• 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
Illustrating the Corruption
This Town Didn't Want to Be a Radioactive Waste Dump. The Government Is Giving Them No Choice. https://earther.gizmodo.com/this-town-di...1834789264 Piketon - Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant—locally known as the A-Plant (for Atomic Plant)

Excerpt:

"What they, and everyone really, didn’t understand at the outset of the Cold War was the lasting impacts uranium enrichment could have. Sure, scientists understood radioactive material could cause cancer, but they thought that it’d take a lot of radiation, explained Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist and acting director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project. Now, we know any exposure poses a risk.

“They knew certain things. There were a lot of things they didn’t know and a lot of things they didn’t worry about that much, again, in the drive to develop nuclear weapons and to build up the nuclear arsenal,” Lyman told Earther. “The legacy of that inattention is what we’re dealing with today.”

Once the secrecy around what these plants were doing and their potential impacts on human health began to crack in the 1980s, facilities started to shutter, Lyman said. The public was outraged, and the anti-nuclear movement was born. That’s, in part, why construction of new nuclear plants in the U.S. halted for about three decades. Portsmouth eventually succumbed to the same fate as similar weapons enrichment facilities when it shut down in 2001.

Now, more than 15 years later, the DOE is left with the task of cleaning up the more than 2 million tons of low-level radioactive waste and thousands more tons of hazardous waste the plant’s operations left behind. Completing the landfill is estimated to take another 10 to 12 years, with the entire clean-up projected to go on until 2035. Although smaller in scale, the effort draws some parallels to the clean up of Washington state’s infamous Hanford site, a plutonium-enrichment facility that left behind hundreds of contaminated facilities whose cleanup is estimated to last at least another 40 years."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
(05-16-2019, 01:50 PM)piajensen Wrote: If it is the opinion of WHOI, the ICRP and all the experts we are fighting that radiation is dangerous regardless of the source, then please explain why they work so hard to downplay or minimize the reality that radioisotopes cause lasting  and lethal damage? Your claim makes no sense. 

Witness: 

FukushimaInform (WHOI cohort) - Insignificant Environmental and Public Health Risk from Fukushima in North America 8 Years On | Home - Fukushima InFORM https://fukushimainform.ca/2019/03/11/in...-years-on/

"Authorities are downplaying the risk on the basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the ICRP radiation risk model is unsafe for this purpose. This is clear from hundreds of research studies of the Chernobyl accident outcomes. It has also been conceded by the editor of the ICRP risk model, Dr Jack Valentin, in a discussion with Chris Busby in Stockholm, Sweden in April 2009." https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/...ushima.pdf

"As reported in CADU News 17 Dr Baverstock wrote a paper while at the WHO on the cancer risk posed by DU weapons which was suppressed. In Edinburgh he explained that he outlined in the paper possible mechanisms by which DU posed a cancer risk that were ignored by the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Authority." http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/18_1.htm

Are you suggesting that "normal" background radiation is healthy? Since the onset of nuclear weapons testing around the world and routine nuclear emissions and critical nuclear events, there is no "normal" background radiation in most places.

You state: "I consider all radiation potentially dangerous, with the possible exception of potassium" - so, our opinions are not so far apart. It is unclear why you argue in disagreement. If your intention is to pit us against each other, you've done a fine job, but there is no value in that. If your intention is to educate, then please, carry on. You can do that without setting us apart like boxers in a fight. Or, maybe you can't.

For my taste, your post here proves my position, not disproves it. 

"If it is the opinion of WHOI, the ICRP and all the experts we are fighting that radiation is dangerous regardless of the source, then please explain why they work so hard to downplay or minimize the reality that radioisotopes cause lasting  and lethal damage? Your claim makes no sense."

'My claim'  is that the WHOI and the world at large uses the ICRP dosimetry which implicitly states dose is considered linear with no threshold.   Using that dosimetry, they dont have to work very hard to downplay danger because the dose coefficients are written in black and white and they use them.   They also compare background radiation to fallout.  For example, we know that there is 12,000 bq/m3 of potassium radiation in the ocean and only 10 bq/m3 of cesium 137 except close to Fukushima.    Adding up all the unlisted radionuclides and using bioaccumulation rates is barely going to reach that natural background level.   The potassium radiation we have inside our cells is five times greater than the ocean.    This is why I had devoted so much time to the background vs fallout comparison

The two examples you cite, one from Busby and the one about DU support my claim.   Essentially, the ECRR, Busby et al are saying you cant look at radiation dose to give you an idea of radiation danger.  The corrected dose coefficient the ECRR gives for DU is here;

U-238 – ICRP: 45 nSv/Bq   compared to   ECRR: 8,400,000 nSv/Bq (u particle)

they are saying that DU is 186 thousand times more toxic per radiation dose than the ICRP is claiming.   You could survive one bee sting but never survive 186,000 bee stings.   

"Are you suggesting that "normal" background radiation is healthy? Since the onset of nuclear weapons testing around the world and routine nuclear emissions and critical nuclear events, there is no "normal" background radiation in most places."

The data coming in from studies, and the precautionary principle suggest that normal background radiation is not unhealthy and possibly healthy...a natural part of our biology.  http://caferadlab.com/thread-3487-post-8...ml#pid8306

 This is especially true for potassium which existed in significantly higher amounts at the beginning of life before there were sophisticated protection and repair mechanisms of proto cells.   The amount of radioactive potassium in our bodies and in the ecosphere has not changed due to nuclear emissions and accidents.     Nor has the over all radiation level of background changed dramatically due to the nuclear era.   Natural background does not of course refer to medical x-rays and the like.   Specific radionuclides have increased dramatically, like the doubling of C-14, and all the synthetic radionuclides which have increased infinitely since they werent here before, but if you are arguing an anti nuclearist they will spout numbers, and the fact remains that fallout is not a huge part of our radiation exposure.     So the point of this is that its not the dose, or finding the missing undisclosed dose, but the toxicity which is vitally important.

Thats to say that given the known, disclosed fallout exposure, and the dosimetry of the ECRR, the case against the nuclear industry is already made, already proven. 

"You state: "I consider all radiation potentially dangerous, with the possible exception of potassium" - so, our opinions are not so far apart. It is unclear why you argue in disagreement."

I got the impression that you believed hidden or undisclosed radiation exposure...the quantity, was the main problem. You argued fro bioaccumulation. 

 ""If media were to investigate radiation pathways, through the food chain, there'd be no misunderstanding about why, for example, so many marine life are dying off"

So for example I disagree with your statement there. Anyone using or believing in the standard dosimetry...or even trying to use common sense is going to have a misunderstanding of why marine life is dying.   Thats because the dosimetry says its so low as to be as safe as background radiation, even considering bioaccumulation, and intuitively, people have a hard time believing that levels of radiation 1000x smaller than the pre existing radiation are what is doing all the harm, while the 1000x level is harmless.  It is anti intuitive, so that is why I spent so much time discussing this issue.  Review the thread 'background is not fallout'  http://caferadlab.com/thread-3487-post-8...ml#pid8214

" If your intention is to pit us against each other, you've done a fine job, but there is no value in that. If your intention is to educate, then please, carry on. You can do that without setting us apart like boxers in a fight. Or, maybe you can't."

I would like to point out that it is you who puts this discussion on fighting terms.  It was you who censored my post, with the warning that creating conflict among anti nuclear folks will not be tolerated.

Please note carefully that It is not me who is framing the dialogue this way.  Furthermore its not certain that others share your concerns regarding my content.

Im open to correction, but so far I stand by all of my content.  If the people cant handle the truth, if they cant handle being called the anti nuke camp etc, then there is a problem on their end, not my end.   Its clear that you feel a conflict, but I dont detect that from others. 


thanks
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
Had you not begun painting antinuclear activists in a negative way, as you have done previously, no warning would have been given. Baiting isn't acceptable. Again, if you want to pursue your concerns about why antinukers aren't fitting the mold you so greatly desire, you should speak directly with those with whom you disagree. I am sure that if you did that, we would all learn much and you might even see antinukers adopting your point of view.

About your comment that certain agents/organizations are of the opinion that all radiation is dangerous and my response - you have changed your claim to "WHOI and the world at large uses the ICRP dosimetry which implicitly states dose is considered linear with no threshold. Using that dosimetry, they dont have to work very hard to downplay danger because the dose coefficients are written in black and white and they use them." which is not the same as your original claim. I am not interested in shell games.

Your content is fine, with the exception of trying to make antinukers look incompetent. That is and always has been the problem I have with your expression. We don't need to create division, or the appearance of division, within our ranks.

Tomorrow I will move all posts on this topic to Rad Paradigm because they are not about nuclear corruption.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
The reason I entered this thread was to say the teachers and policy makers need to know there is a danger before they can feel serious about it.   They wont know that by looking at dose.   Not all of those folks are evil liars...they are missguided. If we managed to clear up all the corruption, there would still be the nuclear problem, the dose problem. 

CafeRadLab could be an accessible repository of info.  I like it for that reason.   Weve been over this before...my concerns as you frame it, or the mold I desire is not something I should have to pursue in private.   The info Im presenting is for everyone, and should be public.   This information provides a cogent argument against the mainstream, which is lacking in the dialogue and sites I have looked at.   We are fortunate to have been given much needed answers, and Im presenting them.   It ought to be as much your concern as my concern.  I see that people THINK they have an argument against Woods Hole but its actually inadequate. They would lose a public debate. 

Your concern that Im painting anti nuclearists in a negative way and baiting is noted.    So far, the nuclear industry has won, and the main leverage to end nuclear is the financial one...cost vs profit.   What does that say?    If the dosimetry had been revised, the anti nuclear war would have ended already. 

In some ways, the pro and anti nuke folks are alike.  They both have mistaken or incomplete views, and we should tell them, so eventually it might sink in and make a change.   This stands to be repeated until it makes an impression.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
I still think you are losing an opportunity by not talking directly with those with whom you disagree. I have used such opportunities to make public what is not presented by media. Having a private conversation with others does not mean information derived from the conversation stays private.

CRL is a very accessible repository. Some threads have received a lot of attention and topics posted at CRL have generated media and political interest. Of course, you don't see that because you limit your social media experience.

I will leave these posts here, your reasoning is sound.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
Its not like I have an oddball theory that disagrees with a few anti nukers willing to consider it. If Im wrong, then the ECRR is wrong and the nuke industry is right and we have nothing to worry about. If my concerns are not every anti nukers concerns, then they havent been paying attention.

Bandazhevsky, on the basis of autopsy and intense clinical study found Cs137 causes morbid changes to many systems at levels below background, which incidentally has not been shown to be dangerous. There is a reason I keep repeating this, and its my signature slogan. Its not that I just love repeating it for the sound

But it seems we disagreed above on dose, bioaccumulation, belief of the industry, background radiation etc, so in light of your suggestion I talk directly with those who disagree, if you would like to start a dialogue on it, Im game.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
Great. I'll make some contacts tomorrow, see who is willing to dive in with you. We only have one disagreement - presentation style.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
Again!!!

Contamination events force project shut down at Hanford nuclear site

Work was halted at the eastern Washington nuclear site after highly radioactive particles spread inside the most contaminated building on the site. https://www.king5.com/article/news/inves...8be72b1b92

Excerpt:

"“It’s pretty close to populated areas, and it’s a very, very large inventory of radioactive waste,’ said Tom Carpenter, executive director of the advocacy group, Hanford Challenge. “Because of the levels of contamination and where it’s situated, (the project is) a top, top concern."

Workers were trying to stabilize the building in preparation for the demolition of Building 324. On March 13, workers found spots of contamination on equipment and other locations in the building.

The radioactive material was pure Strontium 90, one of the most lethal, unstable radioactive isotopes used in the process to produce plutonium at Hanford during World War II and throughout the Cold War.

The contractor did not expect to find Strontium 90, but instead of stopping work to increase safety controls, the work continued.

“They should have stopped the work. No one was hurt, but they found Strontium 90. That wasn’t expected. The safest thing to do would have been to stop and increase safety controls for the workers. Instead, they waited another month,” said one worker, who asked to not be identified for fear of retaliation."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
If you were following the now defunct US gov corruption thread- some relevance. Oh, my.

New Jersey tax credit investigation: Firms could face criminal penalties if they lied to get millions
https://www.philly.com/business/new-jers...90502.html
"I see a pattern."
No kidding.


https://www.philly.com/business/new-jers...90502.html No, just no.

Pia, could you fix these two broken links for me? Not sure why they went 404?
http://caferadlab.com/thread-2292-post-8...ml#pid8195
 
Reply
via @stapf Dark-money group spends nearly $3 million in ads to sell bad #nuclear bailout bill in Ohio. https://mobile.twitter.com/stapf/status/...2335595521

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/...s9FRbSBfJ/

Excerpt:

"Generation Now, a dark money group, has spent more than $2.76-million on TV and radio ads in favor of the bill while opposition groups have spent more than $300,000 on ads, according to records kept by an ad buying firm. Householder said he doesn’t know who is funding Generation Now.

Ohio’s political leaders – Householder, Gov. Mike DeWine and Senate President Larry Obhof – have expressed support for taking steps to keep the nuclear power plants open, in large part because the plants generate power without carbon emissions."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Stamping Out Corruption piajensen 1 2,441 11-10-2017, 10:55 AM
Last Post: piajensen

Forum Jump:


Browsing: rthsmth, 2 Guest(s)