Why isn't the WHO, the worlds leading health risk investigative body, allowed to conduct analyses and surveys relating to radiological events WITHOUT the explicit consent of the International Atomic Energy Agency? (an agreement arrived at in the 1950s)

And one of the primary goals of the IAEA is to promote the Nuclear Power industry - its in their charter.

What an evil industry that lies on a daily basis.

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 5:32am:


The undamaged fuel bundles first. Good luck to them.

Do you know where the melted coriums are in reactor buildings 1,2 and 3? Try and find out.

The Fukushima reactor facility is not only built in a tsunami and earth quake prone region (like most of Japans reactors), it sits right on an old river bed. They built up the soil prior to constructing the facility. There are natural water flows, and ground flow movement beneath the reactors at Fukushima.

How many nuclear reactors are online in japan as we speak muso?

Its astounding that you defend the most hideous and corrupt industry on the planet - nothing even comes near it.

...you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself you filthy floating decanted fluidised stream of skunk spray emulsion

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 9:44am:


...take it up with Mr, Marui - he doesn't emit foul odours and putrid immoral stenches

"Fukushima Daiichi was built some 40 years ago on the site of a river that was diverted in order to situate the plant, Mr. Marui says. It should have been clear that lots of groundwater would be rushing through the site, he says, and that any walls or barriers built on the seaward side would soon be overwhelmed—something that, indeed, has happened in recent weeks."

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 10:53am:


Not sure about the actual pathway the river took, just that they had to divert it in order to build the Fukushima facility. There was quite a bit of "earth" and aggregate trucked in to build up the fukushima - apparently a little too low. Still too low, seeing as they built a 5m Tsunami wall, and where hit with a 16m Tsunami - heights which have historical precedence in the area.

Source?

By the way on the subject of low level radiation, there is plenty of evidence that low levels of radiation (between 100mSv and 250mSv/year) actually reduce the risk of cancer due to increased DNA repair. That's including internal and external doses. I mentioned Radium Springs once before, but here's another example:

Quote:


I don't doubt that there may have been people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation around Fukushima, especially in areas to the NW of the Power Plant, which delayed evacuation, but the problem is largely confined to that province.

muso wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:45am:
Therein lies one of the most intractable shortcomings of nuclear power: the human element. To quote from the foreword of the book We Almost Lost Detroit: Quote:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:


Of course I undestand this. I also realise that some elements bioaccumulate while others pass straight through.

Quote:


Cs137 is the least of your worries. It matabolises quite  readily. All depends on the dose of course.

Quote:


What is the mechamism for mobilisation of Plutonium? Japan has been living with trace quantities of Pu as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations - but how did the Pu mobilise itself in the case of Fukushima?  The same goes for Am-241, which is a Pu daughter isotope. 

Quote:


There is an obvious threshold for radiation dose, as there is with any other toxin. OK, if you're writing a Safety procedure, then the Linear No threshold model is nice and conservative, but it's obviously wrong. The UN accepts that it's wrong and the UNSCEAR, has recently (2012) recommended policies that do not agree with the Linear No-Threshold model at exposure levels below background levels of radiation to the UN General Assembly from the Fifty-Ninth Session of the Committee. Its recommendation states that "the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels."


Common sense prevails. Anybody who has had anything to do with radiological dose, as I have, knows that this is common sense.

We live on a planet with natural radioactvity. In the geological past, levels have been higher.  Do you deny this? Life has adapted in conjunction with this radiation. In fact there is considerable evidence that errors in DNA replication, lead to mutations, an essential ingredient for evolution. There is also evidence that low levels of radiation has a healing effect. The healing springs at Radium, Canada were well known for their effectiveness in healing minor and not so minor illnesses including rheumatism and arthritis.

Evidence from the  survivors of Hiroshima showed that those with low doses of radiation were less likely to develop cancers, and that the response to dose was anything but linear. 

Chimp,  I am not defending the Nuclear Industry. There were obvious flaws in the planning of the siting of Fukushima 1, obvious problems in the way that Tepco has dealt with the situations, and vast chasms in their Risk Communication strategy.

I understand this, and no nuclear power station should have been sited in an area such as this close to Tectonic plates.

What I object to is the unnecessary panic that is being caused by inaccurate and nonsensical reports.

The fatality rate for Chernobyl that you quote are based on attributing every single death from cancer to the incident.  That is clearly not correct.

The fact of life is that nuclear activists tend to grossly exaggerate to the point of being nonsensical.  At the same time, Tepco is guilty of covering up or delaying the release of some information. To find the truth of the matter requires individual thought.

You didn't provide a source. I presume that's because it's from one of the more feral actvist sites, and you were embarrassed to divulge that fact.

Grey wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:


US and Russian analysts have both agreed that even a conventional war that uses non-nuclear weaponry would create a catastrophe if nuclear power stations are targets.

there are about 500 nuclear power plants in the world today. The USA has about 110 spread out over most of its states. Imagine meltdowns at even 20% of these reactors? Its very easy to do with a few conventional bombs or missiles.

Any sort of natural or human made event that threatens the cooling or control systems of these nuclear reactors has global ramifications.

The 1859 Solar storm (the Carrington event) wiped out every electrical device on the planet at the time (although there weren't many at the time and they had poor shielding).

A similar event today will certainly cause havoc with power transmission, computer systems and communication etc.

Most nuclear power facilities are not equipped to endure such an event.

And such an event will occur sooner or later