• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

r-j said:
Radiation makes people healthier.
Click to expand...

As SOT says, that may well be the case. The theory is that a small dose will cause very little damage itself but will stimulate repair mechanisms, resulting in a net benefit. This is not a firm conclusion though, and there is debate whether the studies suggesting it are showing a real effect or just some artifact.

Of course, there's also the point that radiation absolutely does make people healthier in many cases. Ever heard of x-rays? Kind of helpful for medical diagnostics. Or what about radiotherapy? That's not even indirect like diagnostics, it's an absolutely direct case of radiation making people healthier.

It's also worth bearing in mind that no-one made any claim about radiation making the workers at Fukushima healthier. The healthy worker effect is a well known potential bias in studies. People who work are healthier than the average population, since obviously that average includes people who are too ill to work. So the fact that Fukushima workers have a lower death rate than might be expected from the crude death rate is most likely simply because any group of workers is likely to have a lower death rate. Radiation most likely has nothing to do with it - the time frame is far too short for any small increase in life expectancy to be noticeable, even if it were actually the case. That someone would comment on the matter without knowing such a simple and well-known fact says an awful lot about the relevance of their comments.
 
Cuddles,
Another supplementary point is that nuclear plant workers could well have better working conditions than workers on average and therefore less health problems. That would give them better statistics that workers on average, not just the general population.
 
When the 13-meter (40-foot) tsunami that wrecked Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant hit Onagawa to the northeast, hundreds of residents found refuge at the local nuclear plant, rather than run the other way.

It was the right call.
Click to expand...

Onagawa may now serve as a trump card for the nuclear lobby -- an example that it is possible for nuclear facilities to withstand even the greatest shocks and to retain public trust.

Newer design, the plant's location on an elevated embankment nearly 14 meters above sea level, a bit of luck and management in touch with the local community made a big difference.
Click to expand...

Link
 
The scientist who helped create the current attitude towards radiation in the scientific community may have been cooking the books:

University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern’s laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller’s speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
Radiation makes people healthier.
Click to expand...

Well, technically isn't sunlight radiation?

As far as "is nuclear power safe" - no, it's not. But neither is coal mining or off-shore drilling.

It's the potential mutations from radiation that creep me out - and not from a totally rational point of view, just the horror factor.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The scientist who helped create the current attitude towards radiation in the scientific community may have been cooking the books:
Click to expand...

My problem with this is that the idea of non-linearity is very convenient for the nuclear industry, and they would not be the first industry interest group to be selective in their reporting and in what research to sponsor.

And no, I am not in a position to evaluate it myself. :(
 
Minoosh said:
Well, technically isn't sunlight radiation?
Click to expand...

Many English words have several related but distinct meanings. "Radiation" in the context of nuclear physics refers to the various ways in which an atomic nucleus can disintegrate, and the resulting EM emanations and kinetic particles.

Sunlight could even be construed to fit this definition, considering it's origin, but in general, no, sunlight isn't radiation one would expect to sample from nuclear reactions.

As far as "is nuclear power safe" - no, it's not. But neither is coal mining or off-shore drilling.

It's the potential mutations from radiation that creep me out - and not from a totally rational point of view, just the horror factor.
Click to expand...

Germ cell mutations caused by radiation are by far the smallest effect that can occur from exposure to radiation. Consider the chances:

1. The radiation must ionize the right part of the cell, the nuclear DNA. The DNA in a cell is a very small amount of the contents of the cell; it resides only in the cell's nucleus, and it has to affect one or more base pairs; a hit on a ribose component probably won't do it.

2. It has to hit the DNA in such a way that one or more base pairs are altered or deleted, without causing damage extensive enough to kill the cell outright. There is a very small window of opportunity here: it has to cause a visible change in the physiology of the resulting fetus, but not one which will debilitate to the point of immediate death. This is, statistically, a perhaps one in a thousand shot.

3. Consider that the normal germ cell houses 150 mutations unique to itself from its original parental DNA. This adds one more to the mix. It is this reason which negates most claims that a particular defect in a particular baby was caused by radiation; it is simply impossible to know, except statistically.

4. The cell has to be a germ cell, an egg or sperm. If it isn't the mutation will not be heritable by future generations. (Mutations to other cells are known as somatic, and are more usual as non-heritable cancers.)

5. The mutation must evade the cell's normal methods to repairing DNA errors.
 
Toke said:
My problem with this is that the idea of non-linearity is very convenient for the nuclear industry, and they would not be the first industry interest group to be selective in their reporting and in what research to sponsor.

And no, I am not in a position to evaluate it myself.
Click to expand...

From a scientific point of view, this is not a valid argument, and I presume you realize that.
 
Toke said:
My problem with this is that the idea of non-linearity is very convenient for the nuclear industry,
Click to expand...

If science turns out to be convenient for one group or another, why would you have a problem with it?

Unlike horse driven buggies, internal combustion driven vehicles don't leave mounds of poop clogging city streets and gutters. They don't contribute to the spread of rabies, cholera, dysentery and the bubonic plague. That modern cars and trucks turned out to be better for public health than what preceded them is arguably very convenient for the auto industry, I don't think anyone has a problem with it.

Science simply is. If it helps one group over another is irelevant.

and they would not be the first industry interest group to be selective in their reporting and in what research to sponsor.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that research into low-dose radiation hormesis has been funded by the nuclear industry?
 
The idea of "science simply is" is a bit naive in this world.

I do not know who does what research, but the idea of a "tobacco research institute" sponsored by the nuclear industry does not sound far fetched to me.
Any other industry have their interest groups, with or without false flag.

Feel free to write it off as unfounded. ;)
 
Toke said:
The idea of "science simply is" is a bit naive in this world.
Click to expand...

There's no naivete here. If low-dose radiation hormesis is successfully proven, then I fully expect the nuclear industry to call for a re-examination of the regulations they are under (which are all based on the LNT theory).

Why wouldn't they? They'd have every right to.

I do not know who does what research, but the idea of a "tobacco research institute" sponsored by the nuclear industry does not sound far fetched to me.
Click to expand...

The article I linked to, which it seems you didn't look at, is from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. It was founded in 1863 while nuclear fission was discovered in 1938. It is unlikely at best that U of MA is a nuclear industry front group as you suggest.

Any other industry have their interest groups, with or without false flag.
Click to expand...

The Conspiracy Theory forum is that-a-way --->
 
In other Nuclear Safety news; the reactor security team from Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, North Americas largest nuclear power plant, has won the US National SWAT Championships for the fourth year in a row. Proving once again that nuke plants aren't worth the trouble for terrorists to attack.
 
BenBurch said:
BTW, what is the current nuclear death toll in Japan?
Click to expand...

Zero.

There hasn't been a single comfirmed radiation casualty in Japan from the Fukushima incident.

More people in California died from the tsunami than from radiation in Japan.

And how many people drowned?
Click to expand...

Technically, that's unknown. The death toll, last I read was ~17,000 confirmed dead with 15,000 to 20,000 missing. It's likely that many of the missing will remain permanently missing or at best presumed dead. The real death toll is probably 20,000 to 25,000 dead. With no real way to tell who was killed by drowning vs. who was killed by falling debris.
 
Do not personalize the argument. Stay on topic and play nice.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Zero.

There hasn't been a single comfirmed radiation casualty in Japan from the Fukushima incident.

More people in California died from the tsunami than from radiation in Japan.



Technically, that's unknown. The death toll, last I read was ~17,000 confirmed dead with 15,000 to 20,000 missing. It's likely that many of the missing will remain permanently missing or at best presumed dead. The real death toll is probably 20,000 to 25,000 dead. With no real way to tell who was killed by drowning vs. who was killed by falling debris.
Click to expand...


I'll take my chances with the nuc. :-)

Worst imaginable nuclear accident just happened. And nobody died.

I'm not saying that will always be so, but if you look at deaths per KWh, and I can think of no other meaningful standard except perhaps years of life lost per KWh and coal will be worse by either measure than nuclear power. And oil too. And if you factor in deaths due to bursting dams, hydropower isn't too safe, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom