• 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
Background is not Fallout
#1
Comparing nuclear industry radiation exposure to background radiation is common.  It gives the impression that fallout is no worse, or even less harmful because of the quantities involved.   How valid is this comparison?

Given that there is background radiation, what would be the stronger argument for an anti nuclear debate?

1) background radiation is just like all other ionizing radiation and  follows a linear no threshold risk
2) background radiation is different than nuclear fallout and does not follow a linear no threshold risk
3) Background radiation is the baseline condition of life and any deviation higher or lower can result in negative consequences

In fact there are studies that provide evidence for the third.   Does this strengthen or weaken an anti nuclear debate?

Those studies are powerful ammunition against the fallout to background comparison, but they are seldom used.
I advise fighting against the background vs fallout comparisons by studying the differences of fallout and background. Putting them in the same basket and highlighting toxicity of background is anti productive.    The science may be deep but really it only requires a little common sense....
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#2
Carbon 14 is an example of a radionuclide that is both natural and from nuclear fallout.  What isnt natural is the quantity.  Nuclear bomb tests doubled the amount of C-14 in the earths atmosphere.  This was incorporated into every living thing and is sometimes used for carbon-14 dating.    Every eleven years, the amount of that carbon-14 in the atmosphere from the bomb pulse decreases by half.

Doubling the amount of C-14 and then calling it natural background radiation is of course untrue and bad science.

This extra carbon 14 is often considered completely safe.  However, it represents a change from the baseline biophysics and may alter the living world in ways not even considered. Linus Pualing had calculated tens of thousands of deaths and deformities from the C-14 in bomb fallout.  https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2011/0...carbon-14/

"Carbon-14 is a low b emitter, with a low penetrating power which causes radiation stress mainly due to internal 
irradiation, if the 14C is incorporated. Carbon-14 is interesting from a radiobiological standpoint because it is integrated 
in cellular components (proteins, nucleic acids), particularly cellular DNA.  The resulting 
DNA damage, involving molecular breaks, may lead to cell death or induce potentially inheritable mutations."
https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publicat...nment.aspx
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
What does nuclear fallout, and industrial radiation do that pre-nuclear era background radiation does not do?

Anybody can help expand this list and find supporting papers

Fallout compels the World Health Organization to lie about Chernobyl consequences and suppress scientific evidence.  For example, they suppressed peer reviewed papers and evidence that  80 percent of the children in Belarus are ill from a vast panoply of diseases
https://truthout.org/articles/chernobyl-30-years-on/

No need for the UN, the WHO and other organizations to lie about the death toll from natural radiation!

And here is a hero,  Dr Yuri Bandazhevski.   Imprisoned and tortured for his excellent work.

[Image: yury-bandazhevsky-99413250-d4f2-490f-8c0...e-750.jpeg]

Fallout causes a range of diseases at a level of 50 bq/kq and even lower levels, which is below your natural internal radiation from potassium.   Fallout is not background radiation.

Cs-137, accumulated internally  affects membrane cell structures. provokes structure and function disorder in many vital systems. The energetic system and mitochondrial systems are violated.  Cs-137 causes Immune system malfunction, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental retardation, birth defects. and metabolic dysfunction.

'Non cancer illnesses and conditions in areas of Belarus contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl Accident'
http://harmonicslife.net/Blog/2011/GensB...1.2s_E.pdf

The work from Yuri Bandazhevsky puts an end to the debate on fallout toxicity. Clearly, fallout is extremely toxic and background radiation is not.  The challenge is getting the world, including the public, scientists, pro and anti nuclear persons and certainly policy and law makers to be aware of and incorporate these findings.

And the environment before Chernobyl was already contaminated with nuclear fallout from bomb tests and military industrial processes.  You cannot call this nuclear fallout background radiation.

https://chernobyl-today.org/en/news/19-n...7-07-43-00

https://chernobyl-today.org/images/stori...Eng_V2.pdf

Nuclear fallout causes people to create extensive, complex and costly exposure regulations and laws as well as monitoring systems to assure (or not) compliance.  The system in use, namely the ICRP LNT dosimetry is accused of being wrong by large factors, rendering it useless for nuclear fallout risk assessment.  https://www.afsc.org/sites/default/files...ration.pdf

Fallout causes the creation of citizen groups like CafeRadLab where people donate their time and energies in an effort to stop the poisoning of life on earth. No such efforts are required for background radiation

fallout causes poisoned evacuation zones  that remain a terrific burden on the remaining plants animals and people of the region.

Fallout causes microcephaly, mental retardation, at levels considered safe by the ICRP, genomic instability, reduction in biodiversity, ecosystem wide cascades of degradation beyond the initial radiation effect to individuals.

Fallout causes Presidents to lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=095dqQn_3H8

Fallout can influence the weather. 

Nuclear waste requires expensive storage solutions, now and for thousands of years into the future which have never been fully realized.  background requires no storage, no monitoring (except indoor radon), no safety measures, no laws

Nuclear waste causes criminal activity, including illegal dumping,  exploitation of workers by organized crime,  and murder
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#4
Nuclear fallout contains radionuclides of high 'specific activity'.   This is the amount of radioactivity per mass.
Here is an illustration comparing cesium 137 found in fallout and k-40, a ubiquitous background radiation source. 

 A girl stands next to a two inch cube of cesium while standing on a cube of k-40 having equal radiation.   Both blocks of material have an equal amount of radiation.  The impact of this difference to the living world is rarely discussed. Studies indicate that the small cube of cesium 137 is extremely toxic while the large cube is not.  This is never acknowledged!

   

   
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#5
There is evidence that background radiation may play a role in the biological baseline state.   Scientists usually group all ionizing radiation together, assuming a similar biological effect regardless of radionuclide or source.  The ECRR has shown this is a wildly incorrect assumption, especially in regard to internalized nuclear fallout. 

Here are some examples of the ongoing study of reduced (sub background) radiation effects

 'Life needs some radiation'
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/li...radiation/


'The limited available data suggest that organisms exposed to sub-background radiation environments undergo reduced growth and an impaired capacity to repair genetic damage.
We hypothesize that natural background radiation is essential for life and maintains genomic stability, and that prolonged exposure to sub-background radiation environments will be detrimental to biological systems'

https://bioone.org/journals/radiation-re...4654.1.pdf



'Our data suggest the reduced radiation environment can influence Drosophila development and, depending on the genetic background, may affect viability for several generations even when flies are moved back to normal background radiation. As flies are considered a valuable model for human biology, our results might shed some light on understanding the effect of low dose radiation also in humans.'
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/.../jcp.25889


'Chronic low-dose γ-irradiation of Drosophila melanogaster larvae induces gene expression changes and enhances locomotive behavior.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25792464


'Low-dose ionizing radiation alleviates Aβ42-induced cell death via regulating AKT and p38 pathways in Drosophila Alzheimer's disease models.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30670376


'Some studies revealed that prokaryote and eukaryote cells maintained in low levels of background radiation exhibited an stress response, which manifested as changes in cell growth, enzyme activity, and sensitivity to factors that cause genetic damage; however, the underlying mechanisms are unclear. There remains an urgent need to understand the detrimental and beneficial biological effects of low background radiation '
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...via%3Dihub

'Experiments performed in deep underground laboratories (DULs) have further challenged the LNT model. These locations, shielded from cosmic radiation, represent the ideal scenario for extremely low-dose/dose-rate investigations. So far, the biological response below the average environmental radiation background has been investigated in protozoan (2, 3), bacteria (4, 5), yeasts (6) and mammalian cells of rodent (7, 8) and human origin (4, 9). The overall message derived from these studies is that environmental radiation is necessary to trigger mechanisms that increase the ability to respond to stress.'
https://bioone.org/journals/radiation-re...083.1.full

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

If background radiation was the same as fallout, nobody would be alive.
This can be calculated;  If bomb tests killed 60 million people (ECRR estimate) but was only 5% of the natural background, we can multiply by 20 to get a total death of 1,200,000,000 if the harm from background and fallout were equal...which is about 1/3 of the total global population during the bomb test era.  But the fallout effect is only from 60 years of exposure while background has been here since the beginning.

"Overall, the worldwide average effective dose rate from natural background is about 2400 microSv a(-1) or 2.4 mSv a(-1). For comparison, worldwide average effective dose rates from weapons fallout peaked at 113 microSv a(-1) (about 5% of natural background) in 1963 and have since fallen to about 5.5 microSv a(-1) (about 0.2% of natural background)"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729417

The nuclear industry has reduced the intelligence of the entire human race to some extent (up to 30 IQ points from prenatal exposure), and caused a change in the metabolic function of everything. Everyone contains unnatural and poisonous strontium 90 and other types of fallout

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1391/1c...fb7ab7.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)