******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
On 2017-02-23 18:03, DW via Marxism wrote:
No, they are responsible in no small part of prolonging the problems.
Read
the article AND the discussion since Greenpeace is the first
commentator...
Well I didn't get to reading the discussion, but a few things are clear.
The article is correct in saying that the radiation levels near
Fukushima that Greenpeace decries as unsafe are actually lower than the
background radiation levels in many places in the world. Therefore, and
I agree with this, there is no greater "emergency" in Japan than there
is in many other places where the people never worry at all about
ionizing radiation as an environmental danger.
However that doesn't answer what a safe level actually is. The level
cited is 2.5 millisieverts per year. One Sievert is what we used to call
100 rem (a more manageable unit IMO) and I would certainly not call 2.5
msv/year a "negligible" level. For comparison, the annual occupational
exposure in the US is 5 rem or 50 msv, 20 times greater than that. Most
people working with isotopes in research and medicine or in radiology (I
don't know about the nuclear industry) get an annual dose much smaller
than that at work over a year (if more, then they have to stop work).
Again for comparison, it was always considered (and this couldn't be too
far off) that a dose of 450 rem = 4500 msv would be fatal to half the
people receiving it. In any case, the levels we are discussing are much
less, but not much much less than what would be unquestionably
dangerous.
The author of this piece is rather sloppy in not once considering what
is actually dangerous. He casually writes: "but radon exposures can vary
widely, from almost zero to as high as 340 (yes, three hundred and
fourty) millisieverts per year." That last high figure he cites
represents a huge danger and a house that no one should live in! In fact
radon leakage from the ground into houses is the greatest ionizing
radiation danger faced in many areas, especially among radiation dangers
that are (in principle) preventable and is taken very seriously.
Ironically, improvements in sealing houses for energy efficiency have
meant much less air circulation from the outside and a greater
accumulation of radon indoors. The fact that millions of people live
with such a radon level in their houses is absolutely no reason for
anyone else to tolerate those dangerous levels if they can help it.
Really the main unknown involved in discussing all these figures, is
what the effect of "low level" radiation is. In other words, we know
4500 msv would kill 500 out of 1000 people, but how many would be killed
by 45 msv? Given a linear model one might conclude there would therefore
be 5 killed out of 1000. I don't think it's that high. But it isn't
known really whether further decreases in ionizing radiation levels
leads to proportionally decreased health effects (linear model), to even
LESS than that (if the danger only picks up at a particular threshold),
or much MORE than that (that a very small dose is already dangerous but
the body responds to limit the increase in danger when it encounters
greater levels).
It isn't easy to determine that because we're now talking about
increases in cancer rates which are much smaller than the baseline
cancer rates. So it is debated among the experts (which I am not) and
inconclusive. When in doubt it is wise to take the cautious approach and
assume that low radiation levels are more dangerous than can be easily
observed. But no, not everyone in Finland should relocate for that
reason alone. I don't think the word "emergency" used by Greenpeace is
warranted for the 2.5 msv/year level. But that doesn't mean that we know
enough to call it "safe" either.
So I don't accept either this article or Greenpeace's judgement
outright. It appears that in each case the arguments were determined by
the desired conclusions of their proponents. That is the opposite of
science.
- Jeff
David Walters
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Dennis Brasky <dmozart1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I must have missed it - was Greenpeace responsible for the high
radiation
levels, or is this a case of shooting the messenger?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:43 AM, DW via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
A recent Greenpeace news release leads to an inescapable conclusion:
that
us Finns need to be evacuated immediately, because radiation hazards
of
living in Finland exceed those encountered in Fukushima evacuation
zones. I
therefore humbly ask Greenpeace to find a place for 5.5 million
Finns, or
at the very least for those 549 000 of us who now have to live in a
radiated wasteland where annual radiation doses are at least two
times
higher than what Greenpeace deems “emergency radiological situation”
and
“an unacceptable radiation risk” in Japan. If possible, could we also
find
a place that’s warm and without slush?
FULL:
https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/02/22/hey-greenpeace-could-you-
find-us-finns-a-warm-place-to-live-in/
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/meisner%40xs4all.nl
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
