Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
Might as well add this just in case the question arises...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_(unit)
Merged nuclear power safe?
- Thread starter Nosi
- Start date
Might as well add this just in case the question arises...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_(unit)
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,167
The sites were indicated in the article, not by me
Ha ha! Yes, unless there's a serious malfunction, in which case there may be some decrease!
What is your opinion on the safety of low-level radiation from particles lodged in body tissue? This is also claimed to be the source of radiological danger from the use of depleted uranium in warfare.
Thanks for your feedback. I'll follow up your linked articles.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For general information, I'd like to point out that I often post stuff, in serious threads like this, in order, if appropriate, for it to be debunked.
I'm not interested in playing silly, personalized ego games.
Thanks. Got there in the end. It includes the bizarro:
high doses given at the rate of 10,000 rads per minute were found to be 100 billion times less efficient in destroying a cell than at one ten-millionth of a rad per minute, the rate at which we experience background radiation.
I suspect the word "efficient" is being horribly tortured here, but anyway I wouldn't set too much store by such claims. In any event it's nothing like what Petkau found by some orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,650
A serious malfunction can kill someone at just about any workplace you could imagine.
If you're worried about that, stop eating bananas.
Uranium is chemically toxic, just like lead is. There is no reason to think that the radiological damage from depleted uranium is as significant as its chemical toxicity.
elgarak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,472
I specifically did not add this (though it is related to rad="Roentgen absorbed dose" and rem="Roentgen equivalent man"), since it is a quite weird unit. It works for one specific circumstance (x-rays or gammas into air at standard conditions), but is difficult to change for others. In particular, it's difficult to quantify the effects of alpha and beta radiation in Roentgens. It has no SI equivalent (unlike rad and rem), and its use is strongly discouraged, as it is not quite clear what the danger actually is when you have that many Roentgens from beta-gamma combinations, as you get when beta emitters such as I-131 or Cs-137 cover the surface in front of you. It's a remnant from when scientist knew a lot lass about radiation.
Last edited:
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
you linked to the articles as if they were definitive...they were pseudo science.
Lest we forget, the safest place to be during the earthquake and Tsunami was inside the plant. After all the radiation doses are added up for the workers, we can then determine their increase risk. The information in this link provides that associated risk.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=11340&page=1
You may not like it, but nuclear plants have a great safety record there is no evidence of any great risk from low levels of radiation.
http://epiville.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/assets/pdfs/Howe_2.pdf
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/factsheets/safetystudiespublicworkerspage7/
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Radiation_Safety_at_Nuclear_Power_Plants_June09logo.pdf
I don't deal with opinions when it comes to radation...the links I provided will give all the answers you request.
Uranium happens to be more chemically poisonous than troublesome with radiation. I haven't studied the effects of depleted uranium, but the biological half life is relatively short--about 15 days. Uranium isn't really absorbed much. (and neither is plutonium unless it is inhaled.)
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1906.html
glenn
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I called it ! Statistics are not your thing, eh Jane ?
Belz...
Fiend God
You could probably sit naked on a throne of depleted uranium for the rest of your life and, if you wash your hands, you should be quite safe. Ridiculous, but safe.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
wow....what a truly silly thing to say.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/uranium-eng.php
Chemical toxicity of depleted uranium presents a greater risk than the radiological toxicity. As an example, observable changes in kidney function could result from consuming uranium at 0.05 milligrams/day, or about 20 milligrams/year, in drinking water. The radiation dose from the ingestion of this amount of uranium is less than 1% of that from natural background radiation in Canada. One would not expect to observe any radiological effects from the ingestion of this much uranium. For the same chemical burden to the kidney, the equivalent uranium amount of acute inhalation is 0.6 milligrams of moderately soluble depleted uranium. This would produce a radiation dose of 0.015 millisievert, which is again insignificant compared to a possible chemical effect. For a given amount of uranium intake, whether through either ingestion or inhalation, chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is more significant than its radiological toxicity.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,650
wow....what a truly silly thing to say.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/uranium-eng.php
Apparently you can't distinguish between dermal contact and ingestion.
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,167
The body and conclusions of this study do not match the confidence of your assertion:
"Because of the biases inherent in this group of program participants, as discussed above, it is not possible to come to firm conclusions on the
general health of highly exposed radiation workers."
Here is a summary of answers to questions about low-dose radiation effects and positive benefits, from this Health Physics Society Ask The Experts FAQ piece. The answers do not appear to support an assertion that there are no problems with low levels of radiation exposure:
Radiation Effects
Low-Dose Effects
Q1254 China High Background Radiation Study - no harmful effects found
Q1570 Radiology technician health risks - question not answered because too broad
Q2150 Myelodysplastic syndrome and radiation exposure - potential risk co-factor includes radiation
Q2410 Health risks of 15-20 rem - adverse health effects in individuals exposed to small doses (less than 10 rem) delivered in a period of years.
Q3378 Nonmalignant thyroid disease -general population -very small risk
in children 15 years of age and younger - risk of thyroid cancer due to radioiodine exposure
low dose radiation increases risk of tumours
3380 Marshall Islands - Fallout radiation from nuclear testing in the South Pacific has been associated with an increased incidence of tumors, especially thyroid and leukemia,
Q3408 Promethium on Watch - Worried about having taken scraped luminous matter from wist watch - "Don't worry. But don't do it again."
Q3429 Nuclear medicine technologist -With adequate precautions and careful techniques, these annual exposure limits are rarely any problem in nuclear medicine.
Q3542 Dental radiographs - no adverse effect
Q3867 Spiral CT - potential risk to future offspring
If your CT scan is medically justified, then radiation dose is not a major concern.
Q3884 Fear from excess x rays - The probability of cancer from any single medical x-ray exposure is on the order of one in a million.
You should not be unduly concerned about your radiation exposure.
Q4150 Leukemia - from radiation exposure -dose too small and too recent to cause leukemia in this case
Q4479 Navy nuclear propulsion plant operator - no cancer correlation found in a study - dose too low to cause harm
Q4575 Enewetak dose - fallout is a small fraction of your total lifetime dose - no cause for concern
5563 John Gofman and safe dose -Low dose=low risk
"Cancer and other health effects have not been observed consistently at low doses (10 rem) because the existence of a risk is so low as to not be detectable by current epidemiological data and methods."
5691 Medical doses/air travel - “There is no conclusive proof that any of your or your children's radiation exposures pose any risk whatsoever. There is also no conclusive proof of complete safety.
You must not be unduly concerned about radiation exposure to yourself or your children from medically justified x-ray procedures. Experts agree that risks range from immeasurably small to zero. “
5871 Positive effects [my bold-JJ] - "There is a great deal of confusion in the literature about effects from low doses of radiation. In most cases, for every paper on this topic it is matched by an equal and opposite paper. In most cases, the results are statistically marginal. Papers purporting to show harmful effects from these small doses have been promoted beyond reason, generally by antinuclear activists. Papers purporting to show beneficial radiation effects have been similarly used by supporters of peaceful uses of radiation.
The jury is still out on the issue of radiation effects at small doses. The problem is the effects are rare events, difficult to detect in a population of finite size."
Q6416 "Contradictions at low doses -There are several hypotheses about what happens at low doses. These range from no effect, which should be the default assumption or null hypothesis in well-designed scientific studies, to increases in cancer risk in proportion to the dose (linear no-threshold hypothesis, or LNT), to a decrease in the incidence of cancer (hormesis).
The problem is that epidemiological studies that look at populations of people exposed to radiation (for example, the Japanese atomic bomb survivors) don't have the statistical power to definitively support one model and definitively exclude competing models. This has led to a vigorous debate in the scientific community, with some expert bodies (such as BEIR VII) adopting LNT as a conservative model for radiation protection and others (such as the French National Academy of Sciences and Medicine) rejecting LNT at low doses."
Beneficial Effects
"Q87 Do studies (like the Hiroshima survivors) show a beneficial effect of exposure to low (<10 rem) amounts of radiation?
Answer:
Evidence showing that exposure to radiation (less than 10 rem) is beneficial to human health has been very difficult to demonstrate. Current scientific knowledge suggests that the effect is unlikely. The data from the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs show statistically significant health effects (primary cancer) at dose levels in excess of 20 rem. Below this dose, the probability of health effects (including detrimental and beneficial effects) is so small that statistically significant observations are almost impossible to make. Some scientists have reported beneficial effects in Japanese survivors but demonstration of the effect depends on how the analysis of the data is done. Using the same database, other scientists have shown that at low doses there appears to be a threshold dose below which no radiation effect is observed. Still other scientists report that small doses may cause cancer. The problem is further complicated by the lack of clearly established biological mechanism(s) to explain beneficial effects"
"Workers at U.S. facilities that use radioactive materials incur a small occupational health risk. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets standards to ensure their safety. The agency limits worker doses to no more than 5 rems (5,000 millirems)*[1] per year and requires that occupational doses be kept “as low as reasonably achievable.”
While I didn't read the entire paper I could only see one study (among the many quoted in the paper) that suggested nuclear workers health benefitted from their job, but few details about the study are given as to why, and no information given on increased longevity :
"Gilbert Study. In a 1993 study published in Radiation Research, Hanford epidemiologist Ethel Gilbert found fewer cancer deaths in radiation workers than in nonradiation workers. More important, her analysis showed no increase in cancer mortality with higher worker doses."
As far as I can see, the facts in the links you have offered here do not support this assertion (hilited). Perhaps you can point out the facts I have missed, if any.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,167
No, I didn't
Inhaled particles are the area of expressed medical concern, because the process of using DU as a weapon creates very small particles.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
The body and conclusions of this study do not match the confidence of your assertion:
"Because of the biases inherent in this group of program participants, as discussed above, it is not possible to come to firm conclusions on the
general health of highly exposed radiation workers."
Here is a summary of answers to questions about low-dose radiation effects and positive benefits, from this Health Physics Society Ask The Experts FAQ piece. The answers do not appear to support an assertion that there are no problems with low levels of radiation exposure:
Radiation Effects
Low-Dose Effects
Q1254 China High Background Radiation Study - no harmful effects found
Q1570 Radiology technician health risks - question not answered because too broad
Q2150 Myelodysplastic syndrome and radiation exposure - potential risk co-factor includes radiation
Q2410 Health risks of 15-20 rem - adverse health effects in individuals exposed to small doses (less than 10 rem) delivered in a period of years.
Q3378 Nonmalignant thyroid disease -general population -very small risk
in children 15 years of age and younger - risk of thyroid cancer due to radioiodine exposure
low dose radiation increases risk of tumours
3380 Marshall Islands - Fallout radiation from nuclear testing in the South Pacific has been associated with an increased incidence of tumors, especially thyroid and leukemia,
Q3408 Promethium on Watch - Worried about having taken scraped luminous matter from wist watch - "Don't worry. But don't do it again."
Q3429 Nuclear medicine technologist -With adequate precautions and careful techniques, these annual exposure limits are rarely any problem in nuclear medicine.
Q3542 Dental radiographs - no adverse effect
Q3867 Spiral CT - potential risk to future offspring
If your CT scan is medically justified, then radiation dose is not a major concern.
Q3884 Fear from excess x rays - The probability of cancer from any single medical x-ray exposure is on the order of one in a million.
You should not be unduly concerned about your radiation exposure.
Q4150 Leukemia - from radiation exposure -dose too small and too recent to cause leukemia in this case
Q4479 Navy nuclear propulsion plant operator - no cancer correlation found in a study - dose too low to cause harm
Q4575 Enewetak dose - fallout is a small fraction of your total lifetime dose - no cause for concern
5563 John Gofman and safe dose -Low dose=low risk
"Cancer and other health effects have not been observed consistently at low doses (10 rem) because the existence of a risk is so low as to not be detectable by current epidemiological data and methods."
5691 Medical doses/air travel - “There is no conclusive proof that any of your or your children's radiation exposures pose any risk whatsoever. There is also no conclusive proof of complete safety.
You must not be unduly concerned about radiation exposure to yourself or your children from medically justified x-ray procedures. Experts agree that risks range from immeasurably small to zero. “
5871 Positive effects [my bold-JJ] - "There is a great deal of confusion in the literature about effects from low doses of radiation. In most cases, for every paper on this topic it is matched by an equal and opposite paper. In most cases, the results are statistically marginal. Papers purporting to show harmful effects from these small doses have been promoted beyond reason, generally by antinuclear activists. Papers purporting to show beneficial radiation effects have been similarly used by supporters of peaceful uses of radiation.
The jury is still out on the issue of radiation effects at small doses. The problem is the effects are rare events, difficult to detect in a population of finite size."
Q6416 "Contradictions at low doses -There are several hypotheses about what happens at low doses. These range from no effect, which should be the default assumption or null hypothesis in well-designed scientific studies, to increases in cancer risk in proportion to the dose (linear no-threshold hypothesis, or LNT), to a decrease in the incidence of cancer (hormesis).
The problem is that epidemiological studies that look at populations of people exposed to radiation (for example, the Japanese atomic bomb survivors) don't have the statistical power to definitively support one model and definitively exclude competing models. This has led to a vigorous debate in the scientific community, with some expert bodies (such as BEIR VII) adopting LNT as a conservative model for radiation protection and others (such as the French National Academy of Sciences and Medicine) rejecting LNT at low doses."
Beneficial Effects
"Q87 Do studies (like the Hiroshima survivors) show a beneficial effect of exposure to low (<10 rem) amounts of radiation?
Answer:
Evidence showing that exposure to radiation (less than 10 rem) is beneficial to human health has been very difficult to demonstrate. Current scientific knowledge suggests that the effect is unlikely. The data from the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs show statistically significant health effects (primary cancer) at dose levels in excess of 20 rem. Below this dose, the probability of health effects (including detrimental and beneficial effects) is so small that statistically significant observations are almost impossible to make. Some scientists have reported beneficial effects in Japanese survivors but demonstration of the effect depends on how the analysis of the data is done. Using the same database, other scientists have shown that at low doses there appears to be a threshold dose below which no radiation effect is observed. Still other scientists report that small doses may cause cancer. The problem is further complicated by the lack of clearly established biological mechanism(s) to explain beneficial effects"
"Workers at U.S. facilities that use radioactive materials incur a small occupational health risk. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets standards to ensure their safety. The agency limits worker doses to no more than 5 rems (5,000 millirems)*[1] per year and requires that occupational doses be kept “as low as reasonably achievable.”
While I didn't read the entire paper I could only see one study (among the many quoted in the paper) that suggested nuclear workers health benefitted from their job, but few details about the study are given as to why, and no information given on increased longevity :
"Gilbert Study. In a 1993 study published in Radiation Research, Hanford epidemiologist Ethel Gilbert found fewer cancer deaths in radiation workers than in nonradiation workers. More important, her analysis showed no increase in cancer mortality with higher worker doses."
As far as I can see, the facts in the links you have offered here do not support this assertion (hilited). Perhaps you can point out the facts I have missed, if any.
I am bowing out of any further discussion with you. The links I provided show clear and long term evidence as to the health effects of radiation exposure. There is risk, but small and chances are other stuff is going to get you first. I find it difficult to make any other conclusion.
As to the long term health of working in a nuclear plant...well, the death rate is just less. It is a clean and safety conscious environment.
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/Pro/lle.html
glenn
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
I guess I don't understand why you would post the link. As to inhaled particles...that is covered in the associated research...already linked.
glenn
Belz...
Fiend God
wow....what a truly silly thing to say.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/uranium-eng.php
Chemical toxicity of depleted uranium presents a greater risk than the radiological toxicity. As an example, observable changes in kidney function could result from consuming uranium at 0.05 milligrams/day, or about 20 milligrams/year, in drinking water. The radiation dose from the ingestion of this amount of uranium is less than 1% of that from natural background radiation in Canada. One would not expect to observe any radiological effects from the ingestion of this much uranium. For the same chemical burden to the kidney, the equivalent uranium amount of acute inhalation is 0.6 milligrams of moderately soluble depleted uranium. This would produce a radiation dose of 0.015 millisievert, which is again insignificant compared to a possible chemical effect. For a given amount of uranium intake, whether through either ingestion or inhalation, chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is more significant than its radiological toxicity.
I didn't say you had to EAT the damn thing, Biker.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
one can absorb it through the skin too.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,650
Really? And how fast do you think that dermal absorption of metallic uranium is? Numbers, please.
