and we havent even discussed the effects of Uranium - another vicious alpha emitter when it enters the body and lodges into organs and tissue.

I wonder if anybody in here has looked into the effects of depleted Uranium weapons on genetic damage and cancer incidence.

Lets take a quick look at what has happened to Fallujah, Iraq

Fallujah

In 2009 I helped organize the first study of cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah Iraq - a paper which has now had 27,000 accesses and 18,000 downloads from the journal website and has been something of a phenomenon in the media (though not of course the BBC).

The results showed an enormous increase in cancer, and this was most clear for in children (0-14) where the rate was 12.6 times the expected and in leukemia in young adults 0-34 where the rate was 38 times the expected.

Now these are pretty astonishing findings. The biggest leukemia increase in Hiroshima was about 17-fold, and this was ascribed to radiation exposures. But whatever caused this in Fallujah, also increased rates of congenital defects in the newborn and altered the sex ratio at birth.

The sex ratio, the number of boys born per 1000 girls, fell from 1050 to about 800, a signal of genetic damage. We looked for the cause of this genetic damage in the hair of the mothers of the birth defect children and found a huge excess of Uranium. This result also caused a splash, with 16,000 accesses to the paper since its publication in 2011.

Uranium weapons cause genetic damage

Of course, these Fallujah studies just confirmed what the Iraqi doctors had been saying ever since Gulf War 1 when the US vapourised about 350 tons of the stuff over the Iraqi population. Uranium weapons were causing the genetic damage.

There were reports of similar effects in the Balkans and in Gulf war veterans and their children. Discussion can be found in these papers and the third one, where the congenital malformation rates are calculated.

The UK Gulf veterans are now in their 40s and are beginning to develop cancer. There are studies showing that US veterans have had children with birth defects. I have been involved in a number of Gulf war cancer cases in Ministry of Defence Pensions appeals, and notably in a coroner inquest in 2009 into the death of Gulf Veteran Stuart Dyson.

He died from colon cancer at the young age (for that disease) of 40, and the jury concluded that his cancer was caused by Depleted Uranium exposure, a finding that caused severe headaches for the Secretary of State for Defence.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2205213/uranium_the_demon_metal_t...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:03pm:


I know. In Australia, we tend to use Curies.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:38am:


Oh sigh.....

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:15pm:


I'm glad you liked the sky diving monkey. I really don't know much about Tepco apart from the fact that they were doing what most corporations would do in that situation. Maximise anything positive, and minimise damage to their name,

As far as the Japanese government was concerned, they handled the situation probably about as well as the Australian government would handle such a situation - Abysmally.

In total  20:20 crystal clear hindsight, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment should have been much more forceful in their directions to TEPCO. There should have been more positive action earlier. Of course it was extremely difficult to get anywhere near the reactors because of the high radiation levels. 

Did Gundersen or Greenpeace, or the Japanese Media cause most of the suicides? Probably not, and it's probably impossible to say.

I can understand the views of the anti-nuclear movement. They make some valid points, but people like Gundersen undermine their credibility because of his stupidity and the emotive nature of his  pronouncements. His technical knowledge is weak, and he deliberately makes "off the planet" announcements.

In such a situation, people need the truth without lies and hyperbole. If you were a citizen of Fukushima, would you prefer someone who could rationally explain the facts, and  what measures you could take to protect your life and those of your family? - or would you prefer some wide eyed lunatic to tell you that you're going to die from cancer, and totally over-exaggerate the situation?

Somebody earlier posted that Gundersen was dangerous. I agree. He is as dangerous as anybody who doesn't stick to the facts.

The anti-nuclear  movement would do better to disown Gundersen.  They would have a much better case if they just stuck to the facts.

Do you as an individual  think that the ends justify the means? Would you lie in order to achieve your goal?  I thought that you had more integrity than stoop to such a level.

Renewable energy, such as solar or wind, is a much better alternative than nuclear energy.  In a country like Australia with such enormous resources, it seems stupid, and almost criminal that we are still subsiding fossil fuel production and limiting the growth of renewable energy. 

All four major banks are lending money to fossil fuel producers. Do you know which banks lend the most? I do. 

http://www.marketforces.org.au/banks/compare

I do not invest with any company that supports fossil fuel interests. Do you?   

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:49am:


The disaster has affected the environment, but not to the extent that Gundersen claims.  It will almost certainly have no discernable effect outside of Japan.  The West Coast of the US and even Hawaii will not be affected.

I have very high standards when it comes to the truth. I wouldn't touch Gundersen with a bargepole.

I don't support nuclear energy, and the truth is  something sacred to me. If I see somebody blatantly lying, I will distance myself from their views regardless of how unpopular that stance is, even if it supports my position.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:32am:


Ok.....I'm happy now...but I was very miffed before ^^^ post.

I remain very concerned about the environment (natural and built).

As a parent, I want to make sure our children inherit a safe and secure future. For that to happen, both our natural and built environment needs to be protected against harm....and neglect.

Hence :

Enter-----> global sustainability

Exit------> global nuclear energy

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:22am:


- and if it "hypothetically" contains nuclear fission waste, it's 1000 times worse. Uranium-238 itself has very low activity, but it is highly toxic and carcinogenic. Its half life is the age of the solar system.

In its solid form, you can handle it quite safely with rubber gloves. It's an alpha emitter. The finely powdered oxides, UO2 or U3O8 are much more dangerous. What chimp said about internal exposure was close to the mark.    



If you want to educate yourself on units of measurement, ANSTO provide a good resource. At one stage in my career, I used to correspond with ANSTO quite frequently.

http://www.ansto.gov.au/NuclearFacts/AboutNuclearScience/MeasuringRadiation/

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:


I read a report at some stage  from a German national who took a sample of a discarded shell and took it to Germany's nuclear agency.

The findings showed that the activity was much higher that that expected from depleted Uranium alone, and I seem to remember that it contained fission byproducts  in small amounts.

They took some time to decontaminate the office where the individual delivered this material.

If you like conspiracy theories, I can no longer find that report anywhere on the net.  Hopefully I won't be accosted by men in black suits for divulging this 

One of the problems with DU is that when it hits the target, it burns, leaving mostly UO2 in the form of a fine yellow powder. When kids play amongst this stuff, they inhale and ingest it. When you're talking anti-tank ordnance, this amounts to a large quantity of material.

Disgusting business. DU ordnance should be banned worldwide. 

As far as cleaning it up is concerned, it can be done fairly easily, but I have no idea whether it has been or not.  It can be detected with most survey meters with the appropriate probe, but from experience, the alpha probe needs to be very close to the radioactive  source (about 10mm)