Is your argument that because it wasn't "safe" in the 60's it can never be "safe"?
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM, J Peter Rial <[email protected]> wrote: > Please check out the following wikipedia entry > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium note the half life of > plutonium-239 used in reactor 3 is over 28000 years. It is also clad in a > combustible zirconium alloy. Note also that when combined with moist > atmosphere it expands seven times. There is no safe level of plutonium. > > My father was a nuclear engineer and reactor area supervisor at the > Savannah River Plant in South Carolina for many years. He was a witness to > many horrifying spills and near meltdowns due to multiple cooling pump > breakdowns, operator ignorance and negligence which were never publicized. > Towards the end of his career he became convinced there never could be a > fail safe reactor or waste containment. There were never baseline or other > health studies ever conducted, only unsubstantial claims that there was no > hazard. There were no containment buildings for any of these reactors any > over pressures in the reactor vessels were simply released from a large > smokestack. These reactors were shut down around the late 1960's. To this > day they remain too dangerously radioactive to attempt to dismantle. The > area will remain dangerously radioactive longer than humans have existed. > > Peter > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Mike Cherba <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gentlemen, >> As fascinating as this discussion is, other than Julie and Larry's >> Digital Geiger counter project, the rest of this discussion has little to do >> with the core subjects that this list is intended for. If you wish to >> continue, please take the discussion off-list. >> -Mike >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM, marbux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:51 AM, JS Kaplan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I have set off radiation detectors at Schipol, Newark, Gatwick, and >>> > Dulles airports. >>> > Big deal. Usually flights crossing the Rockies and those >>> > near-circumpolar flights >>> > to Europe are exposed to higher radiation than normal. Triggering a >>> detector >>> > in and of itself is no cause for alarm nor is it indicative of global >>> > radiation >>> > contamination. >>> >>> I agree that in isolation such information would not be conclusive >>> evidence. >>> >>> > Then you are aware of the importance of not being an environmental >>> > whack job. Having the most reliable data and keeping clear of bandwagon >>> > hysteria ploys separates the geeks from the freaks. Scaring the public >>> is >>> > a tactic and usually isn't a means to make friends. >>> >>> The "environmental whack job" you're talking to has won a large number >>> of lawsuits involving toxic substances where both human exposure and >>> the resulting hazard and injuries were squarely at issue, despite the >>> concerted efforts of the best lawyers multinational polluters could >>> hire. Which is but to say that I've managed to convince both judges >>> and juries that my case was solid. >>> >>> I also hope that you might agree that false reports of safety are far >>> more dangerous than false reports of hazard, since the former tend to >>> result in people not taking precautionary measures. >>> >>> As to your "scare tactic" allegation, so far I haven't said a word >>> about the hazard, only explained that Jim's following statement was >>> erroneous: >>> >>> "The amount of radiation you can expect to receive is zero. Anyone who >>> tells you that we in the U.S.A. are going to receive any dose at all >>> is ignorant of how this works, or is trying to sell advertising." >>> >>> > What isotope has been released with that kind of half-life? >>> >>> I guess you haven't been paying close attention to the relevant news >>> reports. At Fukushima, reactor plant 3 lost coolant and exposed at >>> least the top three meters of its fuel rods to the atmosphere, >>> resulting in at least partial fuel rod melting and at least several >>> releases of radioactivity. Still unresolved is whether that reactor's >>> spent fuel pool also lost coolant. Wikipedia has been doing a pretty >>> fair job of keeping up with the situation at that plant. >>> < >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Reactor_unit_3 >>> >. >>> >>> Reactor 3 uses mixed uranium and plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. It takes >>> little study of the partial meltdown situation thus presented to >>> comprehend that both uranium-238 and plutonium oxide would be among >>> the components of the radioactivity that was released from this plant. >>> >>> How do you >>> > suppose >>> > it will hitch a ride across the entire Pacific Ocean >>> >>> Perhaps rather than writing another treatise for your benefit, I could >>> refer you to The New York Times report of a leaked U.N. Comprehensive >>> Test Ban Treaty Organization report predicting that fallout from the >>> Fukushima plants would reach the U.S. by March 18? >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=2&hp>. >>> Really, this is a no-brainer if one understands even a smattering of >>> the science involving particulates suspended in airborne aerosols. >>> >>> and in what >>> > quantities? >>> >>> I don't know and neither does anyone else, despite the multitude of >>> public relations statements being spewed on mainstream media about the >>> expected doses being harmless to human health. >>> >>> Perhaps >>> > there might be a future issue outside of Japan, but for now seeing as >>> Japan >>> > imports almost everything and is in pretty piss poor shape, how about >>> > lending >>> > a hand over there before sending premature alarms up here? >>> >>> Sorry. I've made a financial contribution but don't expect to do much >>> more than that. I've got other fish to fry. >>> >>> I have lived >>> > through >>> > Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Russian and Chinese nuke tests and my >>> mom >>> > and uncle were exposed to more fallout in the 40's and 50's and we are >>> > doing fine. >>> >>> Let's see ... That sampling of three people can tell me exactly what >>> about a potential cancer incidence of 1 per million people exposed, >>> which would still cause hundreds of deaths in the U.S.? The fact that >>> you weren't hit by a bolt of lightning is no proof that no one is ever >>> hit by lightning. Your argument is a logical fallacy. >>> >>> The regulatory posture of the federal government remains unchanged >>> since the seminal work in 1979: >>> >>> "The self-replicating nature of cancer, the multiplicity >>> of causative factors to which individuals can be exposed, the >>> additive and possibly synergistic combination of effects, and the >>> wide range of individual susceptibilities work together in making it >>> currently unreliable to predict a threshold below which human >>> population exposure to a carcinogen has no effect on cancer risk." >>> >>> Inter-Agency Regulatory Liaison Group Work Group Report on the >>> Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and >>> Estimation of Risks." 44 Federal Register 39869, 39876 (July 6, >>> 1979). >>> >>> And for that reason, government risk assessments for carcinogens >>> assume a linear relationship between dose and response, that there is >>> no "safe" dose of a carcinogen. >>> >>> More directly to the point, no one yet has even proposed a >>> pharmacological mechanism by which substances that cause cancer might >>> have a "no effect" level. At least in theory, a single atom or >>> molecule of a cancer-causing substance that acts at the genetic level >>> can trigger uncontrolled cell division. Moreover, we still have no >>> means whatsoever for assessing the risks of substances -- like some >>> varieties of radio-active particles --- that cause cell mutations. >>> >>> Yet we are currently being bombarded with "news" reports that the >>> fall-out from the Japanese reactors will result in doses so low in the >>> U.S. that there will be no risk. Such statements have no scientific >>> basis. There will be risk, although the severity of the risk is >>> debatable. But such debate --- if principled --- will frankly admit at >>> the outset that there will be a very wide degree of scientific >>> uncertainty in any conclusion reached as to the risk. >>> >>> > I think I'll take Mr. Darrough's opinion seeing as he actually works >>> > inside Oregon >>> > State's reactor and has seen duty on two US nuclear wessles. >>> >>> That makes it all the more important that when Jim writes something >>> that is erroneous, the error should be brought to his attention, >>> correct? Or perhaps you think bug reports are a useless exercise? >>> >>> > Folks, I am usually among the first to call conspiratorial foul and >>> yell >>> > about >>> > government greed and disinformation. I also have a son stationed 40 >>> miles >>> > from Tokyo who has yet to be recalled. The fact is, Japan is very far >>> away >>> > and the nuclear radiation emitted from these disasters, while dangerous >>> > at the sites, is not YET a threat outside Japan. >>> >>> That is a mere wish, not an established fact. I am very sorry that >>> your son has not been evacuated from Japan along with the families of >>> members of the military and of the State Department. It's very >>> unfortunate, but the U.S. government has a long and sordid history of >>> needlessly exposing members of its military to harmful levels of >>> radiation (in atomic bomb testing). >>> >>> But that might be fairly attributed to those who have arrived at the >>> wrong answer to the question, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one >>> saw it, did it fall?" The slimy part of atomic energy is the history >>> of doses once claimed to be safe that turned out to be harmful, claims >>> that were based on no more than scientific uncertainty, on no one >>> having seen that tree fall. >>> >>> > Can we keep guessing, non-primary sourced information, agendas, and >>> > emotional >>> > content not pertinent to Linux etc off of here? >>> >>> Like you just did? I did not start this conversation. I merely brought >>> an error to the attention of the person who did start the thread. I >>> agree that the discussion is off-topic, but writing a rant on the same >>> subject and ending it with a plea for no more to be said exhibits just >>> a bit of a double standard, yes? If you wanted to ask that the >>> conversation end, I think it would have been more appropriate not to >>> continue it yourself in the same post. >>> >>> If you want to make >>> > statements >>> > and suppositions prior to any damaging affect reaching Oregon, how >>> about >>> > posting them on cnn.com or in the Weekly please? >>> >>> No. Because I've nowhere else seen anyone claim that zero fallout from >>> the Japan nuclear incidents would reach the U.S. Even the folks who >>> claim that the doses will be harmless acknowledge that the fallout is >>> going to reach our shores. Jim was in error and I called the bug to >>> his attention. >>> >>> I responded where the subject was raised by someone else. Why no >>> similar plea to the others who posted in this off-topic thread? Oh >>> yeah. It 's because I'm an "environmental whack-job." Right. >>> >>> Name-calling "usually isn't a means to make friends." >>> >>> Best regards anyway, >>> >>> Paul >>> _______________________________________________ >>> EUGLUG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. -- Richard Feynman >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EUGLUG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug > >
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
