Energy Bill Is pending: Nuclear plants can DOUBLE your exposure to radionuclides

[Liberation Angel]

Nuclear emissions LEGALLY can DOUBLE your exposure to radiation (as compared to natural background, excluding radon)

The energy bill discussions are heating up again and Barbara Boxer (D- California) has stated that she supports nuclear power subsidies in the energy bill.

I have, thanks to being challenged by the pronuclear industry contingent here (or should I say shills, without naming names?) been compelled to do MORE research on the actual amounts which we are currently PERMITTED legally to be exposed to by a commercial nuclear plant. EACH PLANT can expose us EVERY YEAR to radiation pollution, effluents and emissions and waste which are EQUAL to the total average background radiation from cosmic and terrestrial sources (not man made or produced and excluding exposure to radon which varies from place to place).

Does the fact that our government ALREADY PERMITS us to be exposed to TWICE the level of radiation than what we get from the sun and the stars and the earth concern us?

We KNOW that such radiation is ALREADY mutagenic and cancer causing and debilitating and harmful. Yet the NUCLEAR LOBBY (including Cheney and Halliburton which have or have had control of huge sectors of construction and operation of nuclear opertions globally) CONTINUES to subvert our government and get DEMOCRATS to go along with subsidies to these larely right wing ontrolled industries (which also produce nuclear weapons thus making them the most powerful industries on the face of the panet and EVER in history)

I hesitate to take them on because they are dangerous. But the facts need to be addressed. The energy bill wil include subsidies for nuclear power UNLESS the progressive community becomes aware of the problems and issues and fights to keep these subsidies out. BTW I oppose coal and believe renewables are the ONLY long term solution. Nuclear is deadly to ALL of us.

Yet they can legally expose us at EVERY NUCLEAR PLANT BUILT to as much radiation as we ALREADY get from the sun and the stars and the earth EVERY YEAR. It is a far deadlier radiation as well because we consume it and eat it and drink it and absorb it into our skin and bones and teeth and bone marrow and internal organs where it mutates our cells and causes cancer and death and it does not just "bounce off" us when it "shines". It floats down in little particles and gets into the sandboxes where our children play and into the beach sand and surf where the waves vaporize it so we breathe it in. HELP stop this insanity and death by mutation caused by the right wing industrialists who run the nuclear arsenal and all its deadly poisons and voluminous death machines.


SO : here is the law that says what you can be exposed to every year (by EVERY plant in operation):

Subpart D--Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public

Source: 56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§ 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.

(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that —

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part0...

(.01 rem = 100 millirems or 100 thousandths of a rem. 1 mSv (one thousandth of a Sievert) = 100 millirems (mrems). a Sievert equals 100 rems.

Rem means Roentgen equivalent man. Roentgen and Sievert are the scientists who figured out how to measure the dose we receive when exposed to radiation and are just fancy naes given to the units of measurement for how mauch radiation we absorb when exposed. One critical distinction is that internal and external exposures have different impacts even with these measurements and units so that if you breathe in or eat or drink radiation from these plants it wil be absorbed into your blood and bones and organs and begin to mutate these as they decay and irradiate the cells in your bodies.


"Background" radiation from ALL sources is currently approximately 350 millirems a year (this includes all sources from radon, cosmic, sun, soil, xrays, medical procedures, tv, etc.

Cosmic and terrestrial (excluding radon and other sources) is approximately, on average, 100mrems per year. (See link below)

The current nuclear regulations permit the public to be exposed to up to 100 mrems PER YEAR PER PLANT. Workers in plants can get exposed many times that amount legally.
.
So we can get an additional 100 mrems increasing our total exposure to 450 mrems a year (unless one is downwind of more than one plant, as where i grew up) where this number may be multiplied by several factors of multiples of 100mrems).

That means we can legally be exposed to MORE than 100% MORE radiation per year by nuclear power plant operations than from cosmic/terrestrial sources (excluding radon which accounts for on average another 100 or more mrems per year).

That is because in order to operate nuclear plants create and must vent and spew effluents and emissions of radiationuclides into our lives and gardens and water and air and communities.

Natural background radiation causes genetic mutations as it is.

Do you even understand that INCREASING a mutagenic substance in the environment by these amounts will INCREASE mutations?

Also, these are doses which we ingest when we breathe, eat and drink and bathe. The half life is often decades if not hundreds or thousands of years. So it is CUMULATIVE in your organs and bones and then in your bone marrow and blood. It stays in the body and continues mutating the cells of your internal organs and dna and reproductive genes. And it is passed on to future generations (if they survive the onslaught of radiation exposure to procreate).

It affects ALL future generations with mutated genes and perished genetic lines.

You support THAT?

Background radiation from natural i.e. cosmic/terrestrial sources (excluding radon, which is variable depending on where you live) is about 100 mrems (millirems) SO the nuclear industry is actually DOUBLING out exposure from natural background radiation. if you live in a high radon area you will increase this by another 100% or more).


http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/backgrou.htm



BTW one Sievert equals 100 rems so one mSievert (one thousandth of a Sievert) equals 100 mrems.

The reason it is so easy to obfuscate and confuse and mislead people is that the terminology and the technology is difficult to grasp without studying it carefully and really focussing on it.

Once you become aware that the nuke indstry can LEGALLY DOUBLE the dose of radiation you would otherwise get from natural background radiation (which we know already causes cancer and mutations) then folks begin to grasp WHY ingesting effluents and emissite particles from radiation spewing into our homes nd lives and water and air and soil and food is SO deadly and why we have so many cancers and brth defects and spontaneous abortions and thyroid diseases.

I have been studying this problem for more than thirty years in college, in graduate school, in the industry and with whistleblowers (as well as a staffer on the Hill which working for a Congressman whose committee had jurisdiction over nuclear safety issues) I also worked in litigation on these issues (on both sides of the industry).

[Tikki]

1. Ask Ms. Boxer where these NUKE facilities are going to be located...

Ask her if she keeps a loaded gun on the kitchen counter when her grandchildren visit...
Ask her if she'll be having a NUKE facility near her backyard!!!?


Tikki

[Liberation Angel]

2. While local downwinders get it worst, the sh*t gets into the atmosphere and blows EVERYWHERE

since the half life of some of the most toxic man made radionuclides (strontium-90 for example) is decades, it accumulates in the soil and plants and food cycle and animals and in our children coninuing to cause deat, cancer and damage throughout our lives.

Even if she does not have one in her back yard it would still hurt her grandchildren and her too when it falls down in the rain on her organic tomatoes and lettuce which IS downwind or downstream. It will come down in her rain and get into her grandkids sandbox irradiating them forever.

[NutmegYankee]

18. Nuclear plants do not dump the radiative particles into the air bud.

It is contained within the structure. I live within 5 miles of a Nuclear power plant. Get a fucking grip man.

[TheMadMonk]

3. Average means the median point of a range. (more or less)

See that word 'range'. In this case the range covers from the highest to lowest levels of natural background radiation. By the simple fact that the planet isn't covered with three headed brain sucking mutants, we can safely surmised that the upper limit of this range lies safely below the lower limit of dangerous exposure levels.

The increase brought about by permissible level of release by nuclear power plants will, in the vast majority of locations, still result in exposure that falls well within the known range of acceptably safe natural exposure. Simply not siting plants in or near locations of high natural background exposure is more than enough precaution.


Then there is the conveniently overlooked (by the anti-nuke camp) fact, that a reduction in the use of fossil fuels will significantly lower the respiratory disease death rate. In fact it will lower it by an amount that is many times greater than the increase in mutagenic diseases brought about by the release of radionucleides from an equivalent gigawattage of nuke plants.

And this does not even take into account the totally unregulated release of naturally occuring radionucleides from the coal burnt to generate power at the moment. What "spews" forth from nuclear power plants of the future, will be at least in part be offset by that which no longer spews from decomissioned fossil fuel plants of the present and past.

Nor are radionucleides the only mutagenic pollutants about. The gasoline burnt in your car contains benzene, a particularly nasty mutagen, notorious for causing childhood lukemia. Spill a little and you kill a fraction of a child. Is your engine poorly maintained/tuned? If so, thats another fraction of a kid who should be on your conscience. And some of the solvents used in the manufacture of solar panels make benzene look like lolly water.


Bluntly put, even if the absolute worst case scenario (uncontrolled release of radionucleides from a runaway nuclear event (uncontained meltdown)) were to take place at the rate of one a year for the next 100 years, we'd still come out comfortably ahead of where we stand right now with the deaths that can be directly and indirectly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. Compared to that what you're pissing and moaning about isn't even a fucking statistical blip.


Then finally there is the foreseeable toll if we continue business as usual while waiting for a perfect solution to fall into our laps: A billion or so persons displaced by rising sea levels; disruption to the food supply of a similar number, due to droughts and floods; Oil wars, food wars, water wars. Wars to preempt these wars. Trillions in replacing/relocating inundated costal infrastructure.


No matter how you slice it, the price of not going nuclear at least in the short term whilst continuing the hunt for a better solution, is very much the greater of the two evils.

[Liberation Angel]

4. There is NO safe level of exposure and you know that

acceptable cancers?

EVERY exposure increases risk of cancer, mutations and death.

natural radiation has caused mutations for billions of years on earth. We are all the product of mutating genes and natural selection of the best survival genes.

EVERYTHING is constantly evolving.

But when you INCREASE the levels of mutagens in the environment by 100% or more you will kill millions of people. Maybe even billions over time (as the radionuclides STAY in the environment for generations.

I disagree with your assessment that NOT going nuclear is the greater evil.

Business as usual is not acceptable (and Nuclear IS business as usual, and a murderous one at that)

There are plenty of alternatives available now that do NOT mutate our children in utero and in life for all of creation. Or kill us all with cancer and disease.

Nuclear is the greatest evil.

[AngryAmish]

10. my head hurts

[uppityperson]

11. OMG! THAT IS WHY WE ALL ARE GONNA DIE?!?!?!?!?

"NO" safe level of exposure?

I luv the logic. There is "NO safe level of exposure" because "EVERY exposure increases risk of cancer, mutations and death" and the reason why we aren't still slime is because of mutating genes/etc and "acceptable cancers" inserted randomly here and there just to look more scary!

[TheMadMonk]

12. YES! Acceptable cancers, because they are more than offset...

...by the reduction in lung disease; by the reduction in mining accidents; by the reduction in direct damage to the environment (fucking great holes in the ground (often becoming acid lakes when abandoned), acid rain); and indirect (climate change); by the reduction in cancers from the naturally occuring radioactive elements released when coal is burnt.

Sux to the poor individual who does get one of these "extra" cancers you are so feaful of, but for the many, many times more no longer contracting black lung, suffering other respiratory illnesses, or copping 10 million tons of rock on their heads its fooking marvelous.

I recall (somewhat vaguely admittedly) estimates, that Chernobyl has been/will be responsible for about 1000 "whole deaths" (ie somewhere between 1000 keeling over on the spot and 100k having their lifespans reduced by about 8 months). Mining coal in China killed 6 times that number dead dead dead on the spot in 2004. Four times that mumber contract black lung (yes even today) in the USA every year, 10,000 in China.

That's fucking Chernobyl, the worst ever nuclear accident to happen on this planet and the anticipated lifetime toll for it is less than 5% of the price of simply getting coal out of the ground every single year and BEFORE a single gram of it is burnt. My guesstimate 100 Chernobyls just to match the status quo is quite probably very much on the low side.

"But when you INCREASE the levels of mutagens in the environment by 100% or more you will kill millions of people. Maybe even billions over time (as the radionuclides STAY in the environment for generations."

Move a few thousand feet up the side of a mountain and your exposure level will be increased by a like amount. Flooring your home with a concrete slab as opposed to a raised wooden floor likewise. Trade off ventilation for energy efficency, again likewise. Major road or suburban back street? City or country? Do you walk on the kerb or hard up against shopfronts/fences? All these and more will affect your exposure to environmental mutagens and other pollutants, natural and un-, by comparable amounts. With a handfull of lifestyle choices I can overwhealm any permissible contribution by nuclear energy, all before I chuck a gasper in my gob and flick my Bic.

Millions my arse. It's demonstrably thousands, and a fucking drop in the bucket compared to the price we willingly(chillingly) allow others to pay in order to maintain our lifestyles.


"There are plenty of alternatives available now that do NOT mutate our children in utero and in life for all of creation. Or kill us all with cancer and disease."

Really?

Windfarms are not at all pleasant neighbours, they are noisy, and visually intrusive both in the day and with aircraft warning lights, the night. Ok it only affects a handful of farmers, but who are you to decree that they suffer (or get out of Dodge) for your "clean" energy.

Photovoltaic solar as it stands right now requires large quantities of extremely dangerous chemicals in manufacturing. Solar thermal's manufacturing impact is considerably less, but it is non-zero, and either way huge tracts of land are required to achieve the required generating capacity, a situation which put you (and the rest of us) at loggerheads with other segements of the green movement.

Both forms of power generation are intermittent, and thus require base load generation capacity from more "traditional" sources, thus offestting much of the advantaged gained, or some sort of storage medium which for the most part are either highly toxic or not particularly efficient.

Wave/tidal energy looks great on paper, but there is unfortunatly the sea's bad habit of making so much rubble out of our efforts to harness her energies offshore, or the damage to the coastal/estuarine environment caused by the construction of onshore tidal barrages.

Nuclear is the greatest evil.

Not even fucking close mate. Watt for watt it is at least 20 times safer than what is right now considered an acceptable price to pay (for the energy that allows us to bloviate at each other from opposite sides of the globe) and that is with nuclear technology that is half a century out of date.

[Robb]

32. Just in case it goes unnoticed, I liked this response quite a bit. nt

[Codeine]

38. I wish

we could rec individual posts. That was concentrated awesome, sir. :hi: :yourock:

[SidDithers]

5. Good post...nt

Sid

[madokie]

6. Where do you get all this info?

pull it out of an orifice maybe???

[Liberation Angel]

16. NRC website (with links)

where do you get yours?

From dick cheney?

[Statistical]

7. the limit is worst case scenario, your numbers are wrong, and you overstate the risk

it isn't an average. a plant can't expose one person to 500mrem and another to 10mrem and be under the limit.

The term "individual members of the public" is a specific term per EPA guidelines and that means any single person. So if a single person is exposed to greater than the limit the plant is non compliant.

This means even down wind the highest concentration must be below the safe limit and everyone else will have a tiny fraction of that.

Also your limits are way out of date.

Current limits are 25mrems
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f6dae31a0b5262952bf0805177c41848&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.1&idno=40#40:24.0.1.1.1.2.1.1

Unlike your link this is provided by US govt and provides guarantee that is current as of today.

Your chance of dying increases by about 10% after 250,000 mrems (250 REM) of accumulated radiation.

So if you lived 100 years next to a power plant you would need to be exposed to radiation 100x the safe limit set by the EPA every single year for your entire life to have your cancer risk rise by 10%.

[SidDithers]

9. Thanks for posting real numbers...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

15. "Real numbers" from 1977, mine are current.

If you just outright deny the current regulations and CALL the wrong numbers "real" that is just pitiful.

[SidDithers]

20. You've repeatedly shown you have no idea what you're talking about...

and that you're on the wrong side of this issue, as far as DU'ers are concerned.

Sid

[Statistical]

24. Did you EVEN READ what you linked to...

(e) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.

So NRC sets limit at 100mrems..... however all licensee are subject to EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190.

So where is 40 CFR part 190?
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f6dae31a0b5262952bf0805177c41848&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.1&idno=40#40:24.0.1.1.1.2.1.1

While it was written in 1971 I guess you missed this (in red & bold)
e-CFR Data is current as of September 10, 2009

The EPA exposure limit for all nuclear plants from 1971 till today in 25mrems.

What is the limit under EPA regulation ..... <drum rol>.... 25mrem.

So since a reactor must be compliant w/ both NRC and EPA regulations the max exposure under the law is 25mrem.

Remember 25mrem is the MAX exposure allowed it isn't the average exposure. NRC does monitoring an the average exposure within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant is .09mrem. In 11 years you will accumulate a single mrem.

Watching TV for a year with a cathoe tube TV will expose you to about 1rem. The food we eat has radioactive carbon (naturally occurring) and we get about 40rmem a year from that. A SINGLE xray exposure is 40mrem. Hell living in a brick or concrete bulding is about 7 mrem annually.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html

Living with 50 miles of a coal plant exposes you to 3x the RADIATION as living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. That doesn't even include the other adverse effect you get more RADIATION from coal emission exposure than you do from a nuclear plant.

[SidDithers]

27. Kick for more real numbers...

Good posts.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

13. My numbers are from the NRC (link)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html

You provide no link for your claim that 250 Rems is what increases your risk of dying to 10%.

As I said there is NO safe limit. so your argument is without any foundation. And while the legal limit does apply to all indiviuals (not average doses) if the plants are OUT of complince they get only a slap on the wrist. In addition the plants provide the info on their compliance, so we hve no honest way of knowing if they are compliant or not.

My numbers are from the current NRC website. So either your numbers are out of date (I see the date as 1971 on your figures) or there is inconsistency in the law.

The cancer rates near nuclear plants demonstrate in epidemiological studies posted at www.radiation.org that your figures re: cancer are false.

You can defend the industry killing people all you want, but that doesn't make the lies of the industry true.

If you want believe the industry's figures, its your funeral (and if Congress buys them then its all of our funerals). I have been to so many funerals for friends nd relatives in my communty that live downwind or downstream that the idea that people support this technology makes me want to vomit.

[ddeclue]

8. RIDICULOUS AND FALSE 85% of exposure is from natural background radiation.

and exposure from nuclear power is practically unmeasurable unless you actually work in the plant.

Try holding a geiger counter against a concrete sidewalk or sand at the beach and watch it go nuts.

:eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

14. I posted links to my sources, have you???

Yes, radiation is ALREADY all around us.

"Practically unmeasurable" is term used by shills for the industry like "electricity too cheap to meter".

It is a lie.

I posted the current regulations from the NRC website and links regarding background and man made radiation - I stand by my numbers and position.

INCREASING the amount of radiation in the enviroment causes death and disease, cancer and spontaneous abortions and mutations of developing foetuses.

(IF you include radon as natural background radiation- which varies widely from place to place - then the background radiation is more than an average of 100mrems per year. But my point is that nuclear man made effluents and emissions ADD 100mrems or more to the mix increasing the pecentage of exposure by a HUGE factor of DOUBLING what we get from natural sources other than radon).

[NutmegYankee]

17. Normal exposure is 250-350 millirem per year. An extra 100 millirem is NOT double!

Your title is misleading, but then again, your entire post demonstrates a lack of knowledge. BUT BE AFRAID!!!

[Liberation Angel]

21. Average radon is 150-200 mrems per year, which I excluded

other man made or derived (building materials etc) are about 50 mrems. So 250 mrems is radon and radiation other than solar and cosmic and earth sources.

Solar and cosmic and earth sources (natural background) is about 100mrems.

I am not afraid anymore. I am resigned. Ignorance and capriciousness and murderous greed is what drives this industry.

And it is killing millions of children

and grown folks too

[NutmegYankee]

25. I live 5 miles from a nuclear plant.

When they did studies, the only source of measurable added radiation was the coal power plant, which dumped out particles released as the coal burned. In that sense, all of New England gets the Midwest's fallout. But nuclear power itself does not release large amounts of radioactive particles into the air, making the exposure basically nonexistent. The reactor is contained in a pressure vessel and the heated primary coolant water heats a secondary isolated loop in most plants. The local power plant, Millstone Power Station, is required by both the state and federal governments to publish all releases of radiation, usually tritium gas during maintenance activities, and found the exposure yearly to be 0.27 mrem within the site boundary. The dose drops off rapidly as you move away from the site. That is not even one mrem per year! Generating hysteria by claiming that plants are poisoning the land around them with barely detectable traces of tritium is a bit much.

[Statistical]

26. That sounds about right Per EPA the average exposure within 50 miles of a plant is...

.09 mrems per year (compared to 0.3mrem per year from coal plant).

Since radiation exposure decreases at the square of distance .027 on site may be only .06 2 miles away and .01 at 4 miles away. Most detectors can't detect below 0.01 but considering <0.01 = 1mrem per 100 years it isn't really relevant.

0.09 mrem is the average ANNUAL exposure within 50 miles of a nuclear powerplant.

Flying coast to coast round trip (1 mrem per 1000 miles) results in an exposure 6x as high.
Living in a brick building (7mrem) results in an expsure 77x as high.
Taking a single xray (40mrems) results in an exposure 400x as high.
Average NATURALLY OCCURRING radon (100mrem - 260mrem) results in an exposure 1000x to 2600x as high.

[Liberation Angel]

34. For the record, your link states nuclear workers get 300mrems per year average

so you should add that.

But your numbers have no sources and no links

anyway so they are meaningless

[Statistical]

37. No you just don't like it.

Radiation intensity is subject to inverse square distance rule.

Physics is a bitch and even your faith can't overcome it.

Workers are extremely close range. Even a mile way (nuke plant border fence is 2.5 miles) the exposure is a tiny fraction compared to the source.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html

EPA estimate is that average person living <50 miles form a nuclear power plant picks up 0.09mrems annually (note coal plant is 4x higher).

[Liberation Angel]

31. Without links your info is meaningless

the studies on Millstone and extra strontium 90 can be found at www.radiation.org

look for the links to articles.
There is a LOT of radiation released from Millstone. And the research proves it even if the industry and NRC hide it.

[Liberation Angel]

19. European Committe on Radiation Risk Study shows tens of millions of deaths from nuclear cycle

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

its conclusions include the following:

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945..... The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths . In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

I realize that , like Holocaust deniers, some will refute these numbers for the global nuclear power industry (which is run by the same people who financed Hitler and ran Auschwitz), but these are scientific opinions based on scientific data and knowledge WITH NO PROFIT motive. No ULTERIOR motive except protecting human life.

The nuclear industry has all the reasons in the world to cover up these deaths: fear of liability for the deaths caused by their industry and greed/power and control of the global energy market and military order (nuclear weapons fuel is produced by this industry).


Gee! 3.5 Million dead babies! And ALL profit!

Make mine a NUKE!

[Statistical]

22. Did you notice "exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63"

in your quote.

Think maybe the detonation of thousands of weapons in air, on ground, and below greound releasing millions and millions of tons of falouts might be the larger factor then then the release of tiny amounts (microcuries) of radioactive material each year from reactors.

It is like putting an elephent and a feather on a scale and concluding feathers are very heavy.

If nuclear reactors are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous why wouldn't they just do a study EXCLUDING weapons detonations. Oh yeah becase like removing the elephant from the scale it would no longer support the false conclusion.

[Liberation Angel]

33. Of course I did. The data shows that nuke plant releases ADD to deadly fallout exposure

Your analogy is inapt in any event.

Frankly, the antinuclear movement year after year pushes for such studies and they are shot down again and again by industry lobbyists who control the data and the research and academia and government agencies.

It is like asking tobacco industry to give us their internal cancer studies or nicotine/chemical recipes.

We are addicted to nukes because they have made us addicted to them. By ADDING radiation to the environment MORE people wil be killed.

The fact is that it is the Nuclear Industry which, with government support, RUNS all nuclear ops from making bombs to power plants to reprocessing uranium and fuel for weapons and depleted uranium.

It is ONE industry which has caused these deaths. So the INDUSTRY is the elephant and the PERCENTAGE of death by its products is 100%. How much is nuke emissions and how much fallout from testing is something we can only know by studying the actual absortion of radiation into our bodies and epidemiological studies which are being done by the Radiation and Public Health Project whose research is published at www.radiation.org. We are TRYING to get the data but are thwarted at every turn by the NRC and the indstry and by politicians who work for the industry (like every huge industry except nuclear is the hugest because it makes weapons and is thus the MOST powerful).

But we know that EVERY exposure increases risk of cancer and death. And that the radiation we absorb into our organs can accumulate there thus increasing our exposure and risk of death or disease.

I accept that the data should be available to see EXACTLY how much radiation nuclear power generation causes nd has caused and wil cause. Bt we KNOW that it is being caused and that it is killing people and babies right now. How anyone can support or defend it is beyond me. It is unconscionable. The mutations DAMAGE human reproductive dna and hence alter evolution of the species for all time. Is that acceptable to you? To any of us?.

EVERY day a plant operates it generates harmful and deadly radionuclides which spew into the environment and kill people.

Right now it is impossible to tell precisely WHICH nuclear event caused that strontium 90 in your teeth, But we CAN tell how old it is with proper testing (by its decay rate).

So studies SHOULD be done to satisfy the deniers and to educate the public.

But the studies I have seen make it clear the risk and harm is too severe to think twice about ceasing nuclear power emissions immediately to prevent further serious harm to all beings on this earth.

and if we support and subsidize this practice of killing ourselves with a deadly radioactive elephant shitting on our children and the graves of future generations, then we are the criminals.

[Statistical]

39. The information is easily found for those who want to find it.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly,with scientific annexes

From Annex C: Exposures from man-made sources of radiation

186. With improved estimates of the production of each radionuclide in individual tests and using an empirical atmospheric transport model, it is possible to determine the time course of the dispersion and deposition of radionuclides and to estimate the annual doses from various pathways in each hemisphere of the world. In this way it has been estimated that the world average annual effective dose reached a peak of 110 μSv in 1963 and has since decreased to about 5 μSv, from residual levels in the environment, mainly of 14C, 90Sr, and 137Cs. The average annual doses are 10% higher than theworld average in the northern hemisphere, where most of the testing took place, and much lower in the southern hemisphere. Although there was considerable concern at the time of testing, the exposures remained relatively low, reaching at most about 5% of the background level from natural radiation sources.

Nuclear Power Generation.
190. A continuing practice is the generation of electrical energy by nuclear power reactors. In recent years, 17% of the world’s electrical energy has been generated by this means. During routine operation of nuclear installations, the releases of radionuclides are low, and exposures must be estimated with environmental transfer models. For all fuel cycle operations (mining and milling, reactor operation, and fuel reprocessing) the local and regional exposures are estimated at present to be 0.9 man Sv (GW a)-1. With present world nuclear energy generation of 250 GW a, the collective dose per year of practice is of the order of 200 man Sv. The assumed representative local and regional population surrounding a single installation is about 250 million persons, and the per caput dose to this population would be less than 1 Sv. The collective doses from globally dispersed radionuclides are delivered over very long periods and to the projected maximum population of the world. If the practice of nuclear power production is limited to the next 100 years at the present capacity, the maximum annual effective dose per caput to the global population would be less than 0.2 μSv. This dose rate is small compared to that from natural background radiation.

Sv is Sievert which is the international (SI) unit for radiation dose.
1 SV = 100 Rems so 1 uSV (micro Sievert) is equal to 0.1mrems (milirems).
Since mrem is more commonly used in English documents I will translate to mrems.

Weapons Testing
In 1963 (at height of nuclear weapons testing) exposure was 110uSv = 11.0mrems
In 2000 (at time of the report) that had decayed to 5uSv = 0.5mrems

Nuclear Power Generation
Exposure has remained constant at 1uSv = 0.1mrem annually.

So in 1963 the exposure effect from weapons was 110x greater than that from power generation. Even today the effect of weapons testing is about 5x that of power generation. Of course both of those are negligible compared to background radiation which has resulted in exposure that is 90x higher than the effect of weapons testing and 3600x higher than the effect of power generation.


As far as your "study"
Using geometric reduction to estimate exposure each year for weapons testing (begining at 11.0mrems and ending at 0.5mrems) and linear exposure for power generation (0.1mrems) we can get a ballpark of how much each source contributed to you "so called study". My estimate is that from 1963 till 2000 weapons testing contributed 194 mrems and power generation 5 mrems of lifetime exposure. So 97%+ of the effects concluded in the "study" come from weapons testing.

Of course I think you will note the source of this report (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation).

So lets add that to your list of people in the grand nuke conspiracy:
nuclear plant works (who work in and live around the plants)
nuclear inspectors (who also work in and live around the plants)
NRC
DOE
EPA
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
Every single university
Ever physics, ecology, biology student from 1960s till today

All of these people are part of this vast international conspiracy and only you (and your website of anti-nukers "know the truth".

[ensho]

23. kick

nt

[Statistical]

28. For those joining late here is the summary

1) Limit is 25mremrs per year. Note this is a limit not average exposure, not a single plant has every reached the limit during normal operation.

2) Average human is exposed to 360 mrems of radiation every year. 87% of that is natural radiation. Yes we live in a radioactive world. Hell there is about 100,000 picoCurries of radioactive Potasium-40 inside every adult.

3) 25mrems is a 7% increase not double the normal exposure. Remember this is the limit. A limit no plant has every reached.

4) Per the EPA average exposure to someone living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor is ..... drumroll 0.09 mrems. That is 0.4% of the limit (plants are running 96% less than the legal limit).

5) 0.09mrems is 1/40th of 1% of your background radiation level. Lifetime dose from living next to nuclear reactor is about 6 mrems. You get 40 mrems from a SINGLE xray.

6) Nuclear Onsite Inspectors for the NRC are required to live within 2 miles of the plant. If it was so dangerous why would they cover it up and expose themselves and their families to lethal danger?

So what the hell is a mrem and what does it do?

mrem is a milli-rem. It is 1/1000th of a rem.
REM is a measure of radiation exposure to a human.

10 REM of prompt exposure raises your lifetime cancer risk by about 1%.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm

[Liberation Angel]

29. Before I start: your link states "Nuclear workers get an additional 300mrems a year"

From YOUR link:



"How much radiation do we get?

"The average person in the United States receives about 360 mrem every year whole body equivalent dose. This is mostly from natural sources of radiation, such as radon. (See Radiation and Us ).

In 1992, the average dose received by nuclear power workers in the United States was 300 mrem whole body equivalent in addition to their background dose."


So right there we see that workers are getting f*cked ON AVERAGE.

more after I dissect your post and link....

[Statistical]

36. Yup because even "scary" 300mrem is a neglible dose.

360 rems per year * 72 years = 25,000 mrems.

Once you start adding a lifetime of one-time doses like xrays, flying, brick house, etc you can quickly accumulate 40,000 -80,000 mrems in a lifetime.

Why isn't that a big concern? Because it takes about 100,0000 mrems (100 rems) to raise the lifetime cancer risk 4%.

Workers wear dosimeters and once their lifetime dose becomes to high they simply can't work in the field anymore.
If a worker is exposed via an accident to a higher dose then that shortens the amount of time they can safely work around nuclear material.

Similar policies apply to nuke techs on navy warships.

Just in case you are wondering the occupational safety limit is at 5,000 mrems (5 rems) per year.

Every person working around nuclear material knows their lifetime dose. 300mrems is nothing.
I picked up 312 mrems working 2 years in physics labs involving nuclear material.

OUR ENTIRE FRIGGIN PLANET IS RADIOACTIVE. WE HAVE RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR BODIES. THE POTASIUM-40 RADIATES PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR YOU
thousands of years of living in a radioactive environment has adapted our bodies to deal with low levels of radation.

It is only when we get a prompt dose (20,000, 50,000, 100,000 mrems in a matter of seconds or minutes vs a lifetime) that our bodies are unable to adapt to it.

[Liberation Angel]

30. Your summary fails to have links but the one link cites NRC which is unreliable

the NRC is basically an industry lapdog and in 1991 after ten years of Reagan and Bush (when the risk assessments were done relied on by your link) the figures would be so twisted by industry that they are totally unreliable.

i trust the data at non-vested interest sites like www.radiation.org and www.nirs.org .

Their data is not cooked like the NRC's is.

Do you TRUST th nuclear industry to tell you or any of us to tell us the truth about the harm it is causing? Why would they?

It would destroy their industry and cost them BILLIONS or more in damage suits.

Like the cigaret industry, they lie because they know their products are killing us.

and they do nt want to be held liable for the cancers and death they cause.

[Statistical]

35. Non vested? Those are anti-nuke groups. Non-vested my ass.