• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comment & References
#21
(11 hours ago)piajensen Wrote: Here's an idea. Pile up all the documented radiation damages to health, realize the LNT debate plays into maintaining nuclear enterprises (energy & weapons) and declare that nuclear radiation is simply too damaging to carbon based life and eliminate all nuclear ventures, There. Problem solved. No need to wade through volumes of radiation data & propaganda. Time saved can be spent on securing the future.  Heart

Tulsi Gabbard appears to have the intelligence to realize that nuclear fallout is different than most forms of background radiation....if she were to read up on it.  That is the prerequisite to being able to  "declare that nuclear radiation is simply too damaging to carbon based life and eliminate all nuclear ventures".

The difference in toxicity between background radiation and nuclear fallout (toxicity per dose) is the singular key which unlocks the nuclear debate.

In the case of the primordial background radiation, it is over a million times less radioactive for a given amount of material....the specific activity. Surely that has some biological significance, even though the radioactive dose may be the same if compared to nuke fallout.  Radon is an interesting case.  Considered roughly 20x as toxic per dose vs beta emitters, somehow animal and plant life has adjusted to it. Perhaps the mucous thickness in the lungs, and electrostatic effects and perhaps other, as yet unknown factors minimize the damage.  I have seen some data suggesting that cosmic rays are damaging on an apparently LNT curve.

But the big factor that sets nuke fallout apart is the internal particulate form.  One reason why the linear dosimetry is so misleading.  A single microscopic particle of fallout in a fetus may be enough to deform an animal.  Doctors would never even measure it.  Animal life sends out the danger signal to the non radiated tissue, and even to other animals.  Make no mistake about it....a dose of ZERO radiation from fallout still has a radioactive effect.  A SIGNIFICANT one.

I know someone who lost a newborn girl to a brain tumor, post Fukushima.  The scientists proclaim it is impossible to prove causation, and that the dose from Fukushima is so low compared to background radiation that it is nearly impossible that child died because of Fukushima.  But when you throw out the LNT ICRP concept, Fukushima fallout adds to the list of toxic stressors contributing to all pathologies, ...and you realize that a single hot particle could very well be the cause

For some radiation sources, there may be no safe dose, for others there may be a reasonably safe dose, for others there may even be biological benefit.  The world and its scientists NEED that understanding. Anti Nukers should push for it
 
Reply
#22
Code - "But the big factor that sets nuke fallout apart is the internal particulate form. One reason why the linear dosimetry is so misleading. A single microscopic particle of fallout in a fetus may be enough to deform an animal. Doctors would never even measure it. Animal life sends out the danger signal to the non radiated tissue, and even to other animals. Make no mistake about it....a dose of ZERO radiation from fallout still has a radioactive effect. A SIGNIFICANT one."

A signifcant study of the unborn and dead babies along the Columbia River in Washingtonstate ought help clear up any legitimacy concerns - being so affected by Hanford.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#23
Hanford 
How can the people fight the LNT ICRP scientists? In futility they try to argue dose.  Its a cluster in more ways than one

"Twenty per cent of our livestock were malformed"
https://aeon.co/essays/downwinders-the-n...clear-site

using the LNT ICRP model, the nuke industry will win every time;
"radiation dose and risk corresponding to onsite tissue concentrations were not significantly different from those corresponding to offsite (background) concentrations."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...5109002035

-------------------

Clark’s thyroid cancer had spread to her bones; she cannot walk and needs sedation for extreme pain.

Before Clark was sedated this week, she gave her 79-year-old mother a message. “She told me the Hanford downwinders should keep fighting and never give up,” 

She had lost her other daughter to thyroid cancer in 2000.  But the industry wins with the LNT ICRP standard;

“What happened to her is tragic, but she had a low (radiation) dose” of less than 1 rad, making it impossible to prove a link between Hanford and her illness, Van Wart, the defense attorney said.

The federal government (YOU, the tax payer) has paid $59.2 million to Van Wart’s law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and several other law firms through the middle of fiscal year 2010 to defend the Hanford companies in the downwinders’ case.
The government, in an agreement dating back to the Manhattan Project, agreed to indemnify the contractors for operating Hanford. U.S. taxpayers will pay if the plaintiffs settle or win at trial.  And THAT is a capitalist success story!
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/fe...ear-death/

http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/20...abies.html
 
Reply
#24
The debate of LNT vs Hormesis is about the allowable risk and only a probability anyway.  Instruments measuring invisible rays and nuclear particles tell us only so much about what those heavier atomic elements will do to other matter.  Allowing those toxins to contaminate the rest of the world is just wrong in the first place.  I would borrow Lucas' signature line.

"All models are flawed, some are useful."
George E. P. Box

ICRP is useful in protecting nuclear science and industry whereas the ECRR would be more useful in protecting public health.  Code, make it LNT ECRR not LNT ICRP, adjusting the range for a better working model and the nuke industry resists.  They are willing to take any risk to have nuclear weaponry and space batteries and nuclear medicine.  

Code - I know someone who lost a newborn girl to a brain tumor, post Fukushima.  The scientists proclaim it is impossible to prove causation, and that the dose from Fukushima is so low compared to background radiation that it is nearly impossible that child died because of Fukushima.  But when you throw out the LNT ICRP concept, Fukushima fallout adds to the list of toxic stressors contributing to all pathologies, ...and you realize that a single hot particle could very well be the cause

Yes, it was last month, a nephew of sorts in his early twenties, a brain cancer, post Fuku...   what you said.  

The radiation source should always be contained and not scattered carelessly about.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: Horse, 1 Guest(s)