Published: June 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 am ET
|
‘There’s no safe radiation level’, Free Malaysia Today by Tashny Sukumaran, June 2, 2011:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today admitted there is no such thing as “safe” levels of radiation. [...]
CAP vice-president Mohideen Abdul Kader told reporters after meeting the IAEA panel that they had agreed to carry out a cost-benefit analysis before allowing the plant to start operations.
Mohideen also said that the IAEA’s radiation standards were merely an “international consensus” as studies had not found a safe level of radiation.
He also cited a study from the National Academy of Science which said that one out of five workers would suffer from cancer if exposed to what the IAEA deemed an allowable radiation level.
“The panel said there should be sufficient justification for the project,” said Mohideen, “as their standards are not based on what is safe but how great the benefit.”
Published: June 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 am ET
|
sending...
wow
Report Comment
I agree, there is a “wow” factor here.
Report Comment
So are they finally ready to say what most honest scientists already knew: The radiation-dose effect relationship is linear, with no threshold.
Also, did anybody else see the photo of IAEA inspectors happily walking around Fukushima Daichi plant wearing just gas masks? That’s like the early days of the crisis when TEPCO issued their workers with just dust masks for their faces. Now, even the TEPCO workers are given fully self-contained breathing apparatus when entering the plant premises.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/japan-nuclear-crisis-iaea-report_n_869508.html
Report Comment
photoshop.
Report Comment
Wrong! Dose has no meaning internally. One ray can cause enough damage to cripple your body functions and also that of your progeny. Please read up on line 2010 Recommendations of the ECRR. Go to llrc.org for the URL and explanations.
And of course Alexy V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenkov and Alexey V.Nesterenkov.2009. Chernobyl. Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Environment. Consulting Ed.Janette D Sherman-Nevinger. NYAS.
downloadable from the same site. The linear relation is for external doses.
But IAEA model of radiation safety is based on pre DNA model which is false and not applicable to internal rad emitters.
The is no benefit from nuclear power which does not deliver any energy to the society apart from the nuclear industry.
See http://energyauditofnuclearfuelcycles.blogspot.com/
and
http://energyauditnuclearprogrammeindia.blogspot.com/
Report Comment
I agree with you the linear, no threshold relation holds for external doses only. It’s meaningless when the likes of TEPCO say some worker has had an internal dose of this or that amount, when we know the amount of radiation released inside the body steadily increases all the time as the radioactive substance continues emitting radiation indefinitely, albeit gradually declining by half every half-life. If you ingest a 30-year+ half-life radioisotope, you will have daily harmful radiation emitted inside your body for the rest of your life.
Report Comment
No safe level of radiation. What does that tell u. RADIATION IS DANGEROUS!
Report Comment
Oh, but they say the BENEFIT outweighs the health risks! Keep eating your Turkish Delight.
Report Comment
Maa has come up with the best scientific conclusion I’ve ever seen. [Well done Maa]. It’s a simple model, but profound.
Forget the ICRP and ECRR models.
I’m going with the Maa Model for Low and High Levels of Ionizing Radiation.
Report Comment
OLD News, but only selectively applied.
BEIR VII Study Published in 2006.
The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=323
Report Comment
This is a 400 page study with hundreds of contributors, by the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The study was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. [INDEED!!!!!!]
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R2
Report Comment
“their standards are not based on what is safe but how great the benefit.”
In other words, a certain amount of horrible deaths are acceptable and to be expected using nuclear power.
Report Comment
The end justifies the means.
Report Comment
Oh, that sounds so socialistic – let’s just call it rational cost/benefit analysis. Much more corporate sounding.
Report Comment
After the Gulf spill and Fukushima, can we NOW start getting serious about clean renewable energies, or do we need to argue about it some more?
Report Comment
We should frame your post, or put it on large billboards with blinking lights -all over the world.
Report Comment
Oldie but Goodie. Reread this. This old scientist in Japan has cahoonies to jump off the ban wagon and tell the truth back then.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-ishikawa-of-jnti.html
Report Comment
thanks for this post
Report Comment
http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/lucaswebcamwatch.html
something just happened at reactor 4 on both cams at the same time. Large plume of smoke. Have it on timelapse will upload to youtube soon
Report Comment
Thanks Lucas. Can’t wait to see it. I posted your comment to HP – we’ll see if it appears. I’ll keep watching your SITE FOR THE UPLOADED VIDEO then post when it’s up. TY
Report Comment
Whoopie heres the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cow_QLs5IT0
its at the end of the clip
Report Comment
THANKS
POSTING RIGHT NOW
Report Comment
DAMN LUCAS!! THAT’S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SMOKE!
WAITING FOR FUCKING MODERATORS
TY
Report Comment
yeah I have no idea what just happened, but its not vapors, you could tell the difference when it picked up
Report Comment
I KNOW YOUR WATCHING…BUT!!
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/camera/index-j.html
TONS AND TONS OF SMOKE!
HOPE YOUR GETTING IT UP ON YOUR WEBSITE. I’LL DIRECT PEEPS THERE.
Report Comment
Thanks Lucas…. poor number 4.
Report Comment
On camera right, you can watch flashes from the building reflecting from something to the left of the image. They flicker together. Camera left, you can see smoke and flashing lights, likely ER or FD. Something is aflame.
Report Comment
Looks to me like a lot more steam is being generated at the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. Could be heating up or boiling dry. Or could have finally sprung a leak. No way to tell. But please keep in mind steam/fog is more apparent at nighttime because the ambient temperature is closer to the dew point.
Report Comment
good point with ambient temperature
it appeared to get thicker, denser, and obviously darker on both cams. On the TEPCO cam with the lighting did it appear grey or dark as opposed to a vapor to you?
Report Comment
Looks greyish to me. Very hard to tell at night but I would guess it is water vapor. Don’t think it’s smoke because there’s not too much that combustible on the top level. It seems to be hanging around the No 4 building as a hazy cloud now. I think the pool is getting a lot hotter, not a good sign at all.
Report Comment
Nope. I’ve been watching forever. It’s not water vapors. That’s smoke.
Report Comment
The benefits *to the wealthy* outweigh the risks *to the working class*. Those making the decisions reap all the rewards while forcing workers and their families to suffer the consequences.
Report Comment
Yes..it benefits the wealthy..and those in power in the government.
All for a few bucks or a crumby government job.
Report Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cow_QLs5IT0
its at the end of the clip
Report Comment
Do you think there is a relationship between more nuclear power plants built and the rise in cancers? Is it possible to someone can pass on increased cancer risk to their children by being exposed to nuclear radiation?
Report Comment
Cancers were extremely rare prior to the atomic age !
Nough said !
Report Comment
Sorry Dr.
That’s correlation not causation. As much as I am critical of the nuclear energy
we cannot draw conclusions like that.
Report Comment
Been discussed on forum here before and believe links were provided as to the increases of cancers since atomic age, you are welcome to show links verifying otherwise !
Report Comment
But how would you prove causation except to initiate a grand experiment? Wait for the next meltdown and then give some of the population access to new radiation protection drugs, and the rest are your control. NOW, we can establish causation.
Report Comment
Doc,
I am with you, and intuitively I believe there is causation. Radiation is causing cancer.
However, correlation is not causation. Why I am saying it? Because the corrupt scientist, used this type confusion to justify all sort of bad things. Tobacco Institiute anyone? They used correlation instead of causation to justify the benefits of nicotine.
This two-sided sword of science misuse.
If someone makes statement, it is up to that person to prove in the plausible manner, if questions are raised. It is not on someone to disprove. It means prove ‘Yes’, before someone tries to prove ‘No’.
OK -Doc – I am with yo on this, but your statement raised many red flags. No need to argue.
I do not have any scientific proof that your statement is wrong, but I do not need – see above.
Cheers
Report Comment
The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation…
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm
In a recent study, Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab reported [15] measuring one Curie of radiocesium per year, passing through San Francisco Bay, attached to fine sediment. Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 are the two most abundant fission products, and are commonly measured as an indicator of more than 400 other fission products produced. Therefore far more than one Curie of ionizing radiation per year has been washing through the Bay. Clay particles are highly charged and act as scavenging agents for radioactive particles suspended in water. This has been a chronic and cumulative source of low-level ionizing radiation washing up daily on the San Francisco Bay side of the Marin shoreline for at least 60 years – since atmospheric testing started in 1945, and the likely cause of the high rates of breast cancer reported in Marin County.
Based on 550 epidemiological studies of exposed populations, an independent low-level ionizing radiation report for the European Parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) report, has stated that chronic exposure to low-level ionizing radiation is:
“…up to 1000 times more biologically damaging than the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) standards and risk model predict.”[16]…
http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Populations%20Exposed%20to%20Enviromental%20Uranium.htm
Report Comment
The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation.
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm
During October, women are bombarded with media telling us what we can do to stop breast cancer. Article after article after television human interest segment informs us about personal risk factors such as smoking and being overweight (although 70 percent of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have none of these factors) and about genetic risks (which only account for 10 percent of breast cancers.) We are bombarded with stories about the importance of getting mammograms and other tests. Then there are the survivor stories (usually about women much younger, whiter and cover-girl prettier than the average breast cancer survivor) that pull at our heartstrings. But there is very little mention of environmental factors such as auto exhaust, and chemicals like parabens and phthalates that we are exposed to every day.
The most deafening silence, however, is about radiation, which is a 100 percent known cause of cancer. We are exposed to radiation in a variety of ways, through X-rays, CT scans and mammograms, but also by living near a nuclear power plant or having been exposed to weaponry that uses depleted uranium.
http://www.blackherbals.com/biggest_breast_cancer_risk_factor.htm
Report Comment
Corrupt scientist, may be paid by Nuke Power industry ?
Tobacco may absorb the radiation from fallouts through its roots and causing cancers, it may have been not so bad before chemical treatments of pesticides such as DDT !
The normal back ground is not debated here only the added radiations man has created and plagued is with for eternity !
The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation…
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm
Report Comment
@ Ian, yes. dad had exposure in the 40′s/50′s. = abnormal bone disease & bone infections from the 70′s on to his death. I have bone disease. my girl has minor bone problems now, it is possible to worsen later in her life, as mine did. my half sis died of grossly metastasized cancer in the late 90′s (she was 25 years my senior).
cancer was rare in the 60′s when i was small, by late 80′s many in my family had cancer. by 90′s those were all dead from cancer.
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm
below link NOT for weak stomachs!
http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/30/daughter_of_soldier_contaminated_with_depleted
Report Comment
Yes, google the Sternglass paper on TMI. There’s reasonable evidence that quite small doses affect the fetus in-utero, and if you research hotspots of high infant mortality in the US, you will usually find nearby nuclear power stations…
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2011/05/baby_love_program_combats_high.html
http://wikimapia.org/52167/Salem-Nuclear-Power-Plant-AKA-Artificial-Island
You can also look at the decline in the percentage of the population that is healthy. It is a surprisingly low number.
The US Vital Statistics are your friend for research.
Report Comment
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id153.html
Depleted Uranium:
Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets – A Death Sentence Here And Abroad
By Leuren Moret
San Francisco Bay View, August 18, 2004
“This week the American Free Press dropped a “dirty bomb” on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months.”
They brought it home
“In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans’ families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war.”
Report Comment
and yes, i know Ian’s question was proximity to nuc plants. depleted uranium IS radioactive, i’m not going to split hairs over types of radioactive sources: all of it is damaging if exposed to far too much.
so to address this with nuc plants specifically in mind, here you go!
NUC Plant Fallout Plume Maps in the US:
http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/sitemap-nuclear-power-plant-plumes-25mi.php you can look these up by state and your local nuc plant nearest you.
Cancer Clusters And Nuclear Power Radiation Pollution:
http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/cancer-clusters.php
Report Comment
A second question: Are we marginally safer in the southern hemisphere from this clearly UNNATURAL one-hundred-and fifty percent increase in environmental radiation since 1945? (2.5 mSv/yr pre-Fukushima, is 250% of the earlier truly natural 1 mSv/yr pre-1945)
Thirdly: based on mass epidemiological evidence of low dose internal emitters causing cancer, how many cancers pre-Fukushima were already occurring globally each year due to the global post-1945 appearance of environmental nuclear pollution?
Clearly we can never sort this out if we allow the nuclear industry and its legions of apologists to trick politicians with their lies that 2.5 mSv/yr pre-Fukushima was all natural when it clearly represented a 150% increase above true natural background radiation levels. And the “radiation hormesis” gang need to reset their starting point to pre-1945 levels of environmental radiation viz. 1 mSv/yr…
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/5111/topic5111323.shtm
Iraqi City Has Higher Cancer Rates than Hiroshima
July 24, 2010
SBS TV News & BBC World News
Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias
Iraqi City Has Higher Cancer Rates than Hiroshima
SBS TV News (Australia)
(July 22, 2010) — A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.
A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are significantly higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs of 1945….
Cancer Rate In Fallujah Worse Than Hiroshima
Tom Eley / WSWS.org
(July 23, 2010) — The Iraqi city of…
Report Comment
xdrfox – wow good info here to know….. from an article on your topic:
***Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.***
And that’s the mild stuff to consider….
Report Comment
During the Gulf war, Britain and the United States pounded the city and its surroundings with 96,000 depleted-uranium shells. The wretched creatures in the photographs–for they were scarcely human–are the result, Dr Amer said. He guided me past pictures of children born without eyes, without brains. Another had arrived in the world with only half a head, nothing above the eyes. Then there was a head with legs, babies without genitalia, a little girl born with her brain outside her skull and the whatever-it-was whose eyes were below the level of its nose. Then the chair-grabbing moment–a photograph of what I can only describe (inadequately) as a pair of buttocks with a face and two amphibian arms. Mercifully, none of these babies survived for long.
Depleted uranium has an incubation period in humans of five years. In the four years from 1991 (the end of the Gulf war) until 1994, the Basrah Maternity Hospital saw 11 congenital anomalies. Last year there were 221. Then there is the alarming increase in cases of leukemia among Basrah babies lucky enough to have been born with the full complement of limbs and features in the right place. The hospital treated 15 children with leukemia in 1993. In 2000 it was 60. By the end of this year that figure again will be topped. And so it will go on. Forever. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Total disintegration occurs after 25 billion years, the age of the earth
http://prorev.com/du.htm
Report Comment
Can we declare neutrality Switzerland style? I am just dreaming…
We can keep our nukes, and if someones attacks us, we will bomb/nuke them into Stone Age. But IMHO – we don’t need to get militarily involved anywhere.
Spend the money saved this way, on hospitals, safe food, solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal energy, etc.
Is it too simple? Is it just me?
Report Comment
For those who want to see picture of what you describe I attach a google search link to images on topic here:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=fallujah+and+radiation&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=WKs&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=H87nTce9H4jeiALvv7GUDA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA8Q_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=681
What have we done? Seeing the pictures has changed my view on Nukes. Now I think anyone promoting Nukes as a safe energy are simply EVIL people. Humans have a lot to be ashamed of and the Nuclear industry owns their failure. There is no other animal on earth who is so stupid as Human Beings.
Report Comment
How very true.In the Jaduguda uranium mines region in India the story is horribly similar.. with the familiar burden: We never had such experiences pre mine! Now many many families have children mutilated..
Report Comment
Don’t Mini-mize the Dangers of Nuclear Power
By Gar Smith
The radiation from Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi reactors poisoned farmlands, contaminated the sea, and sent invisible mists of radiation wafting around the world. The latest – and it’s just the latest – atomic accident has raised new concerns about the risks of nuclear energy. But still the question remains: Are we wise enough to finally understand that nuclear reactors are a fool’s technology?
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/dont_mini-mize_the_dangers_of_nuclear_power
Report Comment
June 2: Japan Nuclear Disaster Update
June 2nd, 2011 › High Risk Energy, Nuclear › Sara Barczak ›
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/02/june-2-japan-update/
Report Comment
What to consider half life’s and how many accidents of release before the pro nuke people figure out that they have reached the tipping point and we are all exterminated if not already !
Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Total disintegration occurs after 25 billion years, the age of the earth
http://prorev.com/du.htm
Report Comment
xdrfox,
Thanks for posting this website.
Report Comment
want more hard data? here ya go:
Study: 1950s nuclear fallout worse than thought
CNN March 01, 2002
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-01/us/nuclear.fallout_1_nuclear-tests-fallout-hot-spots?_s=PM:US
“Any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout, and all organs and tissues of the body have received some radiation exposure,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute said in a progress report prepared for Congress.”
“What we know is maybe the tip of the iceberg here,” Harkin said. “We know that there’s been upwards of perhaps 15,000 deaths that are attributable to these nuclear tests.” Congress received the preliminary report last August.”
Above-Ground Nuclear Blasts
http://epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html
Radiation exposure, nuclear power plants, Germany
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/radiation-exposure-npp.htm
Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html
“Radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possible risk to human health. This deliberately conservative assumption is increasingly being questioned.”
Report Comment
Now, the IAEA wants up to date information about Fukushima from Japan,…Not from TEPCO? Are they now one-in-the-same?
IAEA wants latest information on nuclear accident
Friday, June 03, 2011 01:25 +0900 (JST)
The International Atomic Energy Agency has called on Japan to report the latest, most detailed information on the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The IAEA explained to its member nations the current status of the accident at a meeting at its headquarters in Vienna on Thursday. The agency plans to hold an international, ministerial-level meeting to discuss the accident later this month.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_01.html
Report Comment
The IAEA might not be allowed to ask for information from individual companies as part of its charter.
Report Comment