[Closed] The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

But are airline pilots getting more melanoma because of the work environment whilst flying or (as my mate keeps reminding me) they spend so much time sunbathing by the hotel pool so they have their prescribed rest between flights?

Or that they are from rich, privileged backgrounds and got sun burned as kids on the beaches of Spain, the decking of Greek flotila yachts, the pistes of Courchevel etc.

There are so many environmental factors it's hard to pin one. Add the complication of background radiation effectively eliminating a control group and there's lots of scope for debate.

There are so many environmental factors it's hard to pin one. Add the complication of background radiation effectively eliminating a control group and there's lots of scope for debate.

This is the problem, with the exception of acute radiation sickness, or possibly leukaemia, most other radiation-based cancers only come to the fore 20-30 years later (hence why the older workers at Fukushima volunteered). Perhaps if we see a big leap over the next 5 years in the former USSR and northern Europe where Chernobyl's fallout landed, TJ might have a point, but 20 years since the explosion was 6 years ago, and there's no proof yet.

Plus, we seem to have missed the thing about cancers - most, if caught early enough (especially skin cancers because you can usually see them) are curable with no ill effects.

The fact still remains, even people working on the clean-up of Chernobyl stand far more chance of dying from some other cause (most probably being run over, alcohol abuse, or smoking), than by radiation.

So you and your friends have been lucky so far, Zokes

Not really - the waste from my work gets disposed of as chemical waste and incinerated - the scintillation fluid is far more carcinogenic than the 14C within it. Despite that, statistically I stand far more chance of being killed on my ride to work one day over the next 40 years of my career, than I do from dying due to exposure to radiation or chemical carcinogens or toxins whilst at work.

Most lab fatalities are actually due to electrocution. I suppose if we banned electricity because it's dangerous, it would somewhat diminish the need for nuclear power!

It might be all the duty free fags.

In fact, then, why did you try to defend the LNT model as fact, rather than as one particular hypothesis (which it is)?

the very post you link to I say

One aspect to be considered is that is there a threshold below which radiation does not cause deaths? Some say there is, some say there isn't. Makes a big difference to the numbers of predicted deaths.

I think that rather shows that I understand LNT is a hypothesis. One that is generally accepted worldwide but sufficient doubt that I believe its worth mentioning. If yo wnt to atttack me then actually read what I wrote

Despite various evidence to the contrary on all questions asked, you still claim that no one has answered your questions.

Right - can you show me the answers then - not meaningless platitudes but actual answers?

What are you going to do with the waste? And no "turn it into glass bury it and forget about it" is not a meaningful answer

Waht you say about risk perception in general is right - but in this case I understand exactly what the risks are. I simply do not believe the benefits are worth it - your problem is you dismiss the risks and overstate the benefits.

If radiation was cumulative (which it's not, unless you ingest it in a form which your body does not get rid of, like mercury), and if there was no safe threshold to which I can be exposed to without risk of harm, then I wouldn't be allowed to work with radioisotopes.

call yourself a scientist? Have a look at the logical fallacy in this sattement.

You take as proof there is no risk of harm the fact that there is a safe limit that you have been given. Rigghhht!

fukoshima workers had their afe limits increased when it was realised they could not actually do anything without increasing them.

TJ if you drink enough water you will die.

Clearly many things are safe in small doses and fatal in large enough doses, medication for example. alcohol ,paracetamol

Is this also a logical fallacy to say that they are safe in small doses?
Could you explain Chemotherapy as well whilst you are at it?

The logical fallacy is " it must be safe in small doses as I have been given a safe limit"

That is not what i asked - I did not say why is that a logical fallacy but that is what you appear to have answered but what the hell i will run with it

If you drink enough water you will die
If you dont drink water you will die.

There is a safe level of water to drink [ and an unsafe level]

is this a logical fallacy ?
Is this?
It is safe to drink water as I have been given a limit of water i can drink

There is no logical fallacy

you can explain your answer in relation to water or to the actual question I posed I dont mind which

Clearly you can have safe levels of something dangerous[ say drugs like paracetamol] and dangerous levels of something safe [ water for example]
there is no fallacy

TJ if you drink enough water you will die.

Clearly many things are safe in small doses and fatal in large enough doses, medication for example. alcohol ,paracetamol

Is this also a logical fallacy to say that they are safe in small doses?
Could you explain Chemotherapy as well whilst you are at it?

Posted 17 minutes ago #

is not a fallacy you can have a safe level of something dangerous [alcohol say] anda dangerous level of something safe [ say water] and i have given you many examples for you to ignore as you engage in argumentum ad nauseam

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15288975

I reckon the BED is useful for several
reasons. First, it reminds us that radiation is
commonplace. You can't get much more
ordinary than a banana.

Second, we know eating one banana won't kill
us. Not even nearly. Not without extreme
violence. This affirms an age-old point about
toxicity - that danger is in the dose. In other
words most things, radiation included, are only
dangerous in sufficient quantities. The distinction
between toxic and safe is not really a distinction
of kind, but of quantity. That goes for just about
everything from water and vitamins to arsenic.

Of course you can have a safe level of something.

However Zokes is claiming that there is a safe level of radiation expose and [b]the proof of this is[/b] that he has been given a safe limit to work to.

The logical fallacy is " it must be safe in small doses as I have been given a safe limit"

Turn it on its head. It's damnededly more stupid to draw the contrary from that same statement.

Never mind questioning my ability as a scientist, you as a nurse presumably administer drugs to patients, which have been prescribed as safe doses.

If you were a radiologist, you would administer safe doses of radiation to patients. (even ultrasound - the stuff they use to look at foetuses is a type of radiation).

If you're not in radiology but deal with patients who are receiving radiotherapy, I can safely say the most radioactive thing I've measured was the head-of-college's crotch (for a laugh I might add) when he walked in to say hi whilst he was being treated for prostate cancer. Ironically, he was being treated for cancer with radiation. He thought it might be interesting to point the Geiger down there 😯

Of course you can have a safe level of something.

Even radiation? 😉

If radiation was cumulative (which it's not, unless you ingest it in a form which your body does not get rid of, like mercury), and if there was no safe threshold to which I can be exposed to without risk of harm, then I wouldn't be allowed to work with radioisotopes.

Zokes - just reread that staement.

Its circular reasoning

I did not turn it on its head. I simply point out the flaw in your logic.

if its not cumulative why are there annual safe limits as well as daily?

TandemJeremy - Member

any answer to this?

zokes
In fact, then, why did you try to defend the LNT model as fact, rather than as one particular hypothesis (which it is)?

TJ One aspect to be considered is that is there a threshold below which radiation does not cause deaths? Some say there is, some say there isn't. Makes a big difference to the numbers of predicted deaths.

I think that rather shows that I understand LNT is a hypothesis. One that is generally accepted worldwide but sufficient doubt that I believe its worth mentioning. If yo wnt to atttack me then actually read what I wrote

Now how about some intellectual honesty and rigour from you

An opinion piece in New Scientist (17 March 2012) by Don Higson:

[url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328566.500-dont-compare-fukushima-to-chernobyl.html ]Don't compare Fukushima to Chernobyl[/url]

"...[i]237 Chernobyl workers were taken to hospital with suspected acute radiation sickness; 134 of these cases were confirmed; 28 were fatal; about 20 other workers have since died from illnesses considered to have been caused or aggravated by radiation exposure; two workers died from other causes at the time of the accident and another disappeared - presumed dead.

On top of that, it has been estimated that about 4000 people will die (or may already have died) from radiation-induced cancer, including workers exposed directly to radiation, and members of the public exposed to the huge release of radioactive material from the reactor. About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, which typically kills about 5 per cent of people who get it, have been attributed to inhalation and ingestion of radioactive iodine by children.[/i]"

I think that rather shows that I understand LNT is a hypothesis. One that is generally accepted worldwide but sufficient doubt that I believe its worth mentioning. If yo wnt to atttack me then actually read what I wrote

Yes, but you only changed to that position recently, after being completley and utterley Pwned on the issue by Hilldoger on the Fukushima thread, prior to that you had been a complete LNT advocate, expressing it repeatedly as TJ-FACT

so, essentially, you've got a pretty good history of talking bollocks on the issue, and if you can be wrong about one thing, its possible that you're wrong on a myriad of other things that you've expressed as facts, true?

wow, is this still going on!

i only comment because the logical fallacy thing had me spraying coffe over my laptop. keep going tho - the wasted energy might heat a small greenhouse....

However Zokes is claiming that there is a safe level of radiation expose and the proof of this is that he has been given a safe limit to work to.

Kona -

Zokes
and [b]if[/b] there was no safe threshold to which I can be exposed to without risk of harm, [b]then[/b] I wouldn't be allowed to work with radioisotopes.

[b]If[/b] this was not so [b]then [/b] this would not be allowed.

and your point is what - do you want the rationale for how they work out this method in the middle

if there was not a safe dosage for paracetamol then the package would not give me advice on a safe dosage
if there was no safe dosage for paracetamol then they would not sell it

I can do this all day -

do you prefer
if there was not dangerous levels of radiation I would not have to wear a meter and be restriced to safer levels - same thing different words

Its a weak point you are pin dancing about.

he is not strictly saying it is safe because i have a safe level and you know this. He explained the rationale in ana earlier post as welll you know - No you re read and cut and paste it 🙄

Paracetamol. You do realise "paracetamol toxicity is the most common cause of acute liver failure" don't you, Junkyard. It was reported on the radio recently (Europe 1) that the maximum dose given on the packaging can be dangerous, deadly in fact.

[url= http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Paracetamol.htm ]The advice is 4 x 1000mg per day for adults with tooth ache.[/url] There is no weight guide for what constitutes an adult and some 12 year olds don't weigh much at all I'm sure you'll agree. Alcohol isn't mentioned.

Do some of your own Googling but [url= http://howto.yellow.co.nz/health-nutrition/medical-concerns/paracetamol-%E2%80%93-facts-you-should-know/ ]here's something in English.[/url] Read the first comment.

Madame is now home so I've checked on the French paracetamol packaging, the maximum daily dose is now 3g/day. 1g less than the English maximum unless that has been reduced too. So what is a safe dose? Exactly the same question we are asking about radiation.

yes I do know that [ not the french UK difference that is the point it is dangerous -almost everything is if the dose is large enough but there is still a safe limit. I agree that with either we [or experts ] could debate where this limit is - I think TJ's point is there is no safe limit for radiation and I was trying to counter that by showing that nothing was safe in the sense he meant [ anything can kill you] but you could still have a safe limit of say paracetamol or water or radiation

Edukator

Exactly the same question we are asking about radiation

No, its not the same question

LNT theory says there's NO safe dose. That radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and that this can be plotted in a strict linear fashion - [b]if[/b] we applied this to the parecetamol example, then it would work like this:

If I give 100 people 40 paracetamol each in a single dose, then they all die
if I give 100 people 4 paracetamol each, ten will die
if I give 100 people 0.4 paracetamol each, one will die.

Worse than this, LNT says the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure.

so, if I give one person 40 paracetamol in a single dose, they die, however if I give them 4 per day for ten days, then it has the same effect, they still die

Clearly, thats not how toxicology works.

And what if the safe limit for radiation is the background dose or below? I think there's good evidence it is. Lots of people get cancer and we don't know why. It's not like liver failure where the causes have been easily clinically identified, the causes of cancer are many and varied but known to include radiation because of the clear link at high doses.

The radiation related cancer clusters that are related to radiation have to be really high to be statistically significant. They first have to climb above the statistical variation and "noise" from other causes of cancer. If there were no other causes of cancer we'd be able to identify the sort of correlation we can for paracetamol and liver failure, and I'm convinced we'd find a small number of radiation mortalities at background levels.

Edit: Radiation is different, you don't have to poisson the whole body, you only have to cause one cell to mutate to start a cancer.

And what if the safe limit for radiation is the background dose or below? I think there's good evidence it is. Lots of people get cancer and we don't know why

Then under the LNT theory the incidence of cancer in people who received twice, three or four times the background dose of another community could be plotted in a predictable linear fashion.

someone in Cornwall would or Edinburgh would have an X percentage increase in cancer rates due to naturally occurring Radon exposure, Nuclear workers getting ten times that dose would have a proportional increaese in their rates.

So far, we've been unable to reliably detect that increase, let alone plot it.

No we haven't, Zulu, because it's masked by all the other causes of cancer. Doesn't mean it's not there.

Remember to get cancer you just need a tiny amount of a radioative substance in your body to release a little burst of ionising radiation that hits the DNA in one of your cells and damages it. The next time the cell divides the genetic code is slightly altered and that could be the start of a cancer. Do you really want any radioacitve stuff in or near your body at all?

. Do you really want any radioacitve stuff in or near your body at all?

Yes - or do you think I should stop eating banana's, because they are inherently dangerous, and every time I eat one, I increase my risk of Cancer.

Eat bananas if you want, I do, if I get a cancer then I accept those bananas might be the cause, along with the numerous other sources of ionising radiation in my environment.

or nothing to do with ionising radiation at all.

I eat bananas until my armpits are itchy, I had no idea that you could overdose on them. What's the maximum daily dose then ?

hyperkalemia - I think that will get you before the radiation

Ps rather bourgeois to be eating that many bananas 😉

See, I like not being irradiated, but I also like not having to sit in the dark waiting for the wind to blow, but which ones best...

[img] [/img]

'cmon windpower, nut him!

rather bourgeois to be eating that many bananas

Well I hadn't realised that either. Tesco sells them you know.

Although to fair, my rather strict father, from whom I inherited my love of bananas (bit of a cultural thing) always forced me to eat them in what I considered to be a rather bourgeois manner. According to him it was imperative that all the skin be removed before starting to eat the banana, because apparently only monkeys peel them a bit at a time whilst eating them. Although it always struck me as absurd, bourgeois, and rather unhygienic, I still do it this day, 20 years after his death. I'm haunted by my father and his banana-eating etiquette 😐

the only fruit in my house [ growing up] came in a can and got topped with carnation cream....I wish I was joking.

I had fresh fruit every day throughout my childhood (one piece maximum per meal) And I know this is going to sound like a cliche but there was a time when we were so poor (my childhood varied from pretty poor to extremely poor) that during the school holidays me and my siblings had to go to a special centre (a school specially opened for the purpose) so that we could receive a free meal. But as I suggested previously, the fresh fruit thing was largely cultural. Although fruit such as apples and pears would have worked out cheaper than canned fruit/carnation cream, I'm sure.

if we has done that ernie how would we have afforded the fry ups 😉
again true

TBH my mum was a rubbish cook and I loved my [ free] school dinners as they were so well cooked and lovely.
I eat worse now I have more money so I get your point

I didn't like my (free) school meals at all - beans in tomato jam ? WTF ?

I preferred the posh foreign food at home........only there wasn't much of it 🙂

I didn't like the stuff like sheep's brains and tripe though 😐

Potatoes are the main thing I remember haivng on my plate as a child, a never more than half a banana. To the point that when I started buying my own food I didn't buy a potato for years. They now get consumed in moderation. Blonde d'Aquitaine, carrots and roast spuds tonight in fact.

This thread has made me want a:

TJ: Answer the question...

[b]Of course you can have a safe level of something.
[/b]
Even radiation?

Because your entire argument is based around your assumption that the answer to that question is no, which I think by now we've demonstrated to be incorrect.

I appreciate your concern about nuclear power is based primarily around this issue, so it'll be very important you answer that question. Because, if you accept that there is a safe minimum, no matter how small that safe minimum is, then the LNT hypothesis fails. So too, then, do the very high estimates of deaths based upon following a straight line back down to zero.

Which takes us back to 57 deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl, and 4-5000 expected to have occurred or to occur. And don't forget, unlike Fukushima, the Russians weren't very forthcoming with iodine tablets, which would have prevented most cases of thyroid cancer.

So, if only 4-5000 were killed or will die as a result of a very poor design that would never have been allowed by western H&S even back then, and the Soviet attempt to cover-up rather than act, I call that pretty astounding for something you brand as so inherently dangerous.

As regards the waste, sure, vitrification and deep burial isn't perfect, it seems, but again, unless you want the lights to go out, the alternative is releasing far more radiation into the atmosphere as a result of burning coal. Even if the question is radiation buried vs radiation emitted, I'm sure you'll agree that burying it is probably better.

If you're still sticking with the line that there is no safe dose of radiation however, then I'd suggest you campaign to get the coal fired power stations closed instead. They emit far more radiation by design to the environment than any nuclear powered station.

No we haven't, Zulu, because it's masked by all the other causes of cancer. Doesn't mean it's not there.

But, Edukator, it doesn't mean that it is there either. This is the point. All these predictions of deaths related to radiation are based upon acceptance or not of the LNT model - this is why there is such a difference between different estimates. (And they are estimates, not FACTS, not even TJ-FACTS...)

So, who won? 😀

No we haven't, Zulu, because it's masked by all the other causes of cancer. Doesn't mean it's not there.

So we are worrying about a risk factor that is so small, it's lost in the noise of all the other risk factors that are actually worth considering? If that's how the LNT model comes up with thousands of deaths, I can't bring myself to give it much credence. Are we suggesting that we should be concered about levels of radiation that are low enough to cause an increased risk that is so small, it can't be directly measured, and only calculated by assuming the risk exists in the first place?

If the 4000 deaths figure for Chernobyl is arrived at by this approach (which it might not be, I haven't read up on it), it's the consequence of multiplying a very tiny and uncertain number by a very big number, then claiming the result is significant. I think there is an argument to say when the risk factor is so small it can't be directly measured, one might consider ignoring it.

Maybe it's possible to identify a comparable risk factor that resulted in 4000 deaths in the same population over the same period - that might give some perspective on the matter? I reckon the figure might be dwarfed by things that we don't traditionally consider terribly risky, yet people have a massive fear factor over radiation.

So, who won?

Looks like it wasn't TJ

Remember to get cancer you just need a tiny amount of a radioative substance in your body to release a little burst of ionising radiation that hits the DNA in one of your cells and damages it. The next time the cell divides the genetic code is slightly altered and that could be the start of a cancer. [b]Do you really want any radioacitve stuff in or near your body at all?[/b]

Eat bananas if you want, I do, if I get a cancer then I accept those bananas might be the cause, along with the numerous other sources of ionising radiation in my environment.

advising people that any radiation in or on their bodies was undesirable, while being happy to accept the same risk through eating a naturally radioactive fruit. If you are so accepting of it yourself, why be advising others not to follow your example?

Zokes is claiming that there is a safe level of radiation expose and the proof of this is that he has been given a safe limit to work to.

if there was no safe threshold to which I can be exposed to without risk of harm, then I wouldn't be allowed to work with radioisotopes.

No, you still have it backwards. The existence of a safe working level is not proof of the safety of working with radioisotopes, it's a precondition to it. For someone that's so big on identifying logical fallacies, I think that's a weird thing for you to misrepresent.