The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 473 total)
  • The Long Shadow of Chernobyl
  • 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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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”

    Junkyard
    Member

    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

    Premier Icon Neb
    Subscriber

    http://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 the proof of this is that he has been given a safe limit to work to.

    zokes
    Member

    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? πŸ˜‰

    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)?

    the very post you link to I say

    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

    Kit
    Member

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

    Don’t compare Fukushima to Chernobyl

    “…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 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?

    swiss01
    Member

    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….

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    He’s not, you know.

    Kona –

    Zokes
    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.

    Its exactly what he says

    If this was not so then this would not be allowed.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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 πŸ™„

    Edukator
    Member

    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.

    The advice is 4 x 1000mg per day for adults with tooth ache. 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 here’s something in English. Read the first comment.

    Edukator
    Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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 – if 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.

    Edukator
    Member

    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.

    Edukator
    Member

    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.

    Edukator
    Member

    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 ?

    Junkyard
    Member

    hyperkalemia – I think that will get you before the radiation

    Ps rather bourgeois to be eating that many bananas πŸ˜‰

    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…

    ‘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 😐

    Junkyard
    Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    if we has done that ernie how would we have afforded the fry ups πŸ˜‰
    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 πŸ™‚

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

    Edukator
    Member

    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:

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgVttp5pfjI&feature=related[/video]

    zokes
    Member

    TJ: Answer the question…

    Of course you can have a safe level of something.

    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…)

    clubber
    Member

    So, who won? πŸ˜€

    djcombes
    Member

    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.

    zokes
    Member

    So, who won?

    Looks like it wasn’t TJ

    CountZero
    Member

    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?

    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.

    You seem to be somewhat inconsistent about this, 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?

    konabunny
    Member

    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?

    I think the point is that s/he would prefer to make the decision about what kind and how much radiation to expose his/her body to.

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 473 total)

The topic ‘The Long Shadow of Chernobyl’ is closed to new replies.