The end of the empire of Japan

Sir Bandelot · May 29, 2011

Whether a threshold exists or not is a matter of dispute. Many studies suggest a threshold exists below which there is no risk or even a benefit. I gave you a concrete example of a population exposed to high levels of radiation that experienced no observable effects. That example alone is enough to show the "no-threshold" argument is likely false.

Here is some info on the debate:

http://www.philrutherford.com/radiation_risk.html

I didn't read your link, but I know it's an area of debate even amongst experts. And I know there are places in the world where the background radiation is more than ten times the level we normally experience, like certain regions of India for instance. Yet there is no evidence of increased cancer in those places. Scientists believe that's because the people who live there evolved in that environment.

But in regards to currently accepted dose levels as set by nuclear agencies, that's where the accepted science is. And as indicated, the recommended maximum dose levels for NEWS was decreased over the past decade, NOT increased. Also a new parameter is now being monitored that was not included in the past, the maximum allowable dose RATE, regardless of total dose. This illustrates that tighter controls are needed than before, born out by new scientific evidence.

If I were told that I must do a task and receive a certain dose level, even if above these recommended dose limits I would not be extemely concerned. Sometimes those things have to happen and when they do, part if the way it's managed is that the NEW gets "danger pay, and re-assigned to other, safer duties until a certain time has passed and they are allowed to return to their main job. Because we're talking about statistical probablities here, so in the stochastic region a one-in-ten-thousand chance might get reduced to a one-in-five-thousand chance. Legally however those rules cannot be applied to the general public and there's a very good reason, based on what these statistics mean, plus no one is getting "danger pay" for living the region of Fukushima. And presumably, their dose levels are not being monitored for each person, in order to mitigate any potential harm from a random high-level dose. It's understandeable why people should be concerned about it... especially as regards to the pregnant women and the children. When cells are dividing and growing as with the foetus they are more susceptible to DNA damage from radiation.

From what I understand as a NEW this disaster is not directly comparable to Chernobyl, in which the fuel rods themselves caught fire and a toxic plume of radionuclides travelled around world, where it is still measurable today in the peat mosses up in arctic Canada. It can be detected in herds of caribou and moose who feed on the swamps and lichen. But Fukushima involves several reactors damaged beyond repair. The release of material will be drawn out over a longer period of time, which is actually good. So it seems less deadly than what happened in Pripyat. We will only know the full effects after several decades have passed, and population studies show us a trend in the number of deaths. People are still dying from cancer due to Chernobyl, apparently. It's a serious blow to the nuclear industry and shows how the best laid plans of men can suddenly falter, even when we're reassured of inherently safe designs. Public confidence is undermined, and rightly so.

TimG · May 30, 2011

But in regards to currently accepted dose levels as set by nuclear agencies, that's where the accepted science is.

And that is what I used in my numbers above, however agencies vary.

however those rules cannot be applied to the general public and there's a very good reason, based on what these statistics mean, plus no one is getting "danger pay" for living the region of Fukushima.

The issue is whether there is an established danger. The science does not have any conclusive evidence to say there is. All they have are the 'better safe than sorry' nostrums. The original question was whether I would go into the exclusion zone. I said yes because I see that there is little risk outside of the plant itself.

People are still dying from cancer due to Chernobyl, apparently.

My understand is that is a myth. They have not been able to establish any link between Chernobyl and cancer deaths. There were a lot of instances of thyroid cancer caused by drinking contiminated milk but the survival rate for those is quite high.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

Recent investigations suggest a doubling of the incidence of leukaemia among the most highly exposed Chernobyl liquidators. No such increase has been clearly demonstrated among children or adults resident in any of the contaminated areas.

The liquidators experienced >100mSv dose which is what I mentioned above as absolute maximum safe exposure. Edited May 30, 2011 by TimG

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2011

The issue is whether there is an established danger. The science does not have any conclusive evidence to say there is. All they have are the 'better safe than sorry' nostrums.

I'm not sure what you mean. Stochastic effecs are real, established by real evidence.

TimG · May 30, 2011

I'm not sure what you mean. Stochastic effecs are real, established by real evidence.

Not according to what I have read. The "no-threshold" argument is purely based on the precautionary principal and has no empirical support. The scientific studies supporting the no-threshold argument are really nothing but speculation based on computer models.

The way I look at it is if radiation was a serious risk factor compared to the many other risk factors we expose ourselves to willingly they would have had no problems producing empirical evidence (look at the evidence for tobacco, fatty diet, et. al.). The fact that the available evidence shows an effect that is barely measureable, if at all, suggests that the risk is simply not there despite the endless hype.

Edited May 30, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 30, 2011

My understand is that is a myth. They have not been able to establish any link between Chernobyl and cancer deaths. There were a lot of instances of thyroid cancer caused by drinking contiminated milk but the survival rate for those is quite high.

And people will get radiation from Fukushima, and they will develop cancer. But since you will have a hard time connecting the link to Chernobyl or Fukushima does not mean it does not happen. Radiation from both Chernobyl and Fukushima circled the globe. So there are many around the planet that got sick from that radiation. But since they are all over the place, the connection is iffy at best. But we know for damn sure it happened. You can't release that much radiation without seeing the effects.

But that is part of plausible deniability, and a buffer so the pants don't get sued off those who screw up. It's the nuclear industry's way of saying 'prove it or screw off'. Which means they won't be accountable for their actions.

TimG · May 30, 2011

And people will get radiation from Fukushima, and they will develop cancer. But since you will have a hard time connecting the link to Chernobyl or Fukushima does not mean it does not happen.

As I said above: if there was evidence to be found they would have found it. The fact that the "evidence" is so tough to find despite the huge number of people desperately searching for it suggests that there is none to find. Any effect, if any, is too tiny to detect among the the risks that people willingly expose themselves to on a regular basis.

But of course, you don't want to admit that. You are absolutely convinced that radiation must be bad and lack of evidence simply means we must search harder. No amount of evidence would ever convince you because it is a question of faith for you - not science.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2011

As I said above: if there was evidence to be found they would have found it. The fact that the "evidence" is so tough to find despite the huge number of people desperately searching for it suggests that there is none to find. Any effect, if any, is too tiny to detect among the the risks that people willingly expose themselves to on a regular basis.

But of course, you don't want to admit that. You are absolutely convinced that radiation must be bad and lack of evidence simply means we must search harder. No amount of evidence would ever convince you because it is a question of faith for you - not science.

That's ironic because as stated a number of times, real science supports the evidence of stochastic effects. You need to understand the concept of risk as it applies to large populations. You simply do not want to accept this, despite that fact that it is true and has been an important part of radiation safety practice for many decades. As though it were some kind of conspiracy or gross error on the part of physicists around the world. If it were not true, why would people and governments around the world waste mllions of dllars and time taking these precautions? Because you seem to think know better than what is already accepted, well established science.

GostHacked · May 30, 2011

As I said above: if there was evidence to be found they would have found it. The fact that the "evidence" is so tough to find despite the huge number of people desperately searching for it suggests that there is none to find.

You can get cancer from all sorts of radiation. It is almost impossible to determine from what radiation the cancer was caused. Even radiation therapy for cancer can cause ... cancer.

Any effect, if any, is too tiny to detect among the the risks that people willingly expose themselves to on a regular basis.

What about those unwillingly or actually unwittingly, expose themselves to radiation. At first they did not think there was a link between cell phone radiation and cancer. Now they are looking into that connection.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

So if something as 'mundane' as a cell phone can cause you issues (the body is subject to electro-magnetic radiation interferance, because our bodies use elctro-magnetism to operate and function). A higher dose will overide the body's natural functions.

But of course, you don't want to admit that. You are absolutely convinced that radiation must be bad and lack of evidence simply means we must search harder. No amount of evidence would ever convince you because it is a question of faith for you - not science.

This kind of shows your complete ignorance towards radiation and what it does to you. There are many types of natural radiation, I agree with that. But nuclear radiation is not normal, and not really part of the 'natural' background radiation.

As Sir Bandelot pointed out, Japan has increased its safe levels of radiation absorbtion. The first time they have ever done that. And why would they need to increase safe limits? Because they can't get Fukushima under control. Put two and two together dude. Use your brain. Starting to think you might be one of those nuclear energy shill types.

Even in the USA the safe limits of radation absorbtion has been increased. And around the same time the Japanese government raised the limits. But that is just pure coincidence right?

http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html

So what to do? If you're the United States Environment Protection Agency, there's only one option: Declare radiation to be safe!
Yes indeed, friends, we have reached a moment of comedic insanity at the EPA, where those in charge of protecting the environment are hastily rewriting the definition of "radioactive contamination" in order to make sure that whatever fallout reaches the United States falls under the new limits of "safe" radiation.

The EPA maintains a set of so-called "Protective Action Guides" (PAGs). These PAGs are being quickly revised to radically increase the allowable levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive isotope) to anywhere from 3,000 to 100,000 times the currently allowable levels.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2162

"According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24

Remember the EPA is the same group that told NYC first responders that the air was safe to breathe after the twin towers were destroyed. And now we have many cases and accounts of first responders getting sick and many dying from the side effects of the contaminated air they inhaled.

Why would anyone trust the EPA to raise the 'safe' limits of radiation when they flat out lied about the air in NYC? Why would they only raise it, along with Japan, after Fukushima was declared the disaster we all knew it to be?

TimG · May 30, 2011

That's ironic because as stated a number of times, real science supports the evidence of stochastic effects.

You keep saying that but have not provided any cites. The studies I have seen on the long term exposure at Chernobyl and to workers in the nuclear energy show a tiny, barely measurable effect, if any. These studies would take into account any 'stochastic effects' because they looking for changes in risk associated with radiation exposure.

I suspect you are using the term 'stochastic effects' without understanding what it means. Basically all it is saying is your chance of contracting cancer will go up with exposure. The underlying linear assumption is just that: an assumption. It is not supported by emperical evidence yet many sites seem to present it as if it is a proven fact.

Edited May 30, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 30, 2011

You keep saying that but have not provided any cites. The studies I have seen on the long term exposure at Chernobyl and to workers in the nuclear energy show a tiny, barely measurable effect, if any. These studies would take into account any 'stochastic effects' because they looking for changes in risk associated with radiation exposure.

I suspect you are using the term 'stochastic effects' without understanding what it means. Basically all it is saying is your chance of contracting cancer will go up with exposure. The underlying linear assumption is just that: an assumption. It is not supported by emperical evidence yet many sites seem to present it as if it is a proven fact.

Are cancers going up? Or are they declining?

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2011

You keep saying that but have not provided any cites. The studies I have seen on the long term exposure at Chernobyl and to workers in the nuclear energy show a tiny, barely measurable effect, if any. These studies would take into account any 'stochastic effects' because they looking for changes in risk associated with radiation exposure.

I suspect you are using the term 'stochastic effects' without understanding what it means. Basically all it is saying is your chance of contracting cancer will go up with exposure. The underlying linear assumption is just that: an assumption. It is not supported by emperical evidence yet many sites seem to present it as if it is a proven fact.

I don't need to look it up, ir provide links. You do. I've been a nuclear energy worker for nearly 30 years!

TimG · May 30, 2011

I don't need to look it up, ir provide links. You do. I've been a nuclear energy worker for nearly 30 years!

Then you should be able to provide the links. I have looked and everything I have found fits the descriptions I have posted.

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.long

The general practice in radiation protection is to estimate risks for protracted exposures to low doses by extrapolating from situations of acute exposure to high doses. For this, a linear dose response model with no threshold is assumed and risk estimates are divided by two to allow for the assumed reduced carcinogenicity of exposures received at low dose rates.2 For leukaemia, this is similar to using the linear term of a linear quadratic model. The central risk estimate for leukaemia from this study (and from previous studies of nuclear workers) would support this practice. The confidence interval is wide, however, and findings are also compatible with no reduction, as well as with greater reductions of risk at low doses.

The risks based on these assumptions are:

For all cancers excluding leukaemia, the excess relative risk was 0.97 per Sv and was significantly different from zero (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.97) (table 2). This estimate corresponds to a relative risk of 1.10 for a radiation dose of 100 mSv.

To put things in context:

The relative risk for smoking is >20.0.

The realtive risk for a 2% increase in transfats calories is 1.97.

IOW. A relative risk of 1.10 for 100 mSv exposure should be nothing to be concerned about.

Part of the problem is people are so fixated on "scary" radiation and never put it into context.

That said, I have no issues with the precautionary prinicipal when it comes to nuclear workers because the costs of protecting workers is manageable. However, if the precautionary prinicipal is used to claim that nuclear power should never be used then I have an issue but the social cost of foregoing nuclear power far exceeds the social cost of low level radiation exposure.

Edited May 30, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 30, 2011

That said, I have no issues with the precautionary prinicipal when it comes to nuclear workers because the costs of protecting workers is manageable. However, if the precautionary prinicipal is used to claim that nuclear power should never be used then I have an issue but the social cost of foregoing nuclear power far exceeds the social cost of low level radiation exposure.

Are you taking into account the long term special storage sites that nuclear waste needs to be kept in for decades, perhaps centuries? All you are doing with the nuclear engergy is boiling water to spin a turbine. Seems like a very inefficient way to boil water, considering the precautions that are needed when dealing with nuclear energy production.

GostHacked · May 30, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/30/germany-nuclear-shutdown.html

Germany will shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022. I am not buying the notion of if we got rid of all nuclear power, our society comes to a halt. Nuclear power produced about 1/4 of the country's needs. Wind/Solar is about 17% which is a pretty good chunk. They plan to raise that to 50% in the coming years.

I guess Germany or at least the people understand the risks inherent in nuclear power. The reason... Fukushima. It may be a tough transition, but it can ... and looks like it will be done.

TimG · May 30, 2011

Germany will shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022.

The Germans will simply buy the base load nuclear power they need from the French and the Czechs. It will hardly be a case study in how to live without nukes.

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2011

Then you should be able to provide the links.

Why, I don't need to. I work with radiation sources every day and receive training on safety, including radiation dose levels every two years. This is my career.

I have looked and everything I have found fits the descriptions I have posted.

What you have found is what I've been trying to tell you up to now, that the risk is real, and is proportional to dose. Small dose, small increase in risk. Large dose, large increase in risk. This is to the best of our ability in scientific understanding. Note the key word is RISK, not certainty. And what that means in practical terms is, at very low levels there is considerable uncertainty. We as nuclear energy workers do not want to play "russian roullette" with our lives, so we take necessary precautions. It would be completely unprofessional not to do it, for the sake of convenience or assertion that the numbers are false or misleading somehow. Reasonable measures are always taken. But we are professionals and we are experts, and we are trained and paid to do it. The general public is not. It's unconscionable to make a set rules, uphold them by federal laws and then change them for the purpose of convenience. These people have every right to demand better protection from their government, they know it and the scientific community knows it as well.

Anyway, glad to see that you've moved beyond your assertion that stochastic effects are just 'non-existent hype' that should not be worthy of concern. That's what I call progress!

Sir Bandelot · May 30, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/30/germany-nuclear-shutdown.html

Germany will shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022. I am not buying the notion of if we got rid of all nuclear power, our society comes to a halt. Nuclear power produced about 1/4 of the country's needs. Wind/Solar is about 17% which is a pretty good chunk. They plan to raise that to 50% in the coming years.

Yes and there are other countries moving toward similar policies as well. Interesting development. The "fallout", if you will!

I'm surprised by it because I think that there is a right, safe way to make energy through nuclear power. But it's proven to be very expensive. Maintenence costs are much higher than what was projected several decades ago. The IAEA is now trying to draft up a set of recommended standards for the safety design of reactors, that would be voluntarily adopted by host countries. The issue is that there are quite a number of reactors that have been built with marginal safety designs, compromised by cost-cutting initiatives. Also costs were cut in the training of maintenance workers, pay has been reduced, so that the competency of technical staff has been compromised.

TimG · May 30, 2011

What you have found is what I've been trying to tell you up to now, that the risk is real, and is proportional to dose. Small dose, small increase in risk. Large dose, large increase in risk.

This relationship is ASSUMED by the study I linked. It is not shown by it (see text I quoted above). This is the point I have been making all along. There is no actual evidence that low level radiation exposures are a risk.

More importantly, the hypthetical risk is tiny when compared to other risks like smoking and diet. Why should the government move mountains to protect the general public from risks which are tiny compared to the risks that the general public voluntarily exposes themselves to?

Anyway, glad to see that you've moved beyond your assertion that stochastic effects are just 'non-existent hype' that should not be worthy of concern

Nothing has changed in my opinion. The study makes claims about 'stochastic effects' for low level doses but acknowledges that they are purely hypothetical. Edited May 31, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · June 1, 2011

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/japan-risks-chernobyl-like-dead-zone-as-fukushima-soil-radiation-soars.html

Soil samples in areas outside the 20-kilometer (12 miles) exclusion zone around the Fukushima plant measured more than 1.48 million becquerels a square meter, the standard used for evacuating residents after the Chernobyl accident, Tomio Kawata, a fellow at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, said in a research report published May 24 and given to the government.

It just keeps getting better don't it?

Soil samples showed one site with radiation from Cesium-137 exceeding 5 million becquerels per square meter about 25 kilometers to the northwest of the Fukushima plant, according to Kawata’s study. Five more sites about 30 kilometers from Dai- Ichi showed radiation exceeding 1.48 million becquerels per square meter.
When asked to comment on the report today, Tokyo Electric spokesman Tetsuya Terasawa said the radiation levels are in line with those found after a nuclear bomb test, which disperses plutonium. He declined to comment further.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13678627

Japan has more than doubled its estimate of radiation that escaped from the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant in the first week after the disaster.
Japan's nuclear safety agency also said meltdowns took place in three reactors more quickly than earlier believed.

The assessment comes as an expert panel begins an inquiry into the crisis.

The plant's operator is hoping to shut down the facility by January, although there is concern it may take longer - the plant is still leaking radiation.

I thought this was interesting.

Although the amount is just 15% of the total released at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 - the world's worst nuclear disaster - it suggests the contamination of the area around the plant is worse than first thought, says the BBC's Roland Buerk in Tokyo.

I believe they are still grossly underestimating the amount of radiation from the site.

Oleg Bach · June 7, 2011

Yet it has survived ... for thousands of years ... on top of this volcano.

All empires rise and fall. America peeked and is now tumbling to the bottom of the ash heap. Nothing is forever.

GostHacked · June 8, 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/fukushima-nuclear-plant-melt-through

Well as some of us suspected before.

Molten nuclear fuel in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant is likely to have burned through pressure vessels, not just the cores, Japan has said in a report in which it also acknowledges it was unprepared for an accident of the severity of Fukushima.
It is the first time Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel suffered "melt-through" – a more serious scenario than a core meltdown.

So almost 3 months later they are able to admit the situation was much worse than they originally stated. And it will take another 6-9 months to get it under control?

So, the Chernobyl option should have been exercised right away.

TimG · June 10, 2011

Well as some of us suspected before.

It took me awhile by find a source other than anti-nuke rag you like to quote:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/06/3-japan-nuclear-reactors-had-full-meltdown-agency-says/

The same thing happened within the first 60 hours at reactor No. 3, the company said, in what it called its worst-case scenario analysis, saying the fuel would be sitting at the bottom of the pressure vessel in each reactor building.

The only thing in these reports are the results of computer modelling. It is not fact. The inner containment breach is nothing but a "worst case scenario".

In any case, the clean up is well on its way so the details of whether it was a partial or full meltdown is not that relevant at this time. The fact is no one knows now and no one knew then what was going on inside the reactors and TEPCOs statements were perfectly reasonable give the (lack of) information available at the time.

Edited June 10, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · June 10, 2011

It took me awhile by find a source other than anti-nuke rag you like to quote:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/06/3-japan-nuclear-reactors-had-full-meltdown-agency-says/

What the hell do you mean anti-nuke rag? The article you posted is saying the same thing. Is CNN an anti-nuke rag as well?

The only thing in these reports are the results of computer modelling. It is not fact. The inner containment breach is nothing but a "worst case scenario".

News flash, the worst case scenario is already there. Quake, tsunami, core meltdowns.

In any case, the clean up is well on its way so the details of whether it was a partial or full meltdown is not that relevant at this time. The fact is no one knows now and no one knew then what was going on inside the reactors and TEPCOs statements were perfectly reasonable give the (lack of) information available at the time.

Full or partial meltdowns are not that relevant? You are kidding me right? I guess parts of fuel rods spewed all over the place is not that relevant either right?

TimG · June 10, 2011

News flash, the worst case scenario is already there. Quake, tsunami, core meltdowns.

That is NOT what the article said. The article said they have done some computer modelling and the worst case scenario is a containment breach. That is not a fact. It is speculation based on limited data. The fact that they call it the "worst case scenario" to indicates that other less severe scenarios are still possible - even probable - given the data. Read it again:

The same thing happened within the first 60 hours at reactor No. 3, the company said, in what it called its worst-case scenario analysis, saying the fuel would be sitting at the bottom of the pressure vessel in each reactor building.
But Tokyo Electric at the same time released a second possible scenario for reactors 2 and 3, one that estimated a full meltdown did not occur. In that scenario, the company estimated the fuel rods may have broken but may not have completely melted.

I realize that you are desperate to justify your chicken little ranting but that does not give you a license to just make crap up.

Full or partial meltdowns are not that relevant? You are kidding me right? I guess parts of fuel rods spewed all over the place is not that relevant either right?

The incident is past us. The radiation on the ground is being measured and cleaned up. No changes to the details of what happened in the first week of incident will change the facts on the ground. i.e. whether there was a containment breach or not does not change the fact that the incident has largely been confined to the area around Fukushima.