Nuclear Power, Radiation

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:26 pm

IS GOOD for you!

Radiation and hormesis in action

"Dear Editor,

In 1983 a group of 180 apartment buildings was completed in Taiwan. Somebody had made a serious mistake. They had mixed into the concrete a considerable amount of highly radioactive cobalt 60. This meant that ultimately 10,000 people lived in buildings for from 9 to 20 years so radioactive that they received an average of 74 mSv of radiation per year in 1983, declining thereafter as cobalt 60 has a half life of 5 ½ years. This compares with a rate of 0.5 mSv above background which is the normal maximum exposure for radiation workers & total of 15 mSv maximum safe limit for land fit for habitation according to US government standards.

According to the linear no threshold (LNT) theory currently in use world-wide for assessing nuclear risks there is no lower limit to the level at which radioactivity kills (hence the term "no threshold") & this, inhabited for a decade & a half before the radioactivity was traced & measured, should be the site of a truly massive cancer death rate.

It isn't.

A thorough & methodical tracing of all the 4,000 families by a team led by W. L Chen of Taiwan's Director of Medical Radiation Technology of Taiwan's National Yang-Ming University (the full report is available in English on http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf ) has resulted in an unequivocal & spectacular result. Cancer rates in that highly radioactive building are down to 3.6% of prevailing Taiwanese rates.

For many years there has been an unfashionable alternative to the LNT theory called hormesis. This is an effect, long observed in plants & cultures, whereby intermediate level radioactivity actually stimulates life & improves health. There has been significant evidence for this (the deaths at Hiroshima did not appear to fit the LNT pattern, there are places in India & Iran with background radiation of 15mSv or higher with no observed increase in cancer & numerous studies of radon in homes have found a reverse correlation between radon levels & cancer). Nonetheless, such has been our fear of all things nuclear that the LNT theory has been absolutely accepted despite the fact that there has NEVER been any actual evidence for it.

This study, however, is so detailed, has such well-defined boundary conditions & in proving a reduction in cancers of 96.4% has such a clear result that there can no longer be any intellectual doubt whatsoever. Radioactivity, up to 50mSv, is good for us.

This is reminiscent of the time when Gallileo turned his telescope to the skies & for all time disproved the, then politically correct though scientifically shaky, theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. True the Pope of the time forced him to recant or be dealt with as heretics then were. True it took a long time to bury. However from the time of Galileo's observations the official theory was dead. Unlike normal life, in science the truth always wins in the end though sometimes the end can be a long time coming & much pain may be caused in the interim. This is because while opinions change repeatable science results remain the same - that is the nature of the universe.

The effect of this proof on our nuclear power industries can hardly be underestimated since with the collapse of the theory go most of the fears that have so crippled it. The effect on medicine however cannot even begin to be estimated as the way is now open for serious research on how hormesis works & how it can be used to serve mankind. It is interesting to note that the healing water from the world's great spas has always been mildly radioactive & medicine has heretofore been unable to find out why - I wonder what the future holds for such places.

Yours Sincerely Neil Craig"

Not to mention nuclear power would help lower our consumption of hydrocarbons and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:48 pm

Next in news: Housing prices in Chernobyl skyrocket as health nuts flock to abandoned city! 80's Soviet rock band, Gorky Park seen roaming in area!

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:52 pm

Sure you don't get cancer and that third arm growing out of your back comes in handy for playing Battlefield 1942.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri May 28, 2004 3:37 pm

BAH! Members of the ignorant masses!

Did you even read the report?

If you had you would see that it is more along the lines of something like a "USDA Daily Recommendation". Beer and Wine are good for you and have beneficial health effects. In appropriate dosages. It is overuse of anything that hurts you.

There have been studies here in the US that shows a sufficient exposure to radiactive materials such as radon has resulted in lower cancer cases in the areas studied.

The "BIG BAD BOOJUM" of radiation is mostly a product of ardent environmentalism and not science.

And for the record Chernobyl is impossible in the US and many other countries. It was the design of the reactor that caused the problem. It had a positive void coefficient and every reactor here is specifically designed to have a negative void coefficient.

Here's a link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/voidcoef.htm

Everyone likes to cite Three Mile Island as if it was some kind of horror story on the scale of Chernobyl. It wasn't. It was a perfect example of good solid American engineering encountering a worst case scenario and doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Shut down and prevent any incidents from occuring.

Here's a really good link from James Lovelock, he has extensive credentials and is the creator of the GAIA Hypothesis and an ardent environmentalist.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230

Allow me to quote one section

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.

We must study all aspects of a scenario before we make a judgement. Denial of truth doesn't work very well in science. Its great in religion and environmentalism but its pretty poor in things that actually require facts over blind faith.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri May 28, 2004 3:41 pm

I was just being silly..

by **CodeRed68** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:18 pm

That's great Ingus. I have long supported nuclear energy and dont understand why we continue to use fossil fuels and carcinogen creating power plants that poisen our atmosphere. Nuclear power is the future.
All this anti-nuclear rhetoric is born out of the age of the atomic bomb and that is what people relate to when they hear the word "nuclear".

by **Evan** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:25 pm

Originally posted by CodeRed68
That's great Ingus. I have long supported nuclear energy and dont understand why we continue to use fossil fuels and carcinogen creating power plants that poisen our atmosphere. Nuclear power is the future.
All this anti-nuclear rhetoric is born out of the age of the atomic bomb and that is what people relate to when they hear the word "nuclear".

They are idiots.

by **Xenius** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:23 pm

Originally posted by CodeRed68
That's great Ingus. I have long supported nuclear energy and dont understand why we continue to use fossil fuels and carcinogen creating power plants that poisen our atmosphere. Nuclear power is the future.
All this anti-nuclear rhetoric is born out of the age of the atomic bomb and that is what people relate to when they hear the word "nuclear".

Nuclear power really isn't the answer though. Yucca mountain is currently being excavated for a nuclear waste site, it's been in the works for decades, and still isn't finished. In order to store all the nuclear waste we currently are storing in holding tanks or elsewhere, we'd need about 17 of these mountains total. That's just for the waste generated so far, not what will be generated in the future.

I'm not one of the retards who will tell you that all the crap we dump into the atmosphere isn't bad, but nuclear power isn't the sure-fire answer.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:48 pm

Thats because Yucca Mountain's storage concept was flawed from the get-go. The storage methods they want to employ there are defective.

You can cast the radiactive materials into glass and this would safely contain it for thousands and thousands of years with no danger. If you took all the radioactive material we could use for 10,000 years for everyone it would equal a cube aproximately 1 cubic mile.

Nuclear power is a great answer if you discard the myths.

by **SavageParrot** » Fri May 28, 2004 7:27 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Did you even read the report?

Nope I hate scientists, I wanna kicke 'em in the nuts!

by **Fat Bastard** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:31 pm

Originally posted by Murgatroyd
Next in news: Housing prices in Chernobyl skyrocket as health nuts flock to abandoned city! 80's Soviet rock band, Gorky Park seen roaming in area!

I thought it was funny

by **PudriK** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:01 am

Another hinderance to nuclear is NIMBY ("Not in my backyard") - not only do people not want the waste disposed of in their state, they are even afraid of it being transported through it.

Not sure what it'll take to change people's minds though, the fear of nuclear energy is pretty well ingrained in our national culture, and with the state of our education system, I don't think it'll change any time soon. Looks like you'll have to wait another century or so... or until we run out of petroleum.

by **Chacal** » Sat May 29, 2004 2:19 am

I used to support nuclear energy. I don't anymore, not because the technology isn't sound, but because of the way the plants are constructed. The contracts will go to the lowest bidder. They will skimp on materials, quality control, workmanship.

Here we have the CANDU reactor, probably the safest nuclear plant. Except there's lots of problems caused by contractors installing sub-par equipment. This isn't public knowledge, I got it from inside sources.

by **CodeRed68** » Sat May 29, 2004 10:54 am

I don't understand why we don't just take all the waste, be it nuclear or just plain old trash from landfills, and ship it into the sun. Seriously, I know you are all laughing and this sounds crazy, but why not. Before it even got close the sun would vaporize this stuff. The sun can vaporize a planet like a mosquito.
It doesn't have to get there quickly so we don't need powerful rockets (except to leave the atmosphere), we could just build huge cargo vessels of all the trash and send it on it's way.
That's what I think.

by **SavageParrot** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:05 pm

We could do a twofer and send up the american idol contestants in the same shuttle to economise.

Nuclear Power, Radiation

Nuclear Power, Radiation

Who is online