Look at the state the Irish sea.
Looks alright to me.
I swim in it and eat Morecombe Bay shrimp.
I can't be bothered to read back the whole way but it is clear that some of the workers left on site have now taken doses which health physics tells us will result in higher incidence of cancer later in life. How many will suffer and whether they will die from it are not yet known. But I don't think it's wide of the mark to say that 'people will die as a result of this incident'. To say thousands will is well wide of the mark. As I see it to date the main risk to human health is to the workers on site. The discharges into the sea due to the isotope mix and the vast dispersal in the Pacific are not likely to have any lasting effect. I wouldn't go swimming or fishing round there right now though.
some of the workers left on site have now taken doses which health physics tells us will result in higher incidence of cancer later in life.
Which is what they're paid to do. There's a reason nuclear workers are pretty well paid, which is that if it all goes wrong, they will be required to do potentially dangerous clean up work. They will have known exactly what they were potentially getting into when they signed up.
[i]They will have known exactly what they were potentially getting into when they signed up. [/i]
Very revealing, Sobriety. Soldiers should expect to get blown up, coal miners buried alive and nuclear workers to suffer radiation burns. Serious leaks are to be expected then.
Very revealing, Sobriety. Soldiers should expect to get blown up, coal miners buried alive and nuclear workers to suffer radiation burns. Serious leaks are to be expected then.
Potentially, yes. Which is the point that you seem to have missed.
I belive they are currently operating 'above and beyond' and should be commended.
I belive they are currently operating 'above and beyond' and should be commended.
I'd agree with that, it takes a lot to keep going back in to do the clean up. I certinally wouldn't work on a PWR/BWR reactor plant, as having the moderator double up as a coolant has always struck me as a bit silly.
Has anyone got any idea of what exposure the Fukushima 50 have actually received?
Best I can see so far is that three were sent to hospital after receiving an exposure of 180 millisieverts. another got about 150 millisieverts
No, in the grand scheme of things - thats equivalent to the dose of someone at Hiroshima, and there is no evidence of any lifelong damage to people exposed to that dose - in fact, they reckon that lifetime increase in cancer can be measured at about 5% increased risk of cancer per sievert - so these guys would have a potential increase in cancer risk of about 1-2%, and thats [b]if[/b] the relationship is a linear non-threshhold one, (ie. there is a threshhold below which exposure does not increase risk of cancer),
by way of comparison - the workers who died from exposure at Chernobyl were exposed to in excess of 4 sieverts, in fact many got over 5 sieverts and survived - so, 20 times the dose these guys got - and they were working highly, highly radioactive stuff like graphite core material emitting equivalent 1000 sieverts...
so, when we're supposing that these people will surely die - the data really doesn't support the conclusion!
Has anyone got any idea of what exposure the Fukushima 50 have actually received?
Yes and no - I saw it in an article I was reading the other day but can't find again. [b][i]If[/i][/b] I've remembered it correctly it said that close to 30 of them had now received a dose that will give them a cancer risk that is (i) higher than the population and (ii) statistically/scientifically attributable to the dose.
But I try not to state things as fact without being able to back them up - that's TJ's job.
No eveidence of lifelong damage to hiroshima victims Z-11. The doctor that survived to report didn't agree:
[i]
"We were now able to label our unknown adversary 'atomic disease' or 'radioactive contamination' among other names. But they were only labels: we knew nothing about its cause or cure... Within seven to ten days after the A-bomb explosion, people began to die in swift succession. They died of the burns that covered their bodies and of acute atomic disease. Innumerable people who had been burnt turned a mulberry color, like worms, and died... The disease," wrote Dr. Akizuki, "destroyed them little by little. As a doctor, I was forced to face the slow and certain deaths of my patients."[/i]
Please do a little research before replying, you'll appear less foolish.
p.s. I do understand that there's a jump from 'increased risk of cancer' to 'people will die' if the numbers affected are as low as 30 or 50
Edu - he said "no evidence of any lifelong damage to people exposed to that dose", not that people exposed to (higher doses of) radiation at Hiroshima weren't adversely affected. Not having a go (given you seem to be trying to work with facts rather than fiction - unlike some on this thread), just correcting where you seem to have misread.
As for dosages at Fukushima, what I've read is that their radiation limit was upped from 100mS to 250mS (presumably per year, as that's how they seem to address risk, hence I'm assuming those who reach that have to stop work) High enough to increase their risk of cancer. Not high enough for there to be even one extra death due to cancer (on balance of probabilities) given the size of the group involved. As mentioned above, Chernobyl workers got doses several orders of magnitude higher. Not nice of course that there is a chance one of them could die of cancer, but that's a long way from TJ's "thousands of deaths", and if we're really worried about people dieing doing their jobs there are lots of things we should stop before stopping people working on nuclear power stations.
Try reading again Aracer, I read it several times. Whichever way you read it Z-11s statement is incorrect.
Edukator - read again what I wrote before jumping in, that way, you'll appear less foolish 😉
Thats equivalent to the dose of someone at Hiroshima, and there is no evidence of any lifelong damage [b]to people exposed to that dose[/b]
Note that phrase - exposed to that dose!
some people at Hiroshima received more than that, some less! The death rates of nearly 90,000 survivors have been painstakingly studied and compared with people from other cities, so are a valuable source of information!
Most survivors endured an exposure of less than 100 mSv and, for these people, there is [b]no statistically significant increase in cancer risk[/b] above background levels when compared with other japanese cities!
[b]Above 200 mSv of total exposure[/b], the effect of the radiation becomes a little more obvious but it is not until the dose was greater than 1,000 mSv that a major increase in cancers occurs.
Over 2,000 mSv, the risk of a survivor of the bombs dying from a solid cancer is approximately twice the level of risk in non-affected cities.
So - Read before jumping in, you might get Edukated...
these workers received less than 200 millisieverts, so, the data days no increased risk!
You've completely changed what you originally stated Z-11. People can read and can see that.
[url= http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/main.html ]Using the data in here.[/url]
50 workers exposed to 1Sv and you can expect 4 to die as a direct consequence. 500 exposed to 250mSv and some will die too. The problem is that you can't prove it statistically because of the statistical noise produced by peole dying of cancer caused by other things. When you start to look at very large populations (and a billion or so people live in eareas so far suffereing low level contamination) but very low levels then you can't prove anything but common sense exptrapolation tells you people will be dying as a result of the contamination, however, they are hidden by the mass of people dying of cancer anyhow.
The inability to prove a perfect statistical correlation is not proof that there isn't a cause and effect.
Without wishing to get tied up in Grays and Sieverts (and we should be usings Grays not Sieverts when talking about burns), if someone gets enough Grays to cause radiations burns reported to and by the media within a day then they've had a dose of 10s or 100s of Grays and are doomed.
Edukator - I have changed nothing, I specifically stated that I was talking about effects [b]at that dose[/b], and aracer clearly understood my statement in that manner
nobody has actually said the burns were caused by radiation, they've said they were being treated as [b]possible[/b] radiation burns,
your concept that "[i]50 workers exposed to 1Sv and you can expect 4 to die as a direct consequence. 500 exposed to 250mSv and some will die too"[/i] presumes that there is a no threshold linear response, there's no proof of that, and the data so far seems to not support it, rather the belief is that there is a safe threshold, below which there are no long term effects, due to the body's miraculous recuperative powers.
The equvalent to the[i] dose at Hiroshima[/i], [b]that[/b] dose. If you were refering to the previous paragraph not he dose in the same sentence you should have made it clear.
This whole thing about thresholds is contested. It's something dreamt up by the nuclear industry and there's evidence such as the French thyroid cancer peak to suggest it's nonsense. There was a peak in thyroid cancers among children that fits perfectly with the Tchernobyl cloud, yet the nuclear lobby persuaded a pro-nuclear government that despite a blindingly obvious link it couldn't be proved statistically. Costs less that way see.
How many years did it take to get the idea accepted that passive smoking not just heavy smoking caused lung cancer?
You'll find medical specialists on both sides of the fence, some saying that low doses are safe and others saying that no dose is safe. You'll never prove either with statistics but you know what I think. You can think differently.
I've had my fair share of dose over the years (doing in vessel boiler inspections within feet of the reactor core) but to be honest I'm more worried about the asbestos I was exposed to at the coal fired power station I worked at for 10 years before I went to the nuclear 🙁
You'll find medical specialists on both sides of the fence, some saying that low doses are safe and others saying that no dose is safe. You'll never prove either with statistics but you know what I think. You can think differently.
Whilst it can't ever be proven, if [i]no[/i] dose is safe, then how are we all here? We all absorb radiation on a daily basis - especially those living in Radon areas and airline staff. Are there documented increases in cancers in airline staff compared to other workers in similar jobs (cruise ship workers?)??? I don't know, I haven't looked, but I suspect if it was regarded as fact, we would know about it.
I'm done arguing with the flouncer as he chooses what he reads and ignores anything he doesn't agree with, but I am interested in where the line of no harm is drawn and how this came about. From a theoretical point of view, there must be some threshold, as otherwise we'd all die from cancer as we are all exposed to radiation on a daily basis. One assumes it has something to do with the chance of DNA being able to repair itself, and how often it needs to do this after being damaged by radiation.
Zokes - you are a fine one to talk. You have consistently ignored hard data on renewables, you shift the goalposts everytime your position is shown to be untenable, you attack the messenger not the message
On cancer - why must there be a threshold? people die of cancer all the time. Rates are higher where radiation is higher. IE in cornwall.
you attack the messenger not the message
That's what you do as a matter of course.
If someone does not agree with your data it doesn't mean they are ignoring it.
Really TJ you are the most RUBBISH arguer I have ever encountered.
Are there documented increases in cancers in airline staff..
Yes I thought that was well known -
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740419/pdf/v060p00807.pdf ]Increase breast cancer risk in cabin crew[/url]
Rates are higher where radiation is higher. IE in cornwall.
Thats not proof of cause and effect though, is it TJ?
[i]Haynes R M, 1993, "Radon and lung cancer in Cornwall and Devon" Environment and Planning A 25(9) 1361 – 1366
[b]Radon and lung cancer in Cornwall and Devon[/b]
R M Haynes
Received 14 January 1993; in revised form 3 April 1993
Abstract. The relationship between average indoor levels of radon and lung cancer mortality in the counties of Cornwall and Devon, England, are investigated. The associations of population density, social-class distribution, and regional smoking prevalence with lung cancer mortality in the local-authority districts of England and Wales were estimated by regression analysis. Low rates of lung cancer in Cornwall and Devon were predicted from the relationship. The differences between observed and predicted mortality in Cornwall and Devon districts were compared with average indoor levels of radon, which varied considerably between districts. Residual variations in lung cancer mortality were not significantly correlated with average indoor radon measurements. The current advice of the National Radiological Protection Board to government is to concentrate radon measurements, remedial action, and preventive action principally on Cornwall and Devon, but [b]cross-sectional geographical data do not support the hypothesis that raised levels of radon indoors in southwest England have an important effect on lung cancer mortality.[/b][/i]
Now then, which cancer [b]does[/b] the South West have the highest rates in the UK of? yep, you guessed it, Skin cancer - and guess what, which is the sunniest part of the UK? which part of the UK is well known for sunbathing and watersports? coincidence?
So, come on TJ - is the increased cancer rate in the SW of England down to Radon, or sunlight?
Cause and effect dear boy, cause and effect!
Zulu-11 - Are you sure ?
[url= http://www.unscear.org/docs/Radon-distrib.pdf ]Radon Linked to Cancer - UN Report[/url]
Also:
[i][b]The Distribution of Domestic Radon Concentrations and Lung Cancer Mortality in England and Wales
[/b]
Radiat Prot Dosimetry (1988) 25(2): 93-96
R.M. Haynes
Abstract
Using aggregate data for the counties of England and Wales, a negative association is found between mean radon concentrations in dwellings and lung cancer standardised mortality ratios, when regional smoking variations, diet variations, social class variations and population density are controlled. Cornwall and Devon have the highest mean domestic radon gas concentrations, yet the number of lung cancer deaths there was within the range to be expected from relationships not involving radon observed in the rest of the country. While high values of radon exposure appear to concentrate in particular localities, the variations in lung cancer mortality between districts in Cornwall and Devon are small. These findings do not refute the linear exposure-risk hypothesis, but the evidence suggests that relatively few, if any, radon related deaths were associated with the dwellings where radon gas concentrations exceeded the recommended action level.[/i]
See TJ - Thats called science - peer reviewed, substantiated, referenced [b]science[/b] and it completely refuted the wild, inaccurate hyperbole you're coming out with!
😆
Edit - J_me - unreferenced UNSCEAR briefing note, versus published peer reviewed studies, I know which one I'd believe... come back to me with peer reviewed rebuttals of the above studies, and I'll consider it!
A good many of us will die of cancer and the mutations that cause it won't all be due to radiation. It's the level of cancer from other causes that mean we can't prove a correlation between cancer and radiation dose below a certain level. Call it a threshold if you like but it isn't the point at which radiation causes cancer, it's the point beyond which the relationship is statistically proveable. Comon sense says the relationship is maintained at lower levels but lost in the "noise" from other causes.
There's been much debate in France since Tchernobyl with as much hostility between government organisations as between posters on this forum. All using the same data to suit their agenda.
Background radiation levels in some US states are high enough to double cancer rates according to the authorites IIRC, Google it. Those levels are derisory compared with the 100/250 mSv doses the japanese workers are being allowed to get, and yet some posters on here claim no danger for worker recieving less than that. The French kids got pretty low doses but only a blind man would fail to see the Tchernobyl blip. There is a double discours in which the risk of low doses in the environment is recognised and high doses due to nuclear accidents minimised.
You have consistently ignored hard data on renewables
Today's Register reports a study by the John Muir trust that shows that wind power delivers nothing like the amount of power that is claimed for it.
A lot of renewable energy sources seem to be more about wishing for a pony than actually providing people with enough energy to meet their demands. Energy demand reduction has its place, but we need actual real generating capacity.
Zulu-11
[url= http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2006/09-81160_Report_Annex_E_2006_Web.pdf ]Fill your boots......[/url]
Plenty in the reference section there for you to check out. A couple of journal articles do not make a fact !
Some of the worst science I've ever seen was peer reviewed, you choose your peers when you publish - bin there, done that. 😉 You would be unwise to invite your adversaries to peer review.
I referred to that last night. Worth noting that it's an anti-wind farm conservation organisation reporting it though..oldnpastit - Member
You have consistently ignored hard data on renewables
Today's Register reports a study by the John Muir trust that shows that wind power delivers nothing like the amount of power that is claimed for it.
As for the John Muir Trust what do you expect them to say? More biased you would have to search long and hard to find.
Edit: I see Druid beat me to it, I was beginning to think I was the only one aware of the influence of vested interests in what people publish.
Worth noting that it's an anti-wind farm conservation organisation
Bit harsh there, as far as I know JMT have only objected to a handful of proposals (5 or 6 at most). I don't think they are anti windfarm so long as they are planned/scaled/sited "appropriately".
Oldandpastit. The hard data I was referring to was about the amount of tidal available. Aracer / Zokes claimed it was negligible. In fact the amount available is plenty - 1/10th of UK energy requirements will be met by tidal within 10 years. could be 1/3 in total if not more. Thats just from Scotland - England could contribute some as well.
Once I had shown them this the stance changed from " we must have nukes of the lights go out" (which clearly is an unsustainable position)to - "we must have no fossil fuels for electricity at all"
I have been continually insulted and derided for not wanting to believe their cant and hyperbole.
They continually refuse to answer questions.
1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?
2) Where is the fuel going to come from
3) what to do with the waste?
4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?
5) How are you going to fund both nukes and reneawables?
6) why discount solar ( PV and heat), wind, wave?
7{) why discount energy usage reductions?
I think the funniest thisng is the shifting of the goalposts. All I aim to do is the realistic target of meeting Kyoto limits without nukes - a perfectly feasable target. Very few countries will meet this anyway. The USA is not even going to try. But apparantly now we need to go zero carbon in 10 years.
Some of the worst science I've ever seen was peer reviewed, you choose your peers when you publish - bin there, done that
So we can't even place any weight on peer reviewed scientific literature now. We've just got to trust you have we?
Like TJ you're just coming up with tenuous reasons to defend a position you have taken which is partially based on emotion and belief and not just rational argument and scientific evidence.
You've just done the intellectual equivalent of going into the loft and pulling the ladder up after you.
And if we are not going to promote nukes to all countries what is the proposal for them? is it don't do as I do, do as I say?
Given that we have a had half a dozen major radiation releases in the 50 years we have had nukes then if the world is going to be powered by nukes needing hundreds of times as many generators then these "once in a lifetime" accidents will clearly be happening several times a year.
[b]TJ Said[/b]
I have been continually insulted and derided for not wanting to believe their cant and hyperbole.
They continually refuse to answer questions.
😆
Pot and Kettle of the finest order TJ!
Choose your journals uponthedowns. Just because it's peer reviewed doesn't give it weight. It's where it's published and whom it's reviewed by that matters. It's also worth taking note of the response it gets. Don't trust me, trust the journals that have a long term record of publishing unbiased excellence. If it's made it to Nature then it's more likely to be rigorous than if it's in some industry journal or a government report.
Ah so now we can trust some peer reviewed papers. Pity you didn't say that earlier.
The peer review system is as biased (corrupt if you wish ) as any other system. When you do work you think adds something to the collective knowledge in your field then you hunt around for somewhere to publish it. Like newspapers, journals often have an agenda. It would be a brave or stupid scientist that submitted a paper demonstrating measurable climatic change to an oil industry journal. Therfore you choose a journal that is likely to accept your work and call on peer reviewers sympathetic towards it.
Peer review is a system that works but is far from perfect and you would be unwise to regard everything published in a peer review as a neutral and rigorous piece of research.
The hard data I was referring to was about the amount of tidal available
Except it's not hard data, it's conjecture and supposition and it's heavily politically weighted.
If you were a scientist you'd understand this stuff.
Molgrips. Did you actually bother to read the stuff? This is not conjecture and surmise. This is real practical plans that are moving forward. Teh 10 mw trial plant goes in the water in the sound of islay this year with the scaled up 1 Gw plant to follow. This is using proven technology and the presence of the tidal flow is irrefutable. To follow that is the bigger plant in the Pentland firth.
Back with the insults again. actually I am trained in assessing and understanding research. I can tell the difference between hard data and surmise and conjecture.
So Islay can generate 1GW. Then what about the rest of the country? Are you envisaging these things all over the place generating the majority of our power?
So Islay can generate 1GW
In theory maybe. I doubt it will ever manage to produce that.
ignoring all the babble....
key weeknesses to all of the non thermal or non nuclear options
they don't last as long..... you need to replace the installation at least twice as often...
installed capacity you need loads more 7 - 8 times more for PV....
well actually more as you need a peak higher than the equivalent current solution.....
then you have too store the energy you produce.......so you need a storage technology equal to the peak....
so you mix technologies to ease this scenario.... helps a little bit but you still need all that expensive or replicated capacity....
still the numbers can work if tax payers want to stup up lots of £££££
alternatively howabout applying levies upon users of conventional electricity and gas.... then use the money to subsidise people to install renewables.... what a great idea ..... yes if you'vegot cash to invest ... so the poor end up subsidising the wealthy to generate a nice profit....hmmm sound like simplistic greenwash to me......
ps I'm not anti the tech just the stupid arguments.... I've installed and run large solar thermal in the uk in the 80's, PV, Small and large scale, biomass etc and without someone throwing lots of £££ at the technology it's v difficult to achieve real paybacks or avoid creating 'dirty green' buildings...
I suggest both sides of the argument read [url= http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html ]Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air[/url] by David MacKay. You can download it for free. Using simple assumptions and simple arithmetic he puts the problem and the possible solutions into perspective. If we want to decarbonise Britain and Europe cannot live on their own re-newables. It will take nuclear power and/or the use of solar power from other peoples deserts in addition.
