Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[ElectricFetus]

I'll have to try and track down some links for you when I have more time, but there's at least one study based on Hiroshima/Nagasaki where the average exposure was 160 mSv and ranged from 0 to 6 Sv (76,000 followed in a life span study).

Yep that what the LNT model was based off of and they by their own admission had to extrapolate everything below 100 mSv by making a linear regression from everything beyond 100 mSv that they could derive reliable data from.

WRT Kyshtym there were 600,000 cleanup workers exposed to doses of 100-250 mSv (one of the population groups being studied), but the primary focus has been on three groups of people, totalling around around 45,000 people who have been exposed to average doses of around 500 mSv, with some individuals receiving doses as high 4Sv.

Completely out of the range I'm asking for.

There's also the group of 25,000 people evacuated from Chernobyl who recieved an average of 400 mSv dosage - I'm less certain about what studies have been done on them though,

Again below 100 mSv, I want studies for what low levels of radiation do over very long time periods. Like this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1335905cea5dc2e7696755567c1c7680&searchtype=a
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...882be2638f71a5612afc66371fa5e2fd&searchtype=a
http://www.springerlink.com/content/32vvxp56ntcneyq7/

 

[Trippy]

Completely out of the range I'm asking for.
Again below 100 mSv, I want studies for what low levels of radiation do over very long time periods. Like this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1335905cea5dc2e7696755567c1c7680&searchtype=a
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...882be2638f71a5612afc66371fa5e2fd&searchtype=a
http://www.springerlink.com/content/32vvxp56ntcneyq7/

There's a key word in those sentences AVERAGE actual doses ranged from zero to whatever.

The implication being that, for example, in the case of the villagers in and around Kyshtym, while they might have been exposed to an average of 500 mSv, actual doses ranged from 0-4 Sv, so information in the range 0-100 mSv is available (and has been studied) which is precisely the range you were asking about (same applies to the Chernobyl set).

 

[Trippy]

Yep that what the LNT model was based off of and they by their own admission had to extrapolate everything below 100 mSv by making a linear regression from everything beyond 100 mSv that they could derive reliable data from.

This is, of course, predicated on the assumption that I'm referring to the same work that you are, rather than, for example, a re-analysis of the original data set.

 

[ElectricFetus]

There's a key word in those sentences AVERAGE actual doses ranged from zero to whatever.

The implication being that, for example, in the case of the villagers in and around Kyshtym, while they might have been exposed to an average of 500 mSv, actual doses ranged from 0-4 Sv, so information in the range 0-100 mSv is available (and has been studied) which is precisely the range you were asking about (same applies to the Chernobyl set).

and the conclusion? Again data below 100 mSv is notoriously inaccurate. Look at the studies from Chernobyl, with death estimates all over the place, yet actual confirmed death-tolls are remarkably low and contradict LNT.

 

[Trippy]

and the conclusion? Again data below 100 mSv is notoriously inaccurate. Look at the studies from Chernobyl, with death estimates all over the place, yet actual confirmed death-tolls are remarkably low and contradict LNT.

Agreed - which was one of the points made in the specific paper that I was reading that was summarising the actual results. Also one of the reasons why I raised it in the first place (another being that when you consider TMI, Hanford, Rocky Flats, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyshtym/Chelyabinsk et al, and Chernobyl, that you have populations of tens of thousands of people that have been exposed to these low range dosages since as early as 1948, there's no shortage of data - some of which was published, incidentally, under the guise of laboratory experiments). All of the information suggests that the current models over protect (at least as near as I can follow given my limited facilities), rather than under protect (not something I consider a bad thing).

As for the accuracy of data <100mSv, there's probably a message in there somewhere regarding background rates and such. If an effect fades to levels that are indistinguishable from background effects, are you actually neccessarily looking at anything other than background effects?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Agreed - which was one of the points made in the specific paper that I was reading that was summarising the actual results. Also one of the reasons why I raised it in the first place (another being that when you consider TMI, Hanford, Rocky Flats, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyshtym/Chelyabinsk et al, and Chernobyl, that you have populations of tens of thousands of people that have been exposed to these low range dosages since as early as 1948, there's no shortage of data - some of which was published, incidentally, under the guise of laboratory experiments). All of the information suggests that the current models over protect (at least as near as I can follow given my limited facilities), rather than under protect (not something I consider a bad thing).

As for the accuracy of data <100mSv, there's probably a message in there somewhere regarding background rates and such. If an effect fades to levels that are indistinguishable from background effects, are you actually neccessarily looking at anything other than background effects?

The data is inconclusive, even contradictory, therefor there is in fact a shortage of data. Until we have enough data to determine accurately the affects of low levels or radiation claims that we can us LNT to predict cancer and death rates at such levels is erroneous and even dangerous as it produces unnecessary fear and panic. Clearly what can be derived from the data is that low levels radiation is harmless enough to be inconsequential and difficult to quantify. The people of Ramsar don't worry nor should they, the refugees of Prypiat could have returned and re-inhabited the city by now, and the people who lived around fukushima could also return, its their own fear and CYA using LNT that harms people more than radiation.

 

[Trippy]

The data is inconclusive, even contradictory, therefor there is in fact a shortage of data.

I'm going to disagree with this statement, for a number of reasons not the least of which is that Data that is at background levels, and contains no discernable trends is inconclusive and even contradictory (there's a message in there).

Similar examples might be studies of Homeopathy, or psychic phenomena.

Until we have enough data to determine accurately the affects of low levels or radiation claims that we can us LNT to predict cancer and death rates at such levels is erroneous and even dangerous as it produces unnecessary fear and panic.

I, personally, was never referring to LNT but to the studies that I have come accross that have been reanalyzing it.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm going to disagree with this statement, for a number of reasons not the least of which is that Data that is at background levels, and contains no discernable trends is inconclusive and even contradictory (there's a message in there).

Similar examples might be studies of Homeopathy, or psychic phenomena.

In those latter cases we have clear evidence that they do nothing, that they don't exist. Radiation can be detected, psychic energy can't. We have theories of what radiation is and how it interacts, we don't with psychic energy. With radiation with have the LNT, we even have threshold models and radiation resistance models, all of which have sound scientific theory to back them up, this is not crack pottery here.

 

[Trippy]

In those latter cases we have clear evidence that they do nothing, that they don't exist. Radiation can be detected, psychic energy can't. We have theories of what radiation is and how it interacts, we don't with psychic energy. With radiation with have the LNT, we even have threshold models and radiation resistance models, all of which have sound scientific theory to back them up, this is not crack pottery here.

Technically correct, but not the point I was actually trying to make - I'll try to remember to post something more in depth soon, however, I have the distinct feweling my afternoon is about to turn to trash.

 

[iceaura]

No. Fact. Try to find a counterexample.
”
I already named several.

Not one.

Originally Posted by iceaura
The problem is that careful studies of low dose effects would be very expensive and difficult, and take many years.
”
And have been carried out.

No, they haven't. As your failure to post any examples, and confusion in posting irrelevancies, illustrates. Current modeling of low level dosage effects extrapolates from measured higher level effects, and almost always linearly at best (logarithmically almost never - that would be the most dangerous of the realistic possibilities, and the one most capable of hiding serious harms in "background" noise).

(another being that when you consider TMI, Hanford, Rocky Flats, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyshtym/Chelyabinsk et al, and Chernobyl, that you have populations of tens of thousands of people that have been exposed to these low range dosages since as early as 1948, there's no shortage of data - some of which was published, incidentally, under the guise of laboratory experiments). All of the information suggests that the current models over protect

The problem with using all those incidents as if they were carefully controlled research is that no adequate data was collected either before or at the event, or in following years, and the models available are not capable of resolving such critical variables as the actual exposure patterns at fine enough scale over long enough times.

Consider the reassurances from TMI, for example, linked and posted here in this thread: the subsequent temporary spike in neo-natal deaths downwind is dismissed, as is the later bump in heart disease nearby, along with the anecdotes of untoward experiences and health problems, as relatively small fluctuations in a large number pattern of averages - actual mechanisms and possible direct causes were not specifically and directly ruled out, because adequate data and relevant research was not available.

Instead, averages at large scales are made and correlations analyzed for significance at these scales. Instead, certain effects (cancers of certain kinds, say) are presumed to be the significant indicators, and their absence used to rule other apparently notable correlations matters of chance.

From such piles of presumption and extrapolation, safety is inferred: "no major harm" from a postulated "normal/background level" of plutonium in the soil, say.

This is not mysterious to you normally - as here:

The implication being that, for example, in the case of the villagers in and around Kyshtym, while they might have been exposed to an average of 500 mSv, actual doses ranged from 0-4 Sv, so information in the range 0-100 mSv is available (and has been studied)

where you pinpoint the key detail - actual low level exposure is not well modeled by averages - and merely overlook the problems with the alleged "studied" part of the scene. (The lack of a control group, unreliability of the data and narrowness of focus, limitations of a one-shot exposure regime assumption, etc).

 

[Trippy]

Not one.
No, they haven't. As your failure to post any examples, and confusion in posting irrelevancies, illustrates. Current modeling of low level dosage effects extrapolates from measured higher level effects, and almost always linearly at best (logarithmically almost never - that would be the most dangerous of the realistic possibilities, and the one most capable of hiding serious harms in "background" noise).
The problem with using all those incidents as if they were carefully controlled research is that no adequate data was collected either before or at the event, or in following years, and the models available are not capable of resolving such critical variables as the actual exposure patterns at fine enough scale over long enough times.

Consider the reassurances from TMI, for example, linked and posted here in this thread: the subsequent temporary spike in neo-natal deaths downwind is dismissed, as is the later bump in heart disease nearby, along with the anecdotes of untoward experiences and health problems, as relatively small fluctuations in a large number pattern of averages - actual mechanisms and possible direct causes were not specifically and directly ruled out, because adequate data and relevant research was not available.

Instead, averages at large scales are made and correlations analyzed for significance at these scales. Instead, certain effects (cancers of certain kinds, say) are presumed to be the significant indicators, and their absence used to rule other apparently notable correlations matters of chance.

From such piles of presumption and extrapolation, safety is inferred: "no major harm" from a postulated "normal/background level" of plutonium in the soil, say.

This is not mysterious to you normally - as here: where you pinpoint the key detail - actual low level exposure is not well modeled by averages - and merely overlook the problems with the alleged "studied" part of the scene. (The lack of a control group, unreliability of the data and narrowness of focus, limitations of a one-shot exposure regime assumption, etc).

I've read this post, several times now, and I still can't quite figure out where to start in responding. It's nota matter of the post being overwhelming, or irrefutable, or anything like that.

It's more a case of "Really? You want to go with that?"

 

[adoucette]

The people living around the plant were moved away before any significant release of radiation.

They have all been tested for exposure and they have not had any cases at all of high levels of public exposure to radiation.

Those who remained in close proximity for the duration, the nuclear plant workers, though give us a good idea of how much radiation one would expect non workers to have been exposed to and the amount is obviously much smaller than the workers at the plant have received.

On 30 April TEPCO summarized the results of exposure measurements of workers engaged in emergency work whose external exposure exceeded 100 mSv at the end of March 2011. According to the summary, for total internal exposure and external exposure there were: two workers with effective doses of 200-250 mSv (those were the two who were standing in the water and didn't believe their meters); eight workers with effective doses of 150-200 mSv; and 11 workers with effective doses of 100-150 mSv.

 

[ULTRA]

That people living with stress-related illnesses suffer in an event like this should not really be surprising. If a man with a heart condition is told the plant has exploded, and his heart packs in, well it's cause and effect isn't it.

I think TEPCO, NISA and the IAEA monitered the workers closely, and pulled out ones that were becoming significantly exposed. But even the elevated safety margins did not pose a serious long term hazard as far as we know. All of the Iodine should now be safe, and the cesium will be gradually redicing, though uptake by plants tends to extend its abundence in some places. We found that cesium is readily absorbed by grasses and that animals were continuing to get contaminated long after the event.
Even so, the ban on meat was precautionary, and not down to any specific risk from radiation.

 

[iceaura]

I've read this post, several times now, and I still can't quite figure out where to start in responding.

If your past behavior on this thread is any guide, responding is not your first priority here - comprehension is.

Start with this short backup, maybe:

You don't even seem to have stopped to consider the absurdity of what you seem to be implying that should be acheived through modelling, because what you seem to be suggesting should be achieved would require not only knowledge of exactly where every person was every minute of every day, but the internal layout of every building they spent time in during that day. It would require that monitoring to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

What you seem to be suggesting, is that if the government, and the nuclear industry are going to rely on dispersion modeling to provide estimates of exposure rates in the case of an accidental discharge, then the government should tag each individual with a GPS tracking chip that can be monitored all day, every day, so that exact exposures can be calculated. I'm fairly sure we both know how that's going to go down...

Ponder that. It's a reasonable, only somewhat exaggerated, description of one the factors in my argument - dispersion modeling sufficiently fine grained and reliable enough to assign order of magnitude low-level exposures to people in the vicinity of a nuclear mishap is not realistically available. It can't, in ordinary circumstances and reality, be done.

That would be one of the factors in my argument, way back when - a start toward comprehension, which might improve the discussion.

 

[Trippy]

If your past behavior on this thread is any guide, responding is not your first priority here - comprehension is.

Get fucked ass-tard.

Does your mouth bleed every 28 days, by any chance?

I just ask because it seems to me that you keep making these fucked up moronic fucking statements, and when I challenge you to prove them, or demonstrate what a fucking moronic cunt you're being, you simply stop replying to that thread of the argument - presumably in the hope that maybe if you shut your mouth no-one else will notice.

Do you know how many times you've successfully demonstrated that I've misread, or misrepresented anything you've had to say?

None.

Go fuck yourself you myopic minded moron.

 

[iceaura]

I just ask because it seems to me that you keep making these fucked up moronic fucking statements,

Some kind of Godwin's Law applies here, maybe, with this kind of stuff?

As you apparently cannot distinguish my statements from your own reworkings of them - your amusing description was "functionally" no different, IIRC - you are apparently never going to deal with anything I've actually said here. That is your privilege, or "right" as you so firmly put it earlier - your interest in taking offense and chasing irrelevancies is puzzling, but not preventable.

But it's been many pages now, and very repetitious they are. Perhaps you would allow me to discuss my issues and arguments with others, then, sans your interruptions?

So: I was interested the sheer size of the risk being run here as an unbooked expense; the issue of the role of false reassurance in sowing panic among regular folks (the interesting info that in the Japanese language people were not being stroked so obviously, combined with the common observation that the Japanese did not panic as readily, goes here); the more or less obvious panic in the pro-nuclear media push; and the nuclear power industry's characteristic display of expertise at Fukushima, in which various experts' lack of recognition or respect for their own ignorance and inexperience and lack of prudence - however obvious to others or demonstrated by events - is defended essentially on the grounds that they are after all the best experts available.

There are two or three dozen similarly designed and variously vulnerable nukes in the US, and many others misfortunately set up. We probably can't afford to decommission all of them all at once, even if we wanted to. What do we actually do about this mess?

 

[adoucette]

What do we actually do about this mess?

We will keep running them, at low cost, zero CO2 and over 90% uptime, because there is no mess.

Indeed many of them will be "up rated" to provide even more power then their original designs called for, increasing their share of our electricity to over 20%.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Some kind of Godwin's Law applies here, maybe, with this kind of stuff?

Bullshit.
There's be no reducto ad hitlerum or argumentum ad nazium here.

As you apparently cannot distinguish my statements from your own reworkings of them - your amusing description was "functionally" no different, IIRC - you are apparently never going to deal with anything I've actually said here. That is your privilege, or "right" as you so firmly put it earlier - your interest in taking offense and chasing irrelevancies is puzzling, but not preventable.

Grow up.
I don't expect you to remember, seeing as how you demonstrably can not retain context within a single post, let alone multiple pages, but I also, in the same post, or maybe in a following post pointed out that one was what you said, and other was me describing what you said, but that aside from that there was no difference between the two.

And you have repeatedly failed to show how my paraphrasing of your statement was inaccurate, which was your original objection.

But it's been many pages now, and very repetitious they are. Perhaps you would allow me to discuss my issues and arguments with others, then, sans your interruptions?

Get fucked you sanctimonious little bitch.

I've told you before - you responded to my post in the first instance.
You mischaracterized my statements in the first instance (you, however, are incapable of recognizing as such).
Everything since has followed from that and your inability to recognize the implications of your own arguments, and your insistance that said implications are irrelevant, not to mention this fucking moronic 'god of the gaps' style bullshit you insist on pushing.

 

[Trippy]

There are two or three dozen similarly designed and variously vulnerable nukes in the US, and many others misfortunately set up. We probably can't afford to decommission all of them all at once, even if we wanted to. What do we actually do about this mess?

Lead by example.
Cut your power consumption by 20% so the reactors can be decommisioned.
Alternatively, stop complaining about how ugly solar panels and windmills are, and let the power companies put them up in places that are actually useful.
Or, you could do something useful like find a power source that has as much up-time as nuclear reactors, and has something approaching the power density.

 

[adoucette]

Lead by example.
Cut your power consumption by 20% so the reactors can be decommisioned.

Not really much of an option for us.
Our population is growing faster than we can make those kind of improvements in electrical efficiency and at the same time we are trying to move part of our transportation energy from oil to electricity which will drive up demand even more.

To put this in perspective, we expect to grow by over 50 million people by 2030, or more than the population of New Zealand every two years.