. Quoting this article:

"The Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey revealed that 13,460 children, or 35.3 percent, had thyroid cysts or nodules up to 0.197 inches long growing on their thyroids and 0.5 percent of the children had growths larger than 0.197 inches".

You may be interested to know that 0.197 inches = 5.0 mm.

You may be interested to know this too: The Nagasaki study ONLY recorded a positive finding for thyroid nodules GREATER than 5.0 mm.

From which we can infer several things.

Firstly, thyroid nodules of less than 5.0 mm are more than likely entirely normal, which is why they were excluded from the Nagasaki study.

Secondly, these two groups of children are, at present, almost exactly the same for nodules of greater than 5.0 mm.

Thirdly, we DO in fact know that the dose it too small and the time frame too short to see thyroid cancer development

Fourthly, more subjectively, this article is total scaremongering bollocks that deliberately obscures essential context by someone who writes for a site (www.oilprice.com) whose "analysis focuses on Oil and Gas". Oil and gas imports to Japan have skyrocketed with the shuttering of the nuclear plants.

Said it before, say it again. We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. This website is seriously slipping.

Yet another article that fails to give any context.

Nuclear energy is, empirically, the safest energy source we have. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
This is based on data from authoritative bodies, such as the World Health Organisation and the European Commission's ExternE.

And jimbonic, no nuclear energy advocate has ever said risks don't exist that I'm aware of - that is a blatant lie from you. What is almost always argued by nuclear proponents is that the risks of nuclear energy are comparatively small, and the benefits are large. This is *nothing like* the tobacco situation of the 1980s, where the data showed, overwhelmingly, that smoking was producing high mortality rates. Nuclear energy has the lowest mortality rates of any energy source - the data overwhelmingly support this.

Ben,

Even considering Chernobyl, nuclear energy has the lowest fatality rate of any energy source and half the fatalities /MWhr of the nearest which is wind power. Secondly to put this in perspective, the Tsunami that caused this disaster killed nearly 30 000 people and laid waste to 1000's of square kilometres of farmland.

Given the complete failure of renewable (green) energy systems to provide reliable power, the choice is fossil fuels or nuclear.

@Shadow Minister, in round terms, yep I agree entirely.

However IMHO moving straight to this argument is to somehow give credence to the thrust of this article. I think that is a mistake. I would much rather actually critique the article to show, once again, that the specific anti-nuclear argument is lacking in substance. I rather feel my first comment has done this; I suspect the only reason they are "finding" all these small nodules is because suddenly they are looking for them, when we have never bothered before. It's precautionary; good idea in other words given the event. But making massive epidemiological leaps like this article seems happy to dog whistle is stupid and irresponsible.

So we're back to 0.5 per cent with, I assume, potential for thyroid cancer which makes a lot more sense.. tnks Ben Heard.

Actually part of teh fun of this site is that they print opinions from almost any loonie.. We learn about the wild stories making the rounds, and the responses. Helps in dealing with soem of my wilder colleagues..

Absolutely, Curmudgeon.

>>Actually part of teh fun of this site is that they print opinions from almost any loonie.. We learn about the wild stories making the rounds, and the responses<<

It is a vital and valuable service. Every so often out in the physical world, I find myself in the company of a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, or a wild-haired Greenie, predicting that doom and catastrophe is just around the next corner. Having prepared myself with a daily dose of OLO, I find it much easier to reduce such folk to a smouldering heap of tired clichés and ridiculous self-contradictions.

I have noticed, though, that these folk appear able to procreate, albeit largely only with their own kind. So the problem will always be with us. But as long as we are able to remain in a state of readiness, all is not yet lost.

Peter Lang and his ilk just shoot their mouths off with no substance to back it.Fukushima has been an enormous cover up.The indirect death toll from Chernobyl is said to be a million.Fukushima is worse.It will take decades to realise the health fallout in terms of disease and genetic deformity.

Since the nuclear era began,cancer and other genetic abnormalities have accelerated while heart disease has fallen.

http://fairewinds.com Click on Fukushima Updates. Prof Arnie Gunderson has been in the nuke industry for over 40 yrs.He decommissions nuke reactors.He notes that it is not the background radiation that is of major concern.It is the almost undetectable hot particles such as Caesium,Uranium,iodine etc that mimic compounds in our bodies which emit low doses of radiation while embedded in our bodies.They are the killers of real concern.

Arnie personally went to Tokoyo which is 250 km from Fukushima and took 5 random soil samples.All were way above accepted radiation levels in the USA.Japan has just increased the acceptable doses to stop the panic and protect the Corporate Criminals.

"Peter Lang and his ilk just shoot their mouths off with no substance to back it... the indirect death toll from Chernobyl is said to be a million."

@Arjay is apparently immune to the wonderful irony of accusing someone of something, then doing that very same thing, in exactly the same paragraph. While we are at it, Ben Heard is said to be the coolest man in the world.

Thank you Arjay, you made my day.

Ben Heard,have you read the numerous articles by Arnie Gunderson? http://fairewinds.com Dr Helen Cauldicott is a very credible source also.

Time for Ben Heard to have a look in the mirror also.How about addressing Gunderson's reality of hot particles and the radiation in Tokoyo?

Sadly - but inevitably - you are backing another dud horse, Arjay.

>>have you read the numerous articles by Arnie Gunderson?<<

While there is no doubt that Mr Gundersen (note the spelling) promotes himself as some kind of expert - presumably to enable him to make some money on the pundit circuit - he is far from the genuine article, I'm afraid.

A quick poke around the glorious interwebs will show that he has a background as an engineer in a minor nuclear facility, a million miles from the complexity of the systems upon which he now presumes to pass judgment. His experience dates from 1972 to 1990, since which time he has earned his crust as a high school teacher. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it is hard to take him seriously with such a tenuous connection with the serious issues that he now pontificates upon, is it not...

I suspect there are many who contribute to this very site who are better qualified, more capable, and more credible on the topic than dear "Arnie".

Pericles again rides the steed of consensus logic with no facts or cognitive fidelity to back it up.Just like the BS of Global Warming you accept consensus science.

Character assassination is the tool of the desperate and clueless Pericles,of which you are the master.You have failed repeatedly to argue the logic of the 911 crimes and again fail to do likewise on Fukushima.

"… accept consensus science." So how does this work, Arjay? Does only the reverse apply? Gundersen must be right because no one else has been able to replicate his claimed findings of those five soil samples.

Of which, if memory serves me, only one showed one isotope that seemed to represent an anomaly of any potential significance?

"Character assassination is the tool of the desperate and clueless…" seems unfair, given your extensive posting history uses character assassination as frequently as other people use correct syntax.

Oh come now, Arjay.

Face it, you're not even fooling yourself any more.

>>Pericles again rides the steed of consensus logic with no facts or cognitive fidelity to back it up<<

Logic needs no consensus. If it did, your own stance on 9/11 would be thoroughly steamrollered by the vast majority of observers who accept the facts as they have been presented. As it is, you have been unable to devise even a non-consensus version of those events that stands up to a single moment's scrutiny. So on both counts, you lack any credibility whatsoever.

>>Character assassination is the tool of the desperate and clueless Pericles,of which you are the master.<<

Maybe so. Although the status of "master" is debatable. I consider myself a novice - a perpetual learner, if you will - in all fields in which I dabble. Unlike your current choice of doom'n'gloom pundit, who presents himself as some kind of expert in his field.

When he most clearly is not.

You can easily find, as I did, a substantial body of evidence - real evidence, not merely wild claims of the sort Gundersen has become famous for - that show him up as a noisy agitator with only a marginal grasp of the facts.

Here's just one, in a series of many.

http://atomicinsights.com/2012/07/arnie-gundersen-caught-on-video-lying-about-risk-of-radiation-released-during-fukushima-event.html

It has nothing to do with character assassination, and everything to do withe the credibility of your sources. Which remain, as ever, thoroughly questionable.

But please, don't stop. Every one of your posts acts as an incentive for me to dig a little deeper, and sift the credible from the fanciful.

If you do nothing else with your life Arjay, at least you can claim the honour of being a tremendous motivator for truth.

Only not, quite, in the way that you seem to see yourself.

"Conspiracy theories are the exhaust fumes of democracy."

(Christopher Hitchens)

Arjay,

"The indirect death toll from Chernobyl is said to be a million"

Said by who? The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation put the death toll at less than 60. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html The World Health Organisation have concluded from models that eventually up to (a *maximum* of) 4000 people may die from the Chernobyl disaster. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

"Fukushima is worse"

Bollocks. The radiological release from Fukushima was less than 5% that of Chernobyl. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station

"Dr Helen Cauldicott is a very credible source also."

Helen Caldicott has never released a peer-reviewed paper on the biological effects of radiation in her life. And she frequently makes things up. She even thinks the UN are in a conspiracy cover up with the nuclear industry about Chernobyl (see: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on ). She is probably the least credible person I can think of when it comes nuclear - in a vein similar to "Lord" Monckton on climate change. And I mean that literally.

@Curmudgeon, I would put a decent sum of money down on the idea that that 0.5% of children had cysts greater than 5.0mm on March 10 2011, in other words, it's a back ground level. OF course we can't know because no one was looking then. That's the thing with epidemiology, it's difficult, and the first thing you look for is a baselines to compare things to. Unless you are this author, in which case the first think you do is make stuff sound scary and promote the longevity of oil and gas above nuclear.

One does not need to read past the second paragraph to realise this is an article fuelled by nothing other than John's personal emotions towards nuclear power. John, to imply that anyone *actually qualified* to be discussing risks of nuclear power generation in comparison to oil and gas, is a 'renegade nuclear scientist' just goes to show the nature of this article.

The second paragraph of the article states how John has no intent to consider anything a nuclear scientist would say when writing the article. So how did this article get published and why? What is the hidden agenda of John and Online Opinion?

The advert at the top of this page tells me to "Trade on oil, at trader24dotcom. Oil has already been found, now allow the profits to spill over". Clearly this article has been published so as to gain an audience from oil advocates, and thereby attract more click-through profits from trader24dotcome advertisements. Well if you can't beat them at their own game, join them at their own game.

http://decarbonisesa.com
http://thoriumaustralia.org
http://energyfromthorium.com

Thanks Ben. I'd heard this thyroid growth stuff and was intending to chase it back to its roots. You've done the work, thanks.

That's the problem with anti-nukes. They don't look deeper than headlines. Caldicott a reliable source? I recently watched her Canadian Press conference just after the quake. My favourite of her string of falsehoods was that zirconium ignites when exposed to air (3:30) into the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV7Rn06j_cY

She's had decades to learn about zirconium fuel rods and is still as ignorant as ever. Here's a video clip of some engineers putting a blow torch to a fuel rod ... 2000 degrees and it didn't ignite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__2yWx9zGY

You can find pictures of zirconium vases on the net. But the journalists just wrote it all down and probably quoted her as a source.

Her entire interview is like that ... a continual string of rubbish. When Caldicott started her crusade decades ago, there was no internet so checking stuff was tough. Now its easy, but the Arjays of the world just believe stuff without bothering to check.

@Geoff Russell thanks, but the thing is that only took me about 20 mins. The difference I suggest is whether one wants the truth or just want the angle.

For example, this only took about 20 seconds. Searching for "thyroid nodules" tells me this from the Australian Medical Journal of Australia site: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2004/180/5/6-thyroid-nodules-and-thyroid-cancer

"The reported prevalence of thyroid nodules varies with the method of screening. In autopsy series, up to 50% of clinically normal thyroid glands contain nodules. A lower prevalence is found by ultrasonography. For example, nodules were found in 27% of randomly selected people aged 19–50 years in an iodine-sufficient area of Finland; only 5% of these people had a clinically detectable abnormality.2 Fifty per cent of people with clinically detected solitary nodules have additional nodules when studied further by ultrasonography."

With a note of caution that these stats are for adults and not children, we can see that thyroid nodules are basically as common as muck, if you look for them you find them, and most likely a third of us reading this article have them without knowing. On children this paper states:

"Thyroid nodules are less common in children and adolescents than in adults, the prevalence of palpable thyroid nodules in childhood being about 1.5%, whereas in adulthood it is 4-7%." http://www.hormones.gr/pdf/Management%20of%20thyroid%20nodules%20in%20children.pdf

So assuming "palpable" roughly equates with the 5.0 mm size, which seems reasonable, both these studies of Japanese children is roughly normal for detection of large nodules.

Yet this author sees fit to ignore all of this, instead contributing to efforts to scare parents who, I would say, have suffered enough without having their children's health being co-opted into this obvious oil and gas agenda.

I'm disgusted.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20908 Prof karl Grossman makes ref to a book in 2010 put out by 3 reputed scientists that 985,000 died from cancer caused by Chernobyl between 1986 and 2004.

The nuclear industry of power is closely linked to the war machine since it only takes a few more steps to refine uranium to create WMD's.We now know that Depleted Uranium was used is Iraq as ref by Helen Caldicott and Prof Chris Busby.Busby found evidence in women's hair at Fallujia of radiation that was refined beyond DU.He surmises that it might be some sort of new nuke weapon that we don't know about.There is photographic evidence of huge explosions in Iraq that may well be mini nukes.

Fukushima was a disaster waiting to happen.It was 1970's technology with few safegards and they stored 40 yrs of waste just above reactors in a earthquake zone.

They need to move to modern technology and progress to nuclear fusion if this industry is to have a future.

@Poirot

Hitchen's never seems to run out of those bon mot. I love the guy to bits. Sadly during his life I was only dimly aware of his brilliance. Since I read his glowing obits I read more and got to see his true stature. I could (and have) go/ne on and on.

Suffice ; The thing that distingushes Hitchins from his peers is his open mindedness. He says the most outrageous things - like calling B.S. on Momma T and Lady Di. He always backs it up to the hilt though - you might disagree with his conclusions but you gotta respect his rigour.

Interesting to see the effect he has had on some of his doctrinare aquantances. They called him a hero when he agrees with them and when he "turned" conservative they hated his guts. In truth he has never really bivouacked in any camp. He still respects the Lefty idealists he followed in his youth - he sorts the good from the bad and gives each it's due. Mind like a razor blade.

"Conspiracies Thoeries are the exaust fumes of Democracy"

R.I.P. ChrisTOPHER - you died too young Bro and we miss you .

@Arjay

Mate I cant work out what you are getting a here.

Which "war machine" ? Weapons nuclear explosive materials are specificly manufactured for that purpose. It's all done deliberately and not part of some clandestine conspiracy. Nuclear fuel from the power industry is a completely different animal. Pigs and Pineapples mate. Am I missing your point here?

"....evidence in women's hair at Fallujia of radiation that was refined beyond DU."

What does that mean ? Radiation is more than one thing. Depleted Uranium isn't radioactive. It is used in munitions for its physical properties, where they are pretty nasty to be on the recieving end of too, even confining themselves to the physics Newton knew about.

Now " ..photographic evidence of huge explosions in Iraq that may well be mini nukes." Here you are getting a bit too fabulous. Militarily it would make no sense - conventional explosives like the daisy cutter fills that role far more manageably. In terms of Physics it makes no sense either - back to Pigs and Pinapples. It was possible to use radioisotope tracing to figure out what happened 65 million years ago. If they had used low yield nukes in Iraq it would stand out like dogs knackers.

Mate I am no expert. I did a bit of TAFE and some Uni. I always try to avoid intellectual overreach. I try to check my facts. I am never totaly sure of anything and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Mere hand waving and repeating conspriacy theories are great around the billy but dont cut it in the real world.

>The nuclear industry of power is closely linked to the war machine since it only takes a few more steps to refine uranium to create WMD's.

Slightly more complicated than that I'm afraid. But of course we all know about japan's secret nuclera weapon program.

>We now know that Depleted Uranium was used is Iraq as ref by Helen Caldicott and Prof Chris Busby.

Actually no, we could ask the US DoD and they would tell us that they use DU and have done so for a long time.

>Busby found evidence in women's hair at Fallujia of radiation that was refined beyond DU.He surmises that it might be some sort of new nuke weapon that we don't know about.There is photographic evidence of huge explosions in Iraq that may well be mini nukes.

I think it was actually the aliens from area 52.

>Fukushima was a disaster waiting to happen.It was 1970's technology with few safegards and they stored 40 yrs of waste just above reactors in a earthquake zone.

Finally something that we can agree on. Well the Japanese were unlucky, this was a very very big earthquake (which the reactor survived fine, I note) but they should ahve planned for it, and it was 1960s technology, such as no one is suggesting should be built now.

@Arjay, the book you referred to attributed every single excess death in the region to Chernobyl, whether radioligical in cause or not, through a period that saw the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the massive dislocation that went with it. So... cirrhosis of the liver is no longer caused by vodka, but by Chernobly. It is total junk science , the proof being that even Jim Green from FOE will not touch it and advises other's not to do so any more. Walk away from that one mate, you've been 'ad.

To make fuel you enrich to 3-5% U235. To make weapons material you enrich to 80% or more and yes, the same basic centrifuge technology does both. So the nuclear power plant side of things does not even enter the equation any more; those nefarious states don't build nuclear power, they pursue hidden enrichment facilities.

Depleted Uranium? It is no secret that it was used in Iraq. As a heavy and tough metal it has been used in shell casing and armour for ages. It's toxic if you inhale it in the same way lead is. It's not particularly radioactive, which is why it's so plentiful compared to U235. The rest is Caldicott doing her thing. The tragedy here is a fossil fuel driven war that lead to the shells being fired IMO.

For once I agree. The Fukushima siting of spent fuel was pretty silly design. Fortunately it is also completely irrelevant to any decision Australia might make from here such as perhaps an AP1000, an Enhanced CANDU 6, a Small Modular Reactor or preferably Integral Fast Reactor, which pretty much brings the benefits of fusion, difference being it is on the commercialisation pathway.

Meanwhile, back on topic, this article by John Daly is demonstrably a lot of fear-mongering cobblers by a fossil-fuel lover that runs the risk of further traumatising the parents of children in Japan by falsely suggesting that their children are in the early stages of developing cancer. Do you not agree? Or has that all become a little bit inconvenient?

The fact that anyone would accept the Yablokov book Arjay linked to, a non peer-reviewed book which is not accepted in mainstream science, above the findings of UNSCEAR and WHO clearly suggests confirmation bias. Cherry picking.

The "war machine" thing is simply the anti-nuclear equivalent of the Gish Gallop.

@Ben

I just got done with "The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes" - grueling stuff. Anyone considering the pros and cons of the nuclear issue needs to read it.

If anything it shows how complex the flow of history is. What happened in Hiroshima and Dresden and Iwo Jima and Auswitz make it easy to belive in Satan incarnate. Oppenhiemer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita Shiva "I am become Death the shatterer of worlds".

There is the arithmetic of peace which vanishes into the evil calculus of total war. God help us then.

That said I agree with you. Root causes were competition for resources. If at the close of the 1800s the world's nations had adequate energy / food / minerals to provide a living for the population how much misery might have been averted?

Atoms for Peace is an old idea that needs a relook.

@Mark I believe plentiful and equitable access to energy with minimal or effectively no negative environmental connotation would be a roundly wonderful thing for humanity. In so many ways, but just consider that it will let us meet the coming desalination challenge.

That's why I write stuff like this:http://theconversation.edu.au/safe-zero-carbon-and-proven-is-fourth-generation-nuclear-the-energy-solution-4204

and why Tom Keen and I write stuff like this when people go out of their way to spread FUD http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13746

Can radiation from a single micro/nano particle of Cesium be measured easily?
Can a single particle of Cesium become lodged in a particle of algae eaten by an anchovy eaten by a tuna eaten by a human?
Can a particle of cesium become caught in a human bowel or breast or liver or other body organ or part?

What was ever made public about radioactive water including Cesium leaked into the ocean where seaweed and fish are farmed? What has ever been said about radiation in the ocean food web of the region?

Would it ever be possible to prove increased rates of cancer worldwide may be linked to single particles of cesium?

Should there be concern about cesium in seafood or other food?

Yes JF Aust.Hot particles like caesium which mimic compounds in out bodies are a real danger.The rates of cancer since the inception of the nuclear age have increased while heart disease has fallen.

In Fallujia Iraq,the birth defects were that bad that women were told to stop having babies.Prof Chris Busby has found evidence of radiation that is not from DU.Sperm counts in Israel since the Gulf wars are down by 40%.No studies have been done in nearby Arab countries.

We will not know the full extent of the Fukushima disaster for decades to come.Only a fool would not take heed of hot particles that have half lives from hundreds to millions of years which cannot be removed from our food chain.

@ JF Aus my answers in order.

There is some remarkably sensitive detection equipment. A single particle? Don't know

Sure, possible

Sure, seems conceivable

Plenty of discussion of the amount of radiation that went out with the water and it's dispersion. Section 5 of this report gives you a start http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station/

Loads, by all sorts of people. But what I think you are getting at, food sampling has been extensive and some restrictions are in place , see bottom of this page http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/statusreports/fukushima27_04_12.html which includes these outcomes: "Analytical results for 15554 (over 98%) of the 15792 samples indicated that Cs-134 and Cs-137 or I-131 were either not detected or were below the provisional regulation values or new standard limits for radionuclides (effective from 1 April 2012) set by the Japanese authorities.However, 13 samples were above the provisional regulation values and 225 samples were above the new standard limits for radionuclides Cs-134 and Cs-137"

No, key words being "single particle". No matter how controversial the source, radiation is travelling energy. Your body does not know the difference of where it came from. Whether industrial caesium or natural potasssium, the source cannot overcome two key issues: total dose and dose rate. To have a problem you need a large enough dose, at a high enough rate, to overcome your body's extensive protective mechanism against cell damage from radiation and other sources. Radiation is natural, happening all the time including inside your body. All food is radioactive to some extent. Every second you are alive, there are about 7,000 radioactive decays happening in your body, some of which will cause damage, but we are designed to cope with this. It's normal. The problem comes if one gets too much dose, too quickly.

Yes, at sufficiently high levels there absolutely should be. As noted above, some foods in Japan currently have restrictions which I have no doubt are highly cautious. But there is no global pandemic in the offing. If you have concern about food and cancer, read the work by these guys and follow their recommendations http://www.wcrf.org/index.php

Arjay, you continue to make statements without references, and won't acknowledge any of the errors we have pointed out in your claims.

"In Fallujia Iraq,the birth defects were that bad that women were told to stop having babies"

Really? Told by who? Fear mongerers like Chris Busby? The guy has been caught out selling bogus "medicine", cashing in on what happened at Fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima . How immoral is that? The guy is a complete fraud.

There were no birth defects detected among the children of atomic-bomb survivors in Japan, and they received far higher doses than anyone did from Fukushima (http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html ).

"Only a fool would not take heed of hot particles that have half lives from hundreds to millions of years which cannot be removed from our food chain."

Only a fool would make a statement like that without quantifying the relative risk. Here's what UNSCEAR and WHO have to say about Fukushima health risks: http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686 "Studies indicate minimal health risks from radiation in the aftermath of Japan’s nuclear disaster." Only a fool would ignore the absolute peak bodies on this issue, comprising the world's foremost experts in this field. Frankly, denying this is as bad as claiming the IPCC are completely wrong on climate change.

Tom Keen ,you have been given numerous references that you refuse to acknowledge or read.I think it is called cognitive dissonance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6ix6swkXsb This is a must see interview with Prof Chris Busby.He has found evidence in Falluja of a new nuke weapon the USA has been using.It was not Depleted Uraniuam as people thought.It was slightly enriched Uranium.

Here you will see the effects of this radiation on the people of Falluja.Not also the US soldiers suffer from Guld War syndrome also having children with birth defects.

My questions are from my point of view developed from understanding coastal alongshore current, whereas oceanographers tend to study the big open ocean currents.
For example, I deal with sewage nutrient pollution from southern Victoria reaching Cape York and the Arafura Sea, dissolved nutrient loads transported within alongshore current of the Australian sediment dispersal system.
So with Fukushima radiation leaked and dumped on the coast in alongshore current water, to me it is not what went OUT off the coast. It's what went up and down the coast where the estuaries are, and where seaweed and fish are grown, where the food web estuary nurseries are.
Northward in Japan there is the Hokkaido herring nurseries and migratory tuna feeding grounds, what's left of it all anyway.
As for radiation, I saw and heard a radiation professor explain how a single particle of Cesium can become lodged in the human body and cause cancer.
I have wondered how people could return to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and live there, but they do. I now understand it's the type of radiation that is the killer, such as a single micro/nano particle of Cesium.
But can a single particle of Cesium be detected, in say the food scanning process in use these days?

JF Aust.Can a single atom of Caesium be detected? According to Arnie Gunderson from Fairewinds,not very easily.Contact him on http://fairewinds.com and also Prof Chris Busby who has an association with Dr Helen Caldicott.

I've seen video Prof Busby almost in tears as he laments the cover ups and the total lack of accountability by those in the nuke industry.

The way forward is better technology and nuclear fusion,but this greedy corporate mentality are clinging to old outdated technology to make money.

Private enetrprise that controls our Govts makes for an extremely dangerous partnership.The West lives in an Oligarchy in which voting gives us the illusion of democracy.The left /right paradigm is used to confuse the masses and protect a greedy elite.

Arjay

"Tom Keen ,you have been given numerous references that you refuse to acknowledge or read.I think it is called cognitive dissonance."

If accepting reports by the UN and WHO over non-peer-reviewed books, a fraudulent quack (Chris Busby) and youtube videos is "cognitive dissonance", then yes, I have cognitive dissonance.

Arjay, see this at the following link:
(copied and pasted)
If anybody is going to see radioactive transport outside of Japan, I would think at this point, we are going to see it in the marine environment, not in the air. We are going to see a lot more of it coming through the ocean, maybe through food coming from the ocean than we are going to see it in these airborne particles.
(end)
http://fairewinds.com/content/hot-particles-and-measurement-radioactivity

@JF Aus, it appears I wasted my key strokes. Just in case, I'll repeat the basics.

It is the dose, and dose rate, not the source, that increases the risk of harm. Somewhat analogous to incidental sunshine and solariums; one's body cannot distinguish that the solarium is not natural and the sunshine is, but it sure notices the massive dose and high dose rate of UV energy from the solarium. Similarly, the massive dose of radiation associated with radiotherapy destroys cancer cells. It also makes people feel ill from the large dose that misses the target and goes to surrounding healthy tissue (despite best efforts)until they have repaired. But a few extra bananas in your week or a just barely detectable level of some foreign source of radiation is not going to budge your risk profile.

Of course, if you want to listen to Arne and his ilk and be sh!tscared by all this, be my guest. Others may choose to understand the processes at play, put things in context and get on with life.

@Arjay I'll interpret your silence on the subject of the article that started all this as a concession that it is a lot of old cobblers, but you are too intellectually dishonest to concede this.

@Ben Heard,
I hear you Ben.
But dose of what?
And dose of what at what dose rate?
What might be the impact of one dose of one single micro-particle of Cesium?

Perhaps Chris Busby's "tears" were because people were no longer buying his pretend medicine? Just a thought.

@JF Aus No worries.

Dose of radiation. Radiation can occur in a few forms that penetrates and impacts on human tissue in some slightly different ways. Just measuring the raw radiation is done in units of becquerals or Gray. To understand how it might impact a human, the difference is expressed in Relative Biological Effectivness (RBE). Now, there is a unit called the Sievert that accounts for the RBE, so if you see things expressed in Sv, you know they are comparable. This is a bit like the way the multitude of different greenhouse gases are normalised and expressed in tCO2-e (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). Not a perfect example, but not bad.

From here, an inforgraphic is truly worth 1,000 words. This brilliant inforgraphic captures both the dose and dose rate issue to give you a really good understanding. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/ Go all the way to the bottom to see the scales at play.

Note the level 100mSv being the lowest annual dose at which any increased risk of cancer has been evident. That data was comes from the a-bomb survivors; a not inconsiderable dose in the scheme of things. But the increased risk they refer to at that level is very, very small.

Note on this chart, some of the instant dose levels that appear pretty small are, nonetheless, things like x-ray and CT scans.

So, to your question, the dose of one single micro-particle of caesium and having it stay in your body? I can't say for sure, but I can't see how that could even get a place on this chart at the low end.

What do you think?

@ Ben Heard

I think all government and radiation and other experts best think about dispersal and impact of caesium following leakage into ocean food web currents from likes of the Fukushima nuclear breakdown.
Not being able to measure a particle of caesium that may become lodged in a human body and cause cancer should be reason for great concern that should justify all relevant research possible. For example new absolutely sensitive measuring technology seems essential, both to help find a single caesium particle in food, and for human body biopsy science.
I am not a radiation expert and until today spelt caesium Cesium.
But I understand coastal currents linked to the world ocean food web and caesium in those waters should be immediately assessed and precautions taken urgently for the immediate future.
(continued next post)

@JF Aus, you are suggesting we go after barely detectable levels of one specific type of contamination in fish that will result in some kind of increased risk that would be calculated to be zero point lots more zeros "something".

Ok, that's one idea.

OR, maybe we close every single coal plant in the world in favour of a nuclear plant, and instantly eliminate vast quantities of a wide range of toxic environmental pollutants that are dumped on use every single day with no controversy whatsoever.

You have to measure you monsters.

Ben Heard,"It is the dose and dose rate,not the source that increases harm."

If you looked at the link by JF Aus to Arnie Gunderson's http://fairewinds.com/ you have to come to terms with "hot particles" that mimic compounds in our bodies,thus are assimilated by our bodies as being normal.They gnaw away at our genetic integrity over a long period of time,causing caners and genetic deformities.

Children are the most suseptable since their cells divide more rapidly.

The nuclear industry needs a huge wake up call since they have become indolent and unaccountable.

As I've stated previously,the way forward is nuclear fusion and far better technology.Private eneterprise via this oligarchical system has perverted our Govts.Fukushima is another enormous cover up that is still spewing radiation into our environment.3 reactors have gone into meltdown.They cannot contain or control it.

I would not be eating fish coming from anywhere near Japan for a long time.

You can cross this one off your list of things to worry about, Arjay.

>>...you have to come to terms with "hot particles" that mimic compounds in our bodies,thus are assimilated by our bodies as being normal.They gnaw away at our genetic integrity over a long period of time,causing caners and genetic deformities<<

Ben Heard is right about the dose rate.

"It has been suggested that spatially non-uniform radiation exposures, such as those from small radioactive particles ('hot particles'), may be very much more carcinogenic than when the same amount of energy is deposited uniformly throughout a tissue volume. This review provides a brief summary of in vivo and in vitro experimental findings, and human epidemiology data, which can be used to evaluate the veracity of this suggestion. Overall, this supports the contrary view and indicates that average dose, as advocated by the ICRP, is likely to provide a reasonable estimate of carcinogenic risk (within a factor of ~ ±3)."

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/23/1/301

Similar conclusion here, too.

"On the specific issue of risks from local ‘hot’ particle alpha irradiation of tissues, animal studies of chromosomal aberrations and cancer in liver after ‘hot’ particle irradiation suggest that effects can be related to average tissue dose (Brooks et al, 1974, 1983; Barcellos-Hoff and Brooks, 2001; see Annex 2D)"

http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf

Put it this way. When you have peer-reviewed, well-referenced scientific reports on the one hand, and wild-eyed unsubstantiated scaremongering speculations posted to YouTube on the other, I know which I consider more reliable.

So pericles,using your logic the IPCC is 100% correct about C02 causing catastrophic global warming which we have yet to experience.

It is the financial system that wants the taxes and ETS to screw us even more.It is the Nuclear Industry which is heavily subsidised by the tax payer again,that does not want to be held accountable.

Here again you reference consensus science that has a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

So Arjay won't accept UNSCEAR's or WHO's reports on the effects of radiation, won't accept the IPCC's reports on climate change, and thinks carbon taxes are designed to "screw us".

I don't think anything else needs to be said...

@ Ben Heard,
(my previous post continued here. Delay due post limit)

Dust also concerns me.
Consider this. Two years ago a tree trunk snapped while I was on a ladder and I took the the fall on my front upper chest. Ambulance to hospital led to xray that revealed a 10 cent sized spot on my lower right lung. Cancer was suspected. Tests allover did not show cancer anywhere else. Good cardio-thorasic surgeon Brady chopped off that lower lobe. Lab study revealed 3 things, it was cancer, early stage, no further treatment.
My point is I am still alive and there is no sign the disease still in my body. I think the source was cut out with the cancer, but did the lab see a catalyst? I don't think so.
I thoiught my mobile phone carried in a belt-pouch could have been the aggravating factor. But I now think a particle of toxic whatever may have been the cause.
I deal with toxic algae, including Lyngbya cyanobacteria known to cause asthma-like attack on contact with human skin. Imagine a toxic particle of Lyngbya caught inside a lung.
Algae dries on beaches and is blown by wind.
Wind blows heavy sand to form huge sand islands in waters where major Lyngbya blooms have occurred, still occurring.
Imagine consequences from a particle of caesium in household dust.
Tissue of breasts and prostate glands and other organs have a great deal of blood/water come and go.
Dust falls in to dams. I think a micro particle of toxic algae or caesium could be carried in water from dams into household water supply and into a human body.
Surely there are precautions that can be taken. Surely there are some solutions.
Or are we all too tough, stubborn or bigoted to consider and debate and find solutions to it all?
Thanks Ben for answering my question/s.

Tom Keen if you believe the global warming rubbish caused by CO2 then you will believe anything.

Arjay, 100% correct.

Tom Keen,

Listen to Arjay - he's an expert.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5291&page=0#143533

....as you can see : )

CO2 driving AGW is the nonsense.
Take away CO2 from the science and assess all other possible sources of warmth, for example sources warming areas of the globe.
Ocean dominates control of weather and atmospheric chemistry, not CO2.
Sure air pollution is a problem but it is not caused by CO2 alone.
It amazes me how unprecedented sewage nutrient pollution proliferating unprecedented ocean algae generating photosynthesis-linked warmth in that ocean algae, has not been measured and assessed in AGW and Kyoto science.
Can anyone show evidence such warmth in ocean algae has been measured and assessed?

poirot,I do not claim to be any expert but I listen to alternative experts amd form my own opinion.

The Nuke Industry is unaccountable and out of control.They are not using best practise or the latest technology.Everything done at Fukushima was wrong.I'm not against nuclear power generally,but nuclear fission is not the answer.

Google Israeli sperm counts down 40%.This has happened in the last 10-20 yrs when the Gulf wars started.Falluja has massive birth defect problems.

The US has not only been using depleted Uranium but as Prof Busby has found,some sort of new nuke technology which is illegal.If this stupidity continues,over population will not be the major problem.Having enough viable genetic material to continue the human species may be a bigger hurdle not to mention the destruction of our bio-diversty which sustains the planet and gives us food.

"poirot,I do not claim to be any expert but I listen to alternative experts amd form my own opinion."

There would be no lack of consensus, Arjay, that you form your own opinion. Some might even concede that you listen to alternative experts. Most, though, would concur with me that you only seem to hear what you want to. For instance (again):

"The US has not only been using depleted Uranium but as Prof Busby has found,some sort of new nuke technology which is illegal."

On 13 April I quoted to you from Busby's report, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009"

The one that interviewed 4843 people, reporting 16 cases of childhood cancer.

The report that concluded: "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

It doesn't actually seem to have found any sort of 'new nuke technology', illegal or otherwise. Does it?

WmTrevor,you are lying.This is not what Chris Busby said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6ix6swkXs

Also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects In this article they say that in Falluja the serious birth deformities/cancer are 15 times that of the norm.

So Wmtrevor,start addressing the truth.

I think there will be a massive spike in cancer from Fukushima caesium, say 10 years and more from now.

Lying? Not me, Arjay… It really was 13 April that I posted those extracts from Busby's report. I also don't know whether to be offended that you forgot to call me stupid.

And, strictly speaking I didn't claim Busby said it, but it is what he wrote - if he is now saying anything different, it's not based on that research and he is lying if he says that it is.

Since he is your cited authority, maybe you could ask him if his published report was wrong?

My take on his "Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq" is that the statistical deviations on the reported results are not outside the range to be expected from the relevent background water and soil samples and natural environment - but no doubt you'll tell me why you think otherwise.

The Guardian piece was interesting and without wishing to seem callous you do realise neural tube defects are the most common type as well as being the most easily prevented with sufficient folic acid in the mother's diet during initial stages of pregnancy?

In case you didn't read beyond your favourite part - the headline - what did you make of this?

"Falluja's frontline doctors are reluctant to draw a direct link with the fighting. They instead cite multiple factors that could be contributors.

"These include air pollution, radiation, chemicals, drug use during pregnancy, malnutrition, or the psychological status of the mother," said Dr Qais [Falluja general hospital's director and senior specialist]. "We simply don't have the answers yet.""

Since we've had the benefit of nearly 3 years since the newspaper article has there been any update?

And more to topic: 0120-926-404. In case anyone needs it this is the number in Japan 'for those afflicted by the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Nuclear Damage Compensation)'. The Tepco.co.jp website yields hours of hugely detailed technical reading in you're interested.

WmTrevor where are these extracts from the Busby Report? Do you make things up as you write them?

I've had info just tday from a friend who has contacts in Japan.If this ifo is right,it is a lot worse than than even I imagined.Fukushima continues to spew radiation into the environment.Apparently the authorities and Tepko are in denial and have a not a clue to approach this disaster,let alone contain it.

The Russians put 800,000 personal into the Chernobyl disaster.No such reaction has happened in Japan.The Russians encased their reactor in concrete and steel.Japan has just poured water on 3 reactors in meltdown which has gone into our oceans.

Wm Trevor,Care to put a bet on which disaster is worse? It will take but a couple of years for the truth to emerge.

"WmTrevor where are these extracts from the Busby Report? Do you make things up as you write them?"

Arjay, you shouldn't judge my ignorance or methods by your standards.

If, "The report that concluded:" was an insufficient guide – try section 4 Conclusions, page 9, sentence number six. The one immediately before Acknowledgements.

And just in case it's needed:
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ISSN 1660-4601
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Article: Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009
Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi
Received: 7 June 2010; in revised form: 23 June 2010 / Accepted: 30 June 2010 / Published: 6 July 2010,

As for: "The Tepco.co.jp website yields hours of hugely detailed technical reading [if] you're interested."

Your comment: "Apparently the authorities and Tepko are in denial and have a not a clue to approach this disaster,let alone contain it." indicates that you're not interested. Your choice of course.

But it is a poor one.

Link to your Busby anomolies WmTrevor or retract your comments.

It was silly of me to assume, Arjay, that in your general thread, "Ignoring Fukushima at our peril" when you said things like:

"Note also Planet3 that Prof Busby says the USA were using some sort of new nuke in Fallugah and not DU." on 9 April 9; then

"Yes Planet3.Dumbfounded is not enough to express my amazement.Prof Chris Busby has done studies at Fallugah in Iraq.Drs there have told women to stop having babies because the the extreme congential birth defects.Busby first suspected Depleted Uranium,but upon inspection of women's hair samples,found that it was Uranium refined to a nuclear weapons level.He suspects a mini nuke or at the outside some sort of a neutron bomb that emits lower levels of radiation." on 12 April…

That you'd actually read the reports Busby wrote, including the one I've referenced above.

Well I've learnt not to assume or be surprised by your level of research any more.

I am, though, surprised that given the amount of information I supplied above, you can't find it and need me to give you this:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

Because I'm still in a helpful mood – here is a link to a free downloadable font for you to use to display the report if it will make it easier to read:

http://www.dafont.com/pastel-crayon.font

Now which comments did you want to retract?

Wmtrevor if you looked at the video of Busby on Youtube that I referenced,then you would not need to conjure up all these lies.Prof Busby is a real man if integrity.Unfortunately you are not.

I did, I didn't, I don't think so. I am.

Of course the preceding posts stand as a public testament to not only my, but also your, level of integrity.

So others can draw their own conclusions.