A Glowing Report on Radiation

[jbg]

My own personal suspicion on this is that radiation hazards are overhyped. Perhaps this is deliberate. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks largely coincided with the start of the Cold War. For many reasons, nuclear weapons are useful to the U.S. but not particularly useful to the former Soviet Union. Long story short, defending the old "Iron Curtain" with purely convential forces would have been extremely expensive and likely impossible. Long "lines" such as France's Maginot Line and Israel's Bar-Lev line have a way of not holding, since an aggressor can punch through much the way a hole puncher cuts through paper, i.e. a lot of force at a small point. The nuclear deterrent served (or serves) as a "Hail Mary" pass that can be lobbed over the heads of forces, threatening utter devastation whereas (at least until hampered by one-sided treaties) ICBM's protected the West's cites.

The Soviets' interest was served by creating an unfounded near-hysteria about nuclear weapons. This has served, since the attacks and except for periods during the Reagan Administration, to largely paralyze U.S. foreign policy. The same fear also hamstrung our ability to use nuclear power effectively to replace insecure imported oil.

I remember well, during the 1960's the terror teachers inculcated in us as 4th graders telling us that if there were a nuclear blast we'd remain underground in a fallout shelter, to be reunited with our parents and pets "if they survived". Foreign policy, in many ways, was decided at the level of 4th Graders' fear of separation from parents, possibly forever. The fact that this was never likely was not well explained.

This fear, consciously or unconsciously, made nuclear power most unpopular. If oil can't be drilled because of well blowouts or tanker accidents, nuclear power can't be used because of reactor risk, and coal is too dirty, what can we use? Renewable energy? Doesn't work out too well either (link). Back to the Stone Age? I can move to Iran or Libya for that.

See article, link in title, excerpts below:

A Glowing Report on Radiation

by Ann Coulter

03/16/2011

With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.

This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.

************************

A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships' nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers.

Isn't that just incredible? I mean, that the Department of Energy spent $10 million doing something useful? Amazing, right?

In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance. After 16 years, the buildings' 10,000 occupants developed only five cases of cancer. The cancer rate for the same age group in the general Taiwanese population over that time period predicted 170 cancers.

The people in those buildings had been exposed to radiation nearly five times the maximum "safe" level according to the U.S. government. But they ended up with a cancer rate 96 percent lower than the general population.

**********

But in the case of radiation, the media have Americans convinced that the minutest amount is always deadly.

Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan's nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.

[BubberMiley]

I agree. Chernobyl didn't look so scary. It was all just cold war hype.

And having a parasitic twin growing from your head can make you the life of the party.

[cybercoma]

I don't get offended very often, but having friends and family over there in Japan must be making me sensitive to the topic. Your title is nearly as offensive as the things Gilbert Gottfried said that got him fired.

[BubberMiley]

Your title is nearly as offensive as the things Gilbert Gottfried said that got him fired.

Nobody is as offensive as Gilbert Gottfried.

But maybe jbg could learn something from the latest Japanese Nuclear Boy cartoon.

But I'm all for Anne Coulter and jbg and their fellow neoconservatives taking a trip to Japan to valiantly dump water on the nuclear reactors. They can be heroes and prove that it was all just hype.

Somehow I think they'll just stay home though.

Edited March 18, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Black Dog]

Of course Ann Coulter wouldn't have a problem with radiation. After all, it was nuclear testing that woke her from her slumber beneath the ocean and allowed her to wreak havoc with her atomic breath and massive talons.

[guyser]

Of course Ann Coulter wouldn't have a problem with radiation. After all, it was nuclear testing that woke her from her slumber beneath the ocean and allowed her to wreak havoc with her atomic breath and massive talons.

she is a massive idiot

Edited March 18, 2011 by guyser

[jbg]

I don't get offended very often, but having friends and family over there in Japan must be making me sensitive to the topic. Your title is nearly as offensive as the things Gilbert Gottfried said that got him fired.

Of course Ann Coulter wouldn't have a problem with radiation. After all, it was nuclear testing that woke her from her slumber beneath the ocean and allowed her to wreak havoc with her atomic breath and massive talons.

she is a massive idiot

Not one of you has submitted any evidence of the real danger of exposure in Japan.

[GostHacked]

Not one of you has submitted any evidence of the real danger of exposure in Japan.

You'd be a fool to think it's not a real danger. What, 3 explosions at 4 reactors was not an indication or evidence enough for you?

[Post To The Left]

Not one of you has submitted any evidence of the real danger of exposure in Japan.

No one has submitted any evidence that there has been any significant exposure, besides near the plant, in Japan. As of this posting the workers hooking up number two reactor to electricity are being exposed to 10mSv INSIDE the number two reactor building. That's about the exposure you get when you receive a CT scan, which their radiation suits will negate most of.

Some alarmists claim this low amount of radiation is the same as Chernobyl but to put it perspective close to the Chernobyl plant days after the out of control nuclear reaction there saw about 10000 mSv.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Post To The Left

[TimG]

Not one of you has submitted any evidence of the real danger of exposure in Japan.

One of the problems are people mix up a total dose with the amount of radiation. For a short period of time the body can tolerate large bursts of radiation but the body cannot avoid radiation sickness if exposed to much lower doses for a significant period of time. For example, the radiation coming from the plant is 600 uSv/hour which is 1/10th dose of a CT scan *every* hour. It adds up over a 8 hour shift, day after day. A worker would drop dead before they got near to the old fuel pools. Edited March 19, 2011 by TimG

[Post To The Left]

One of the problems are people mix up a total dose with the amount of radiation. For a short period of time the body can tolerate large bursts of radiation but the body cannot avoid radiation sickness if exposed to much lower doses for a significant period of time. For example, the radiation coming from the plant is 600 uSv/hour which is 1/10th dose of a CT scan *every* hour. It adds up over a 8 hour shift, day after day. A worker would drop dead before they got near to the old fuel pools.

But that's for an unprotected worker right? How much protection does a radiation protection suit offer?

[TimG]

But that's for an unprotected worker right? How much protection does a radiation protection suit offer?

The radiation suits protect workers from physical contact (breathing or touching) with radioactive agents. They offer no protection against radiation. You would need a suit made of lead for that.

That said, there is no evidence that the radiation encountered outside the Japanese government evacuation zone will be of harm to anyone.

Edited March 19, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

The radiation suits protect workers from physical contact (breathing or touching) with radioactive agents. They offer no protection against radiation. You would need a suit made of lead for that.

That said, there is no evidence that the radiation encountered outside the Japanese government evacuation zone will be of harm to anyone.

That use to be true, but modern materials like Demron incorporated into full body suits not only offer protection against Alpha and Beta, but also ionizing radiation from x-ray and low power gamma. Such suits are being sent to Japan.

http://www.radshield.com/press/articles-012709.asp

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-8496950/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5taWFtaWhlcmFsZC5jb20vMjAxMS8wMy8xNi8yMTE4NjkwL3JhZGlhdGlvbi1zdWl0cy1mcm9tLXNvdXRoLWZsb3JpZGEuaHRtbA==

[Bonam]

That use to be true, but modern materials like Demron incorporated into full body suits not only offer protection against Alpha and Beta, but also ionizing radiation from x-ray and low power gamma. Such suits are being sent to Japan.

A piece of paper will stop alpha radiation, and normal clothing will stop almost all beta radiation anyway. Low power gamma is attenuated by Demron approximately equally well as it would be attenuated by lead, that is, partially but not completely. Higher energy gamma radiation will still penetrate to a large extent. Neutron radiation, the most pervasive and harmful form of ionizing radiation, requires tens of meters of concrete to stop, and neither a lead or Demron suit significantly affects the neutron flux that would be passing through the human body. While a Demron suit is a nice invention since it offers the same protection as lead at a lower weight and with greater convenience, it is far from a means of enabling workers to spend long periods in the vicinity of strong radiation (gamma/neutron) sources. Nuclear reactors are strong neutron radiation sources.

That being said, the nuclear situation in Japan is way overblown and there is little risk of a significant radiation release.

[bush_cheney2004]

A piece of paper will stop alpha radiation, and normal clothing will stop almost all beta radiation anyway.

That's true, except when contaminated particles are ingested through respiration or eating.

Low power gamma is attenuated by Demron approximately equally well as it would be attenuated by lead, that is, partially but not completely.

Which is all the manufacturer claims. The Demron suits are lightweight, affordable, and more comfortable than previous, less effective offerings.

Higher energy gamma radiation will still penetrate to a large extent. Neutron radiation, the most pervasive and harmful form of ionizing radiation, requires tens of meters of concrete to stop, and neither a lead or Demron suit significantly affects the neutron flux that would be passing through the human body. While a Demron suit is a nice invention since it offers the same protection as lead at a lower weight and with greater convenience, it is far from a means of enabling workers to spend long periods in the vicinity of strong radiation (gamma/neutron) sources. Nuclear reactors are strong neutron radiation sources.

Agreed...time, distance, and shielding rules are immutable. There is never an intention for workers to be so exposed. Stronger sources of ionizing radiation change the game entirely, and thankfully they are not facing that circumstance.

That being said, the nuclear situation in Japan is way overblown and there is little risk of a significant radiation release.

Even better, but the real or potential occupational hazard should not be discounted. We have come a long way from my experience with buttoning a uniform up to the neck and stuffing trouser cuffs into socks, donning rubber gloves and masks, and naked decontamination line washdowns.

Edited March 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[no1ninja]

Not one of you has submitted any evidence of the real danger of exposure in Japan.

I read the article and don't know what to say. Is it saying that radiation is not harmful, that it reduces the chance for malignancy? One example claims a 96 percent reduction. Is this scientific, are there different forms of radiation, one more dangerous than the other?

What about the five cases of cancer found? Could these people have become the teenage ninja turtles that we all hear so much about?

Edited March 23, 2011 by no1ninja

[jbg]

I read the article and don't know what to say. Is it saying that radiation is not harmful, that it reduces the chance for malignancy? One example claims a 96 percent reduction. Is this scientific, are there different forms of radiation, one more dangerous than the other?

I don't know what to say, really, either. I guess my view is that radiation is bad but its harmfulness overrated, perhaps deliberately, for reasons I set out earlier in the thread.

Specifically, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks in 1945 largely coincided with the start of the Cold War. For many reasons, nuclear weapons are useful to the U.S. but not particularly useful to the former Soviet Union. I think the Soviets recognized that early on, but felt compelled to develop nuclear weapons largely for psychological reasons.

Long story short, defending the old "Iron Curtain" with purely convential forces would have been extremely expensive and likely impossible. Long "lines" such as France's Maginot Line and Israel's Bar-Lev line have a way of not holding, since an aggressor can punch through much the way a hole puncher cuts through paper, i.e. a lot of force at a small point. The nuclear deterrent served (or serves) as a "Hail Mary" pass that can be lobbed over the heads of forces, threatening utter devastation whereas (at least until hampered by one-sided treaties) ICBM's protected the West's cites.

The Soviets' interest was served by creating an unfounded near-hysteria about nuclear weapons. This has served, since the attacks and except for periods during the Reagan Administration, to largely paralyze U.S. foreign policy. The same fear also hamstrung our ability to use nuclear power effectively to replace insecure imported oil.

I remember well, during the 1960's the terror teachers inculcated in us as 4th graders telling us that if there were a nuclear blast we'd remain underground in a fallout shelter, to be reunited with our parents and pets "if they survived". Foreign policy, in many ways, was decided at the level of 4th Graders' fear of separation from parents, possibly forever. The fact that this was never likely was not well explained.

This fear, consciously or unconsciously, made nuclear power most unpopular. If oil can't be drilled because of well blowouts or tanker accidents, nuclear power can't be used because of reactor risk, and coal is too dirty, what can we use? Renewable energy? Doesn't work out too well either (link).