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. 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:


Chimp, You are the one denying science here. UNSCEAR is to the IPCC as Chris Busby and Arnie Gundersen are to Christopher Monckton and David Evans.  They are the lone eccentrics trying to baffle brains with bullsh1t.

muso wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:


You are coupling your emotional attachment to nuclear to the very spin they publish.

Lets examine your METABOLISM of Cs137 under the primal logic microscope shall we.

There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between a stray Cs137 atom moving through your blood stream and being excreted via the Kidney system AND a hot particle of Cs137 (or rather a cocktail of radionuclides) being inhaled and lodging into lung tissue whereby it can irradiate the surrounding cells with highly energetic beta particles.

To dismiss the dangers of Cs137 which lingers in the environment for up to 600 years, based upon a "pseudo-physiological half life" only reveals your adhesion to spin in order to support your UN-SUPPORTABLE stance.

By your reasoning, we should all travel to Japan and consume as much food as possible that is contaminated with Cs137 so that we can biologically neutralise it.

Chimp,

I apologize for the fact that I can't answer every post of your instantaneously. It stems from tha fact that I have a life.  I know that Cesium is the most electropositive of all elements. I don't know if you know the implications of that or not. Cesium and Iodine were both present in the Fukushima fallout because they are volatile. Cesium metal melts at 28 degrees. If you add a grain of Cesium metal to water, it reacts explosively. In the case of fallout, it is present either in volatile salt form, such as Cesium Iodide or it reacts to form oxides and hydroxides.

Now one of the implications of the electropositivity of Cesium is that all its salts and compounds are soluble. THe smallest grain of fallout containing Cs compounds will dissolve in droplets of water. In fact CsOH is deliquescent.  It attracts moisture from the air. Typically you can tell if there has been a reactor malfunction by the characteristic red stains, and if you see purple gas, the steps you should take can be summarised as large and away from the area.

Why do you think that is?

I don't know why you're talking about Uranium and Plutonium. These were major problems at Chernobyl, mainly due to the graphite fires that provided a mechanism for their mobilisation.

So anybody who talks about particles of Cesium in the lungs is only good for doing the odd bit of paper shuffling. Arnie Gundersen's nuclear experience consisted of paper shuffling, so it sounds like the sort of uninformed utterance that he would come up with. They are certainly not competent to call themselves experts in radiological science.

I see that you're still cringing about revealing your sources.   

Which explosion are you referring to? there were 3.

There was also a moderated prompt criticality at Chernobyl too.

Why do you comment on things you haven't even examined.