|
Post by Bob Applebaum on Aug 9, 2013 3:18:59 GMT 9.5
You have no idea what you're talking. The Japanese bomb study isn't old, it's still ongoing. It's the largest, most expensive epidemiological study in human history. We know more about radiation than any other toxin, in part due to that study.
LNT is like global warming. A single molecule of CO2 traps a small amount of infrared radiation (IR). Add a pound of CO2 and all those molecules trap IR. But you can't measure the global temperature increase from one additional pound of CO2 in the background of variances in solar output, existing greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. That doesn't mean the pound is NOT trapping IR, it is.
A single photon or particle of radiation can damage DNA. Dose a population with 1 rem of photons/particles and more DNA gets damaged. But you can't measure the cancer incidence increase from the 1 rem in the background variability of variances in solar radiation, tobacco use, and other carcinogens. That doesn't mean the rem is not damaging DNA (increasing cancer risk). It is.
Health physics deniers are no different than global warming deniers.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 9, 2013 11:03:50 GMT 9.5
Bob Applebaum --- Read "Radiation and Reason" by Wade Allison or some of his many papers on his website. It is easy to find the pdf for Hormesis by Low Dose Radiation Effects: Low-Dose Cancer Risk Modeling Must Recognize Up-Regulation of Protection Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Myron Pollycove, and Ronald D. Neumann Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine Springer 2012 ISBN 978-3-540-36718-5 and read this review paper which has 74 references.
In addition, note that BEIR VII specifically states in the text, but not in the so-called executive summary, that extrapolation of the results to less than 100 mSv is unwarranted.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Aug 9, 2013 11:50:34 GMT 9.5
LNT is used in all fields involving genotoxic carcinogens. Radiation is just one type. Hormesis is pseudo-science. Hey, AppleFraud followed us here! Hormesis has been established science since the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 9, 2013 20:42:36 GMT 9.5
You have no idea what you're talking. The Japanese bomb study isn't old, it's still ongoing. It's the largest, most expensive epidemiological study in human history. We know more about radiation than any other toxin, in part due to that study.. Complete nonsense. The type of exposure from bombs is very different than that from nuclear power (even during accidents). This is like saying, we know a lot about the effects of drinking alcohol by looking at people who drink 50 glasses of alchol once a month. In fact it is clear to see that this would not be useful in trying to determine the effects of alchol with people who drink just 1-2 glasses a day but never more than that per day. Sorry, you're once again completely missing the point. No one doubts that radiation causes biological damage. What we doubt is how this damage gets translated to actual negative health effects. Eating food causes huge amounts of DNA damage, but there are many biological processes which can repair this damage, and if it can't be repaired there are further levels of biological defense such as cell termination. In your analogy, the pound of CO2 has zero effect on warming because it is absorbed by the various sinks available on this planet. Plants become more productive with more CO2. Ocean conveyor belts sequester CO2 in the form of dead sea creatures over geological time. It is only when you exceed the capacity of these sinks (ie much faster than geological tim) that the warming starts to show up. If we emitted 1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, there would never ever be a global warming problem. Not in 100 years, not in 1000 years. But we emit more than 30 billion tonnes a year, a rate that can't be dealt with by the various sinks and processes on earth. Your analogy isn't bad, your attitude to science is.
|
|
|
Post by Gerald Marsh on Aug 10, 2013 6:22:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 10, 2013 9:22:42 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr But in spite of these depressing figures: The IAEA and the WHO don’t see the cause of the dire health situation and the increase of diseases in radioactive exposure but rather in poverty, poor nutrition and the “bad lifestyle which is spreading throughout the former Soviet Union”. They further lament a “crippling fatalism” in the population. Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. This represents an increase by a factor of 5.8 since Chernobyl and can certainly not be attributed to bad lifestyle or poor nutrition. Children which were breast fed were affected in particular. This study was ignored by the IAEA and WHO.
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Aug 10, 2013 9:59:28 GMT 9.5
Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. A quick scan shows that radiation exposure has never before been associated with brain tumors in infants. The stereotypical radiation-induced cancer is a leukemia or lymphoma. This is far more likely to be from chemical exposure, perhaps something contaminated added to food or infant formula (as melamine was added to milk in China, causing infant kidney failures and deaths). Because dysfunctional lifestyle is associated with bad health outcomes everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 10, 2013 20:16:14 GMT 9.5
Actually after the Chernobyl accident, the people who lived nearby were told they were utterly doomed and could just forget about any sort of future or healthy offspring, yes they were actually told this by many authorities and the media. The social and phychological effects have been dire. People have often adopted a fatalistic attitude, not thinking about their career, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive smoking, bad nutrition, etc. All these increase chances of afflicting various cancers.
This is, sadly, one of the biggest and unlearned lessons of Chernobyl: fear and stress cause a lot more damage than the actual ionizing radiation. This important lesson is unlearned, as proven again by Fukushima, were 100,000 people were evacuated and stressed to death and misery. For no good reason; we don't evacuate Tokyo, even though living in Tokyo is far more dangerous than 20 mSv/year of ionizing radiation. Once again nuclear energy is put to standards that nothing else in our society is, even though pretty much anything in our society is more dangerous than nuclear power (eating peanut butter as an example is considerably more dangerous than living next to a nuclear powerplant).
It is odd, however, that people in Belarus (Chernobyl area) have (over the entire population) among the lowest cancer incidences of all of Europe and Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 11, 2013 15:47:03 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr, I posted below before but for some reason a lot did not post. See: www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/powerpoint.htmlAfter reading the site and seeing how IAEA and WHO how can we believe any thing they claim about radiation safety. To say the cause is poverty etc is unbelievable when you consider the life style differences. In a poorer area compared to a wealthy area see list below: [1] Poorer area children walk or bike every where not in a metal shielding car etc. [2] The poorer areas have open windows to cool down house in summer but richer areas have air conditioning filtering air coming into the house like automobiles do. [3] Poorer areas do not have paved and hard surface areas or swimming pools that are easy to clean up compared to grass and earth areas in poorer areas. [4] Poorer areas streets are not washed down like in richer areas. [5] Poorer area children are chased out of the house or apartments because of size to play outside richer areas children play in doors with computer games etc. [6] Poorer area eat out of their gardens richer areas much food is from far away and eat more meat. [7] Poorer areas children bring in dirt on shoes in richer areas they take off shoes for carpets. [8] Poorer area working conditions are not good richer areas work in air conditioned filtered air. [9] Poorer areas schools are not air conditioned like in richer areas. [10] Poorer areas less buildings and vehicles are air conditioned compared to richer ares. [11] Poorer areas have poorer medical services compared to richer areas. [12] Poorer people are less knowledgeable about per cautions in a radiated area, for example keep hair short clean living quarters etc. [13] Poorer areas many jobs are out door. [14] etc. Compare this to the poor are under nourished, but they had no answers to increase health problems in babies though. The pro nuclear wonder why people are skeptical of their studies 10,000 is high! I seen another study that had an area with high health problems with children, but claimed they could not do the study because the area did not have a bank of reports to compare. The people were frantic to find out what the problem is and instead of interviewing doctors to see their records (Doctors keep exact records and would have helped them for sure, you can not doctor people with out exact records).
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 12, 2013 1:48:06 GMT 9.5
Rick, perhaps your post didn't get published by the moderators because you don't have a point?
Or perhaps you should try to write half decent English. If you can count to 14, you can surely learn better English. Sorry. You've lost me completely.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 12, 2013 3:01:38 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr, statement: Actually after the Chernobyl accident, the people who lived nearby were told they were utterly doomed and could just forget about any sort of future or healthy offspring, yes they were actually told this by many authorities and the media. The social and phychological effects have been dire. People have often adopted a fatalistic attitude, not thinking about their career, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive smoking, bad nutrition, etc. All these increase chances of afflicting various cancers. Please send me the study that confirms this statement. There are similar toxic sites like dioxen pluted areas with similar public conserns as a place to look at but I have never seen this explanation any where else. Hope to see the study. By the way my post problem has turned out to be my copy/pasting with writer software, it is doing strang things like the above copy/paste, tried about a dozen times then pasted text only to make it work.
|
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Aug 12, 2013 22:39:45 GMT 9.5
rick123456 : In response to your request to Cyrilr for a source, I found this after not a full 30 seconds of googling: The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident A Strategy for Recovery A Report Commissioned by UNDP and UNICEF with the support of UN-OCHA and WHO at www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/report.pdfLook at in particular Section 4, and parts 4.29-4.37 inter alia are very germane to your query You could have done this yourself, unless your intention was to waste people's time. And talking about wasting people's time, you could help there, as well as do something for your credibility, by not referring to sites such as www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/powerpoint.html. It's immediately obvious that that site is propagandistic and relies on eliciting emotions rather than citing established facts.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 14, 2013 9:51:13 GMT 9.5
reterc, will you repose that site, I get a no page 404 found, thanks
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Aug 14, 2013 11:34:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 14, 2013 16:38:59 GMT 9.5
A Report Commissioned by UNDP and UNICEF with the support of UN-OCHA and WHO
1.40 The Chernobyl accident has had profound effects, immediate and long-term, on the economy of the surrounding areas (see Section 5). The disruption caused by the radioactive contamination, the plant and farm closures and the resettlement of many of the inhabitants was amplified after 1991 by the effects of the break up of Final: 25.01.02 11 the Soviet Union. The accident has also imposed a heavy burden on the national budgets through the cost of clean-up, compensation and recovery. A total of some seven million people are in receipt of Chernobyl-related welfare benefits of one kind or another. Many of these are of little financial value to the individuals concerned, but in total make up a very substantial burden on the exchequers of the three countries. The direct and indirect effects of the disaster on the affected population are enormously amplified by poverty and lack of opportunities for household income generation. Effective measures to promote economic and social recovery and to give the individuals and communities greater control over their own destinies must play a central role in any future response.
The problem of poverty was caused by Chernobyl in 1996. Results have been caused by Chernobyl are wide ranging, broke a nation.
About baby exposure to radiation. They say it is safe for 500 ex-rays! A X-ray lasts for about 1 seconds producing .02 milSv. Times 500 is 10 milSv Radiation deposited in to a fetus can be there for 9 months. .0005 micSv over 9 months is 10 milSv. .001 micSv over 9 months is 233 milSv. .1 micSv over 9 months is 23300 milSv Do you believe that is safe. That site started out with internal radiation of a fetus is dangers at low rates and then goes straight to the mother being exposed from external! ***Please check my figures as I do not deal with radiation much and could be very wrong. But the site claimed little radiation would harm a fetus. All so a snow flake size of Plutonium is very dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 14, 2013 17:53:38 GMT 9.5
I messed up by 10 X on (2 and 3) should be Radiation deposited in to a fetus can be there for 9 months. .0005 micSv over 9 months is 10 milSv. .001 micSv over 9 months is 23 milSv. .1 micSv over 9 months is 2330 milSv For Sv/min divde by 60 but internal in a baby growing would be more likely to hit a vital cell forming that would easely be 60 times more likely to cause medical problems. Thats why the article said very dangeris for baby developing in womb.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 16, 2013 6:31:11 GMT 9.5
Sure Rick, and if I take 1 glass of beer every day for a year, I'll take a dose of 365 glasses of alchohol. Which is 100% deadly dose if taken at once. Funny I take a lot more than 365 glasses of alcohol a year, yet I'm still very much alive, and fitter than my peers.
Dose rate is what counts more than anything else. Microsieverts/hour are a laugh. They make you happy.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 16, 2013 8:01:40 GMT 9.5
I messed up by 10 X on (2 and 3) should be Radiation deposited in to a fetus can be there for 9 months. .0005 micSv over 9 months is 10 milSv. .001 micSv over 9 months is 23 milSv. .1 micSv over 9 months is 2330 milSv For Sv/min divde by 60 but internal in a baby growing would be more likely to hit a vital cell forming that would easely be 60 times more likely to cause medical problems. Thats why the article said very dangeris for baby developing in womb. I would like to know what kind of drugs you are on. Must be a fun trip, losing all sense of math. Radiation that is there for 9 months? It isn't there for a split second. .1 microsievert/hour over 9 months is 0.657 millisieverts. Nothing at all. It's hard to understand what Rick is talking about or where he learned math. His drugs must be pretty strong.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Simpson on Aug 16, 2013 10:14:37 GMT 9.5
In part three it is said "Many areas on the floor of the ocean are sediment layers that haven’t been disturbed for billions of years". According to a map this is not very true. Most areas on the ocean floor are less that 200,000,000 years old. Plenty old enough, but not billions of years.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Aug 16, 2013 21:12:35 GMT 9.5
if I take 1 glass of beer every day for a year, I'll take a dose of 365 glasses of alchohol. Which is 100% deadly dose if taken at once. Funny I take a lot more than 365 glasses of alcohol a year, yet I'm still very much alive, and fitter than my peers. Dose rate is what counts more than anything else. Considering that radiotherapy dumps a large amount of radiation (to damage unwanted tissue) in a small amount of time suggests that it is rate rather than dose that matters. However, radiotherapy procedure ensures that a certain number of days elapse before the next dose is given. That suggests that what matters is dose rather than rate, spread over a discrete, medically significant interval. Perhaps that is the time it takes for the human metabolism to clear away radiololysis products and repair damage to neighboring healthy tissue. Wade Allison is about the only voice that I hear making estimates of what doses are safe, but he specifies the interval too. We need such advice to come from the radiological community and a safe limit enshrined in a more medically respectable limit than the current 20 mSv per annum. "Per annum" for heavens sake! For all I know, a survivable dose might well be a thousand times higher if spread evenly across the year. Protection should refer to sudden accidental doses, so the legal limit should be a maximum dose in a specified interval. Considering that the Hiroshima studies indicate that acute doses of as low as 100 mSv did damage people, it seems that a safe limit would be 20 mSv within that elusive medically significant interval. That interval might be "per hour". We need the medics to define for us an "acute dose rate" and withdraw the old "chronic dose rate". When have we ever seen a measurable injury rate from a chronic radiation dose rate? It's late, I need a dose of wine. Come to think of it, I rather like the idea of a dose rate of 365 glasses of wine, spread evenly across the next year.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 17, 2013 5:11:33 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr : The post is a little hard to follow with out some explanation (did this to show how misleading the statement “That under 500 X-rays is safe“, for the average person it is hard to follow what it means. To be understandable they should of at least posted what 1 X-ray is ( x Sv/year) and more to evaluate. You are right with (.1 microsievert/hour over 9 months is 0.657 millisieverts) My post is .1micSv/second over 9months, this is 500 X-rays at 6milSv/year being about .1 micSv/second over 9 months is about 2300 milSv/9months. So how is 500 X-rays safe for 9months of gestation. Maybe I mist something, please post if you interpret it different.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 17, 2013 11:40:01 GMT 9.5
Just as in determining an electric supply system both energy and its first derivative, power, matter so in matters radiological. Both dose and its first derivative are important.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 18, 2013 6:14:23 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr, You are very observant, no one else noticed the statement for minutes divide by 60, should have been times 60. This though dramatized the amount and catch ones eye better. Again good eye keep it up, do not believe with out proofing.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 18, 2013 11:16:50 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr: stated-Sure Rick, and if I take 1 glass of beer every day for a year, I'll take a dose of 365 glasses of alchohol. Which is 100% deadly dose if taken at once. Funny I take a lot more than 365 glasses of alcohol a year, yet I'm still very much alive, and fitter than my peers.
Dose rate is what counts more than anything else. Microsieverts/hour are a laugh. They make you happy
How can you compare, when radiation that does not pass through your body stays in your body till it blows in the wind, it accumulates in the body adding more and more each second. The alcohol is used up by the body or excreted in days. We hear statements like the radiation internally has the same harm as exterior, this is misleading because of the way the answer is framed, the answer is right if internal organs receives the same dose as external skin receives but internal will receive less radiation then the skin. Example if you have 100milSV/year of Alpha rays hitting your skin most of it will not penetrate more then a inch, no harm internally. If it is taken internally it can be deposited in to organs and bone. A gain internal radiation is more harmful to the body because it can destroy atoms in side the body compared to out side the body where fat and mussel absorbs radiation like a weak lead suit
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Aug 18, 2013 15:17:43 GMT 9.5
Rick123456 - we are finding it hard work to understand your comments because you are not putting enough effort into checking your english, arithmetic, units, physics, facts and references. Please make the effort or be known as a troll.
|
|
|
Post by Cyril R. on Aug 18, 2013 18:07:21 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr: stated-Sure Rick, and if I take 1 glass of beer every day for a year, I'll take a dose of 365 glasses of alchohol. Which is 100% deadly dose if taken at once. Funny I take a lot more than 365 glasses of alcohol a year, yet I'm still very much alive, and fitter than my peers. Dose rate is what counts more than anything else. Microsieverts/hour are a laugh. They make you happy How can you compare, when radiation that does not pass through your body stays in your body till it blows in the wind, it accumulates in the body adding more and more each second. The alcohol is used up by the body or excreted in days. We hear statements like the radiation internally has the same harm as exterior, this is misleading because of the way the answer is framed, the answer is right if internal organs receives the same dose as external skin receives but internal will receive less radiation then the skin. Example if you have 100milSV/year of Alpha rays hitting your skin most of it will not penetrate more then a inch, no harm internally. If it is taken internally it can be deposited in to organs and bone. A gain internal radiation is more harmful to the body because it can destroy atoms in side the body compared to out side the body where fat and mussel absorbs radiation like a weak lead suit Internal radiation is a lot more damaging than external, due to concentration and lack of defence (eg dead outer skin protects perfectly against alpha and decently against beta radiation). However, even there biological concentration is of importance. The isotopes that everyone around Fukushima is worried about are Cs-134 and Cs-137. This element, cesium, or caesium, does not bioaccumulate. Like alcohol, it is excreted from the body. You literally piss it out again. It's similar in chemistry to sodium and potassium, excesses of which are also pissed out again. There is not much reason to worry about cesium. Even large exposures of several hundred mSv have never resulted in a cancer. In fact the only harmful evidence we have is from people who stole cesium radiosources (medical and such) and some of these people have pried open the radiosource, and got a really large dose (1000s of mSv). Some of them died. It's just impossible to get 1000s of mSv of cesium dose from Fukushima, even if you deliberately lived in the highest contaminated area. And even if you could accumulate such a dose, it would be over decades not over hours as the unfortunate cesium radiosource scavengers. So it's similar again to the beer drinking. Over 10 years of 1 glass of beer a day you'd get 3650 glasses of beer. No one could survive that when taken in a short period. But 1 glass of beer a day is not in any way harmful. Please keep in mind that all of the alcohol exposure is internal, and that alcohol prefers to settle in certain organs and burden other organs with the breakdown process.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 19, 2013 11:29:30 GMT 9.5
Roger: Thanks for the reminding me, I get going with conversations and see that the one I am posting with has good knowledge, forgetting that others are reading the posts. Will do better. Again thanks, Rick
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 19, 2013 11:30:41 GMT 9.5
Cyril R., See: www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html#changeNonradioactive cesium occurs naturally in various minerals. Radioactive cesium-137 is produced when uranium and plutonium absorb neutrons and undergo fission. Examples of the uses of this process are nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. The splitting of uranium and plutonium in fission creates numerous fission products. Cesium-137 is one of the more well-known fission products. Cesium, as well as cesium-137, is a soft, malleable, silvery white metal. Cesium is one of only three metals that is a liquid near room temperature (83 °F). The half-life of cesium-137 is 30 years. It decays by emission of a beta particle and gamma rays to barium-137m. Although hospitals and research laboratories generate wastes containing cesium-137, they usually do not enter the environment. Occasionally, industrial instruments containing cesium-137 are lost or stolen. Anyone who unwittingly handles them may be exposed. These devices are typically metal, and may be considered scrap metal and sold for recycling. If they find their way into a steel mill and are melted, they can cause significant environmental contamination. They may also be discarded and sent to a municipal landfill, or sold for other reasons. These devices should be considered dangerous. Drinking cesium-137 contaminated water, would also place the cesium-137 inside the body, where it would expose living tissue to gamma and beta radiation People may ingest cesium-137 with food and water, or may inhale it as dust. If cesium-137 enters the body, it is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body's soft tissues, resulting in exposure of those tissues. Slightly higher concentrations of the metal are found in muscle, while slightly lower concentrations are found in bone and fat. Compared to some other radionuclides, cesium-137 remains in the body for a relatively short time. It is eliminated through the urine. Exposure to cesium-137 may also be external (that is, exposure to its gamma radiation from outside the body). Rick “It states that Cs-137 found in tissues and bone, excess will be pissed out, not all as you suggest” Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer. Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout. Exposure to waste materials, from contaminated sites, or from nuclear accidents can result in cancer risks much higher than typical environmental exposures Rick “If it is as you claim, why would they bother cleaning it up” Cesium-137 undergoes radioactive decay with the emission of beta particles and relatively strong gamma radiation. Cesium-137 decays to barium-137m, a short-lived decay product, which in turn decays to a nonradioactive form of barium. The major dose from cesium-137 is from the barium-137. The half-life of cesium-137 is 30.17 years. Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment. This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult. Rick “The Cs-137 breaks down and creates Barium-137m that is active 2.55 seconds after Cs breaks down which is also radioactive looking at the chart, its not listed stable like Barium-137” See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_bariumThere are a total of thirty-three known radioisotopes in addition to 130Ba, but most of these are highly radioactive with half-lives in the several millisecond to several minute range. The only notable exceptions are 133Ba which has a half-life of 10.51 years, and 137mBa (2.55 minutes), which is the decay product of 137Cs (30.17 years, and a common fission product).
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Aug 19, 2013 21:11:59 GMT 9.5
Sorry Rick, but you've just listed a lot of facts that are not relevant. It took me 20 seconds to google this: www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3165Biological half life of Cesium-137: 110 days (3-4 months). Yet Rick decides to talk about radiological half life, which we are not even arguing about. A pretty standard tactic for anti-nukes: talk at length of things that no one disagrees with, to divert attention from the things that are obvious and where disagreement exists. Rick likes to find irrelant references and then state that which must be demonstrated "Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer." There is not a SHRED of evidence for this claim. Nothing. We know that some people who have been exposed to >1000 mSv of Cesium-137 in a short period have gotten very sick and some have died. This is to be expected. It is also to be expected, based on simple biological mechanisms that LNT people like to cover up and not investigate further, that a dose of even 1 mSv/day of Cs-137 does not result in any measurable increased cancer incidence.
|
|
|
Post by rick123456 on Aug 20, 2013 19:08:39 GMT 9.5
Cyril, Rick “The Cs-137 creates barium -137m that is the real danger not Cs-137 it produces Beta and Gamma rays.. Cs-137 is more damaging in finer amounts in the body, I have not seen any tests that state the physical make up of the tested Cs137 in their tests. If you know a site please please post it, knowing your good scouting you do but I do not, thanks. Plutonium biological half-life ranges 20 years in organs to 50 years in skeletal and 80 +++ years radiological.” See: www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/pluto.htmRick “Plutonium from weapons are much less hazard then NPP blow ups, the weapon plutonium is well dispersed by the explosion compared to NPP that throw out fine dust to several pounds of material. The sites I have seen evaluate plutonium from weapons grade material like Hiroshima bombing. There are more alpha type radiation and what problem I have with tests and research is they do not tell enough about the procedures, state of materials(particles size, etc), most are for a one time exposure not living in radioactive area over a time, they only talk about Cancer risk, with Alpha there are Beta and Gamma rays also. The studies of mixed radiation is misleading because no NPP melt down produces the same mix of Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays especially weapon radiation to NPP radiation.” See: www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.html#propertiesHealth Effects of Plutonium How can plutonium affect people's health?
|
|