tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post6706020306673937041..comments2024-02-29T00:46:38.800-08:00Comments on Washingtons Blog: No, a Little Radiation Is NOT Good For YouUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-83183442885621856782011-05-03T11:21:25.068-07:002011-05-03T11:21:25.068-07:00I agree with the author and with Majia's comme...I agree with the author and with Majia's comment.<br /><br />The arguments of the hormesis proponents are flawed for three reasons:<br /><br />- on the theoretical level: they do not have a serious model modelizing internal exposure. When you do, you take into account the difference between tissues, cells and organs.<br /><br />- on the epidemiological level: they conveniently ignore serious epidemiological research. Their "studies" are selective and biaised, as many independent study shows (see below for a link to references).<br /><br />- on the methodological level: they are funded by the nuclear industry, in one way or another.<br /><br />Be careful: truly independent research groups on radiation risks are very, very rare. (For instance, the ICRP, the NRCPM, the UNSCEAR that the author quotes are all funded by the nuclear industry.) One independent research group is the ECRR (European Commission on Radiation Risk). Their research is much more serious and documented.<br /><br />http://www.euradcom.org<br /><br />The site contains many documents, notably (largely unaddressed by the mainstream media and science community) a book on Chernobyl and the ECRR 2010 Recommendations (which details the ECRR model, the epidemiological studies, a clear-cut refutation of the IRCP model and the hormesis hypothesis, and much more).<br /><br />@mark_ditton: I have to tell you: the pro-hormesis documents your links point to have all the three flaws that I have described above. In a sense I understand you, you try to reassure yourself. I am a scientist, part of that community. I know.Florian Wolfowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01237881869046757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-41755157159690340532011-05-01T19:40:12.314-07:002011-05-01T19:40:12.314-07:00I heard a lot of promo about cocaine being great f...I heard a lot of promo about cocaine being great fun. But a lot of money changed hands and ruination followed. I am glad that I left it alone.<br /> And as far as Taiwan goes, since when has Taiwan been a role model for accuracy and research and integrity.Howard T. Lewis IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12510799883857981986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-50027380777263937102011-05-01T14:04:56.993-07:002011-05-01T14:04:56.993-07:00It's not nearly so simplistic as this author m...It's not nearly so simplistic as this author makes out, and there is ample evidence that the Hiroshima derived acute radiation linear model does not apply not apply to doses of radiation chronic (ie delivered over a long term).<br />I'd agree this shouldn't be generalised to Iodine (which concentrates in the thyroid) or plutonium, but clearly the simplistic "no safe dose" arguments are flawed.<br /><br />Also - do some research into the alternatives (the real ones that is) not windmills, ethanol and solar power - but sadly still coal, as Fusion power is still a pipe dream - at least according to some researchers who I've spoken to, who admit a sustained energy +process seems decades away still...<br />Coal kills a large number of people every year through mining accidents, black lung and significantly increased respiratory ailments.<br />I'd likewise wish we had an alternative, but as an engineer i don't see one on the horizon yet (I don't work it those fields).<br /><br />. Health effects of radiation depend on the circumstances and the dose-rate of radiation being received.<br />. Radiation can be classified into acute radiation and chronic exposure radiation.<br />. Health effects of acute and chronic exposure radiation are contradicting each other.<br />. Acute radiation is mostly harmful to people, but chronic radiation is always beneficial to people.<br />http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/health-effects-radiation-04.ppt<br /><br /><br /> <br />1. Epidemiological studies of people in the higher natural background radiation areas in Kerala (India), Yangjing (China) and Mountain States in USA, had lower cancer deaths. And higher doses received by nuclear workers in many countries result in lower cancer deaths. These results are still not accepted until today by the regulatory communities as human data proving that chronic radiation is beneficial to people.<br />2. The Co-60 contaminated apartments incident, which occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan, did not show harmful effects to people, but only showed it was beneficial to them.<br /><br />0<br />A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronic radiation is always beneficial to humans-2<br />3. A Co-60 source was mixed in metal scrap, melted and drawn into steel bars which were used in the construction of 1700 apartments for about 10,000 residents in 1982-84. The first apartment was discovered in 1992, its residents were irradiated at least for 9 years, the other ones up to 20 years. The annual dose in the first year 1983 was from about 50 mSv/y, high up to 600 mSv/y. The total averaged dose was starting at 0.4 Sv, and high up to 6 Sv.<br />A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronic radiation is always beneficial to humans<br />4. The total doses cumulated in 20 years were higher than the average doses received by the atomic bomb survivors in Japan, and the Russian recovery workers in Chernobyl accident. If LNT model is appropriate for chronic radiation, the excessive doses could induce at least 35 excess leukemia and 35 solid cancer deaths in 20 years. Actually no such deaths were observed. On the contrary, the spontaneous cancer deaths of the residents should have been about 232 in 20 years based on the vital statistics in Taiwan, but only 7 were observed (3% of the 232 that could be expected), as shown in the following curve plotted by Luan et al since 1983.<br />[eg cancer was reduced by 97%!!! Congenital abnormalities by 93%!!]<br /><br />Source http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cobalt-taiw-06.pdfmark_dittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12475816744897607783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-65852340373991590952011-05-01T11:07:15.858-07:002011-05-01T11:07:15.858-07:00I have talked to and met with both of my state'...I have talked to and met with both of my state's nuclear regulators. One heads the state's nuclear regulatory agency (phone conversation) and one is the point person for the state's radiation related emergency response system (met).<br /><br />Both of these individuals are pro-nuclear power.<br /><br />Both of these individuals attempted to trivialize the effects of continuous exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation. One of them was not even familiar with the research on its effects (or pretended ignorance). <br /><br />This individual kept comparing nuclear power favorably with coal (a la Monibot) despite my insistence on keeping the discussion focused on monitoring, emergency response, and long-term cumulative effects.<br /><br />There is no plan to monitor cumulating radiation in our environment. No response will occur unless federal intervention levels are reached.<br /><br />Both individuals attempted to mislead, trivialize, and distract using the absurd and patently false banana analogy for radiation exposure. Both agreed that internal emitters cannot be compared with external exposure, but like a broken record they kept returning to airplane exposure.<br /><br />After reading Fallout and Under the Cloud written about nuclear testing in the US southwest I have lost all faith in our government to protect us against radiation. Literally, the same vocabularies and metaphors are being used now as back then. <br /><br />This incident simply confirms a long trend of government collusion and deceit that began in the 50s and spans through 9/11, the BP mega-disaster, and our present situation.<br /><br />I have lost my faith in science as well, because too many scientists are willing to compromise their objectivity for grant money and industry paychecks.<br /><br />My question is how can we get reliable and valid information about our current level of exposure?<br /><br />I did learn from my conversations that radnet data are not timely. The citizens' radiation network is current, but does not provide any way of interpreting data reported and I'm not sure what the readings indicate.<br /><br />By the way, see http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/ today for his discussion of the expert opinion of someone from Japan Nuclear Technology Institute.<br /><br />CORE ON THE FLOOR scenario. What is the probability of a massive explosion?Majia's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941091700194936591noreply@blogger.com