On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:45:19 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of > *[email protected]<javascript:> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:01:26 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/ > liter > > NHK <http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140213_22.html>, Feb. > 13, 2014: *Record cesium level in Fukushima plant groundwater* — [Tepco] > says water samples taken from a newly-dug well contained the highest levels > of radioactive cesium detected so far in groundwater at the site [...] the > record levels suggest that the leakage point could be near the well. [...] > 600 times the government standard for radioactive wastewater that can be > released into the sea. It is more than 30,000 times the level of cesium 137 > found in water samples taken from another observation well to the north > last week. [...] [Tepco has] yet to determine where the leak originates. > > In general the dangers arsing from nuclear fission power are grossly > exaggerated. It's far and away the best answer to greenhouse emissions, > that is also realistic. If we'd been building nuclear power stations the > fracking locomotive wouldn't be the unstoppable force that it has become. > > on > > > > > > >>Many ways the dangers are blown out of proportion.. Even catastrophic > meltdown that blow the roof off and spread the love like Chernobyl, do not > result in a tiny fraction of the disasters that the standard models > predict. Ten's of thousands were predicted to die. In the end, just 40 > deaths from Chernobyl, and most of those the people sent in to get control > in the aftermath. > > > > Dude – even the Report of > 2005<http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf>(by the IAEA, > WHO, and UNDP, agencies that cannot by any stretch of the > imagination be described as hostile to the advancement of nuclear power) > put the Chernobyl ultimate death toll at 4000 – a figure that is one > hundred times bigger than the 40 deaths you believe are attributable to > this atomic disaster. The 4000 figure has been challenged and criticized as > being far too low and that over the decades the extra cancer deaths > ultimately caused by this disaster have been far higher. For example: > “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” > published by the New York Academy of sciences; authored by Russian > biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian > president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and > Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director > of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of > Belarus; put the extra cancer deaths attributable to the Chernobyl disaster > at almost one million – a figure that is 25,000 times greater than the 40 > deaths you seem to believe caps the death toll for Chernobyl. I believe you > are ignoring many thousands of horrible cancer deaths that were triggered > by this disaster; and even the IAEA agrees that many thousands of people > died from radiation induced cancers. > > To claim that only 40 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is > an act of spreading propaganda; it is un-scientific. > If I got that wrong that wouldn't be something I'd set out to do. It's possible something has changed in the time since I last had an active interest. But it was controversial back then too. And some of those organizations were probably taking the same position they still do. But there were checking up scientific researches, and I was convinced by the quality of their research and the organizations you may have listed. They are all still using the same model, and these predictions could be dubious. The researchers that went up against it ripped the official counting methods apart. They had, and have a powerful case that isn't just about Chernobyl. But risks from radiation exposure at low levels. They had a knock down case and those big organizations just didn't want to hear about it. probably still don't. Is there an organized campaign around this low radiation dose business? Is there an organized campaign for nuclear power? There's certainly an organized campaign against it It was about 40 or it might have been 50, in the report they did. I don't think the researchers were bent. Not as I remember. but those were the numbers.
> > > > > There have been revolutions in station design since plants like fukishima > were built, and that disaster isn't shaping up to the dire predictions > either. > > > > What most of all this derives out of, are long standing questions about > the level of risk associated with exposure to radiation at low doses up to > somewhere below the 200 mark. There's no firm evidence of substantial risk. > There's plenty of evidence for genetic protection. There's a whole plethora > of statistics we could reasonably expect if low dose exposure was anything > like the risk that still sits there in the model. Airline cabin crew should > have higher frequency cancer for all that time so near space for one > example. They don't. > > > > Conversely there are some major natural radiation hotspots in the world. > You'd expect those areas to produce more cancer and radiation poisoning > related disease. But the opposite is true. People exposed to dramatically > higher doses of radiation (inside the low dosage spectrum), actually become > lower risks. There seems to be a triggerable genetic response when levels > increase. > > > > I'm over-compensating in the other direction a bit here. Not because I > love the bomb, but if you only knew the power of the dark side. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
