Nuclear radiation: There is no safe dose

[Liberal_in_LA]

The authorities apparently refer to the so-called standards of permissible or acceptable limits set by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as basis for declaring that exposure levels of the public are "small" and within "safety" limits and that significant risk of harm is limited to the immediate vicinity of the power plants. These standards, in fact, have been set to accommodate the interests of the nuclear industry and countries with nuclear weapons. The ICRP recommendations of exposure limits are not based on worker and public health criteria, but on value judgements with respect to the acceptability of risk estimates for what it sees as benefits of the activities. Since the decision makers, were either users of ionizing radiation in their employment, or are government regulators, primarily from countries with nuclear weapon programs, the vested interests are very clear.

Government "experts" are actually misinterpreting the standards used world-wide as the common basis for radiological protection standards. Even the ICRP stated that: "The permissible doses can therefore be expected to produce effects that could be detectable only by statistical methods applied to large groups." It further stated that: "The commission believes that this level <5 rems radiation exposure per 30 years for the general public> provides reasonable latitude for the expansion of atomic energy programs in the foreseeable future. It should be emphasised that the limit may not in fact represent a proper balance between possible harm and probable benefit because of the uncertainty in assessing the risks and benefits that would justify the exposure." Thus, it is quite clear that even the ICRP recognizes that radiation exposure below "acceptable" levels could actually cause adverse health effects. Yet, 5 rem per year, rather than per 30 years, was permitted for workers in the nuclear industry. The 5 rem per 30 years was set as the average dose to a population, with a maximum of 0.5 rem (5 msV) per year for any individual member of the public.

The concept of "permissible" or "acceptable" level is derived from toxicologic assumptions and extrapolations which do not constitute a valid rationale for a conclusion of "safety". The usual procedure for setting the standard for a toxic substance is to decide the relevant medical symptoms of toxicity and determine a dose level below which these symptoms do not occur. This cut-off point is called the "tolerance level". The tolerance level for a substance, if one can be determined, is then divided by a subjectively derived factor (10-100) to give a so-called "safe" level. This presumably allows for human variability of effects which may occur below the level at which there are no visible signs of toxicity. This rather limited concept, while useful for estimating risks from exposure to certain toxicants in particular situations, does not apply for toxic substances (like radioactive materials) which do not have any "tolerance" level, meaning, even the smallest possible dose can produce a toxic effect. At very low doses, effects are likely to be statistically hidden by normal biological variations, yet these effects are real. Even physicians attending to the affected people are usually not aware that the illnesses they are seeing are connected to the exposure.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose

[wtbymark]

1. and I got bitched out in a couple threads for sayin that

[TheWraith]

31. And rightly so. The idea that there is no safe dose is simply, completely, WRONG.

You are exposed to low levels of radiation every single day. The potassium in your very own personal body generates 4,000 Becquerels of radiation every single second.

Even "large" doses of radiation are relatively non-damaging. For instance, absorbing 10,000 millirem increases your lifetime risk of cancer by 1% or less.

The "no safe dose" nonsense is promulgated by people who spread fear in order to get on TV, and those who don't understand science.

[darkstar3]

2. Then build yourself a shelter out of 14 inch concrete walls, and never come out.

I think some people here would be completely shocked at the level and types of radiation they are exposed to daily.

Edit: clarity

[TahitiNut]

3. But then there'd still be radon.

:shrug:

[RC]

4. And for goodness sake, stay away from bananas.

Brazil nuts, potatoes, kidney beans, sunflower seeds.
In fact, nearly all foods are slightly radioactive. All food sources combined expose a person to around 0.4 mSv (40 mrem) per year on average, or more than 10% of the total dose from all natural and man-made sources.

Stop eating food and stop breathing and you'll live forever as ingesting any radiation source is bad for you.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Or smoke a big fat bowl of plutonium

since it's all so fucking harmless.

[darkstar3]

6. Oh yes, 'cause the world is just that black and white.

:thumbsdown:

[Warren DeMontague]

7. This, from the folks floating ridiculous strawmen about bananas and sunburn.

Right. The world isn't so black and white. And if you don't want your infant or toddler ingesting radioactive iodine, it doesn't mean you're an idiot who can't grasp the fact that, yes, there is background radiation in the world we're all exposed to. There is also no "safe dose", so it makes sense to minimize exposure as much as possible.

Which is fat fucking unlikely for anyone who happens to be anywhere near the massive clusterfuck now taking place in Fukushima.

[darkstar3]

9. It's the "no safe dose" shit that's the problem.

If there were "no safe dose", then flying would be unacceptable.

If there were "no safe dose", then most diagnostic procedures would be unacceptable.

The fact is, there ARE "safe doses" of radiation. There are, however, certain radioactive materials that can be more dangerous when ingested. I understand that, and I'm willing to admit that I wouldn't want to ingest large amounts of radioactive cesium, but that's NOT what the OP claimed. The OP made a black and white statement that there is no safe dose of radiation. Bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. yes. People being upset about radioactive contamination are the real "problem".

Hey- wait a minute... aren't you also one of the folks who, just a few weeks ago, was hand-wringing about the deleterious societal effects of porn?


So let me get this straight; pictures of consenting adults fucking have dangerous, detrimental effects on the consenting adults that look at them; but people are 'too worried' about shit like radioactive isotopes spewing from a damaged nuclear reactor?

Amazing. Simply amazing.

[darkstar3]

12. You have a gift for misrepresentation.

I didn't say that people being concerned about contamination was "the problem." I believe what I said is quite clear just above your own post, and if you can read anything into it, it is that oversimplification is bad in situations involving complex health issues. You might also be able to read into my post that I believe the OP is fearmongering bullshit.

And you and I have never had a discussion about the deleterious social effects of porn. My avatar is one of the generic ones, you may have me confused with someone else.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. No, I just have a very good memory. One of your arguments was that women couldn't "consent" to porn.

That somehow, the act of getting naked in front of a camera rendered a woman incapable of making her own decisions. I believe the thread started with a PETA ad, but yes, the topic quickly turned to the terrible, patriarchy-enabling, oppressive effects of pictures of nekkid people or nekkid people fucking.

I can find the thread if you like.

But I digress. The OP CLEARLY states that it is in reference to radioactive contamination and NOT simply a "black and white statement that there is no safe dose". The media either doesn't understand- or is deliberately obfuscating- the difference between ambient radiation levels (like you encounter in those CT scans or flights from NY to San Francisco) and radioactive contamination. For instance, if the cesium levels in certain parts of Fukushima are too high, it doesn't matter if the radiation you get in one hour or one day is "less than a CT scan"- people won't be able to live there. For a very, very, very, very long time.

You don't need "fearmongering bullshit" to understand that what is happening in Japan now is really fucking bad, and will have long term consequences. It's "fearmongering bullshit" to imagine that anyone is oppressed by a picture of an attractive woman in lingerie having implied sex with a stalk of broccoli.

[darkstar3]

15. I have a good memory as well,

and as I recall I tried to steer us away from your red herring of porn and focus on the PETA ad in that thread. It was you who kept trying to turn the issue to pornography, because you felt that it was something other than a false parallel. That, however, is neither here nor there, since the rules of this board clearly state that we should not continue old arguments in new threads, and that argument is CLEARLY off-topic.

Now, as to the OP, the words "radioactive contamination" appear nowhere in the actual board post, and only in the linked piece itself. That, the chosen paragraphs extracted which leave out the fact that this is dealing with the Phillipines, combined with the title of the post, "Nuclear radiation: There is no safe dose", mark this OP as nothing more than ill-termed, fearmongering, black-and-white bullshit, of the type seen again and again in hysterical messages posted elsewhere regarding the Fukushima tragedy.

I DO understand that what is happening in Japan now is bad, and it's JAPAN that I'm worried about. I know better than to believe that any respectable amount of radioactive material is going to make it to my backyard.

We have enough trouble in this world without borrowing more.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I think it's relevant if implied sex with broccoli is "dangerous" and rain with iodine-131 isn't.

I'm not convinced, for us, that either is... but I am reading a book on TMI right now, and the fact is that with EVERY nuclear disaster there has been a persistent under-statement of the dangers by the authorities. It's almost a given, and if it's not happening this time, that would be a first. I'm not convinced that we will see significant levels of radioactivity in the states, but it's worth remembering that Chernobyl caused measurable effects to not just wide swaths of Eastern Europe but even as far away as Scotland, and the sheer inventory of radioactive material at Fukushima 1-4 dwarfs that at Chernobyl many times over.

[darkstar3]

18. I am not responsible for what you think is relevant,

and I am also not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. There is nowhere in this thread where I have stated that radioactive iodine is not dangerous. I simply don't believe that we will see any appreciable levels of the stuff here in the states.

Again, too many people are more than willing to borrow trouble. We all need a nice cup of "calm the fuck down."

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Recent Data on Radioactive Iodine in Rainwater:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/28/v-print/2610598/governor-corbett-says-public-water.html


Now, again, we are assured that -even if levels on the East coast are way higher than the fed. standard for drinking water, and the levels on the West Coast (which, for some odd reason, you have to search for, and only UC Berkeley seems independently interested in verifying and publishing) are several THOUSAND times higher than the federal standard of drinking water, surely this doesn't matter because no one drinks rain, no one ingests rain, and kids -the most vulnerable population- never play in rain, or stick things like wet coat sleeves in their mouths, etc.

And there's no reason to worry about anything like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131

Due to its mode of beta decay, iodine-131 is notable for causing mutation and death in cells which it penetrates, and other cells up to several millimeters away. For this reason, high doses of the isotope are sometimes paradoxically less dangerous than low doses, since they tend to kill thyroid tissues which would otherwise become cancerous as a result of the radiation. For example, children treated with moderate dose of I-131 for thyroid adenomas had a detectable increase in thyroid cancer, but children treated with a much higher dose did not.

Whether you care or are 'responsible' for what I think is relevant, I think maybe you should take a long look in the mirror if you think people in this society are overly concerned about exposing their kids to radioactive iodine yet insufficiently concerned about consenting adults looking at pictures of other consenting adults fucking.

[darkstar3]

21. And there's the fearmongering on your part.

Your first link shows a clear table which gives us the following information:

If you were to drink 134 LITERS of rainwater that came straight from the sky on March 23rd, and then add up the cumulative amount of radiation your body would be exposed to due to that ingestion (not contact, INGESTION), you would have been exposed to the same exact amount of radiation that you would get from a flight that took off in San Francisco and landed in Washington D.C. And March 23rd is the day that the HIGHEST level of I-131 was found. By March 28th, five days later, that level of I-131 had fallen so much lower that you would need to drink 1,734 LITERS of water for the same amount of exposure.

Let's assume (safely) that the amount of rainwater ingested directly by a child is somewhere below 1 Liter. That would mean that a flight from San Francisco to Washington D.C. would be 134 times more dangerous in your book than that rainwater. And yet you treat the findings as if I-131 qualifies as some sort of bogeyman.

You need a lesson in staying on topic, and another lesson in scientific comprehension. I have the inclination to give you neither, but I will continue to easily debunk fearmongering bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. And how dangerous is a sexy woman in lingerie having implied sex with a stalk of broccoli?

Seriously. Does the "radiation on the flight from SF to DC" lodge in the thyroid and stay there?

[darkstar3]

30. You really have no clue how to stay on topic, do you?

The answer to your question about radiation, by the way, is "no, and neither does radioactive iodine."

What is it about cumulative doses that you didn't understand? Over the course of a few weeks, whatever iodine may have become lodged in your thyroid would give a CUMULATIVE dose of radiation far less than a cross-country flight, and after that CUMULATIVE dose it would no longer be radioactive.

So tell me, 3 weeks after exposure when the patient has received a dose of radiation so miniscule that it would be dwarfed by everyday activities, how can nearly infinitesimal amounts of REGULAR, inactive iodine harm their thyroid in any appreciable way?

I know you have to get external validation from everyone regarding your "rightness", but you are dead wrong here and your own links have shown that.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Okay. This is a serious question: what were the I-131 levels from chernobyl

that were linked to the documented statistically significant increases in thyroid cancer in children? Do you have a number on that? Do you know the primary suspected route of ingestion? Was it environmental? Water? Milk? Serious question.

As for "on topic": Here's what I see, whether you happen to agree that it's 'relevant' or not.. I see the issues mentioned above as symptomatic of a problem that afflicts more than just our society, probably our whole species- I'm not even sure what to call it, but it's damn near psychotic as far as I can tell.. you have people -0lots of them- who are 'concerned' about thing like premarital sex, or porn, or pot smoking, or gay marriage- yet who don't give a shit about widespread fouling of the environment, toxics in air and water, mass death in stupid wars, what-have-you. See where I'm going with this? Psychotic. We throw people in prison for smoking a joint, but the guys who fouled the Cuyahoga river until it caught on fire... think they ever saw a cell? Psychotic.

And yeah, it's a mindset that's relevant, when people clutch doilies over sex but can't be bothered to worry about long-lasting cancer causing isotopes in the food chain.

[darkstar3]

33. Where?

Statistically significant increases in childhood thyroid cancer where? In the Ukraine? In Belarus? Somewhere else?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Does it matter where? I'm wondering about the levels of I-131 that were recorded wherever those

incidences occurred.

This is what I've been able to piece together, so far:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2011/nci-17.htm

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf

(See Table II, Particularly)

Also several independent analyses of what is coming out of fukushima say that emissions have already been in the ballpark of what was released at Chernobyl:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 1017 becquerels per day.

The agreement between the two "makes us confident that this is accurate", he says. So do similar readings at CTBT stations in Alaska, Hawaii and Montreal, Canada – readings at the latter, at least, show that the emissions have continued.

In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 1018 becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.

Now, I'm not claiming to be able to put it all together and say what it means, particularly regarding a situation that is still in flux; but it's clear to me, at least, that we are dealing with a MAJOR long-term catastrophe, and "over-stating" or "fear mongering" is the least of our concerns.

[darkstar3]

36. I've seen the newscientist link.

It says that we're looking at an order of magnitude less I-131 than Chernobyl, and from what I can find the documented cases of increased thyroid cancer happened much closer to Chernobyl than we are to Japan.

It IS a major long-term catastrophe. Again, I'm not trying to minimize it, but I am quite clear on the fact that the levels of I-131 currently being seen in the US are NOT worth fearing, and unless something DRASTIC happens at Fukushima those levels will only go down, not up. I'm sick of people here in the US acting like Chicken Little. The sky is not falling. Radiation is not a bogeyman, and it's not going to magically poison or kill people on the other side of the world from this disaster.

Worry for the people of Japan, and stop telling American citizens to worry for their own necks when there's no need. Doing so is nothing but fearmongering bullshit.

Edit: It does matter where, because the levels of radioactive iodine will be lower the farther you go from the disaster, and therefore knowing where these cases of thyroid cancer took place will help us to understand what levels of radioactive iodine were involved. Your first link deals with the same information I find EVERYWHERE on the internet regarding Chernobyl, namely the fact that thyroid cancer increased in Belarus and the Ukraine, the two countries whose shared border housed the Chernobyl reactor. We're A LOT farther away than that. There's really no reason to borrow trouble for us here in the US.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. And yet, you have no problem spending a day or two overreacting to a woman lusting over broccoli.

You're "sick of the fearmongering bullshit". Hello? It's natural for people to be reflexively concerned, particularly when it comes to infants and small children- and frankly, we don't KNOW what the fuck is coming down in our rain, we don't know if plutonium dust is or was blowing out of reactor #3, we don't know a whole TON of shit about this situation... and in addition to being heartsick and upset about what is happening to japan- and nauseated by the nuclear energy apologists who continue to try to positively spin this immense clusterfuck;

as a west coast resident and a parent, I am sick of being fucking scolded by the so-called 'authorities' for expressing concern over something that damn well has the potential to impact us, as well. A perfect example was the clucking over postassium iodide. I know there's no reason to take it now, so do most people- but we've also been told, for years, even before katrina, even before Loma Prieta, that we need to "be prepared for anything". We've also been told by the media that we're supposed to freak the fuck out over everything from shoe bombers to bedbugs to janet jackson's boob at the superbowl. Oh, but under no circumstances should we worry- at all- about the radiation showing up in the air, the milk, and now absolutely the rain.

Are you serious? You're worried about sexy ads and porn and you're mad that people are worried about radioactive iodine? ESPECIALLY when, like I said, every. single. fucking. time. this. happens. they. understate. the. actual. risks.

I'm not saying there is a marginally significant risk from what we've seen in the states- yet- but I refuse to be lectured for expressing concern. Sorry.

[darkstar3]

40. If you ever understood the concept of false parallel, you lost the understanding long ago.

Your concern is noted. As for me, I'll have no problem going out in the rain, no matter where I end up traveling in the continental 48.

Now go get your incessant need for external validation filled somewhere else. I'm not buying your bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Neither will I. But then, I'm not in the vulnerable population for thyroid cancer.

It's not my own, personal ass that I'm especially concerned about in this situation.

I do have a close family member, however, who was one of those kids whose tonsils got irradiated in the 40s. Spent most of her adult life with no thyroid. Now she's dealing with the bone loss and accumulated impact of 4 decades of synthroid.

Not a situation I'm really inclined to fuck around with, to be honest.

Do you have kids? I'm betting not.

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. lol n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Like....in a bong?

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Back in my day, a bowl meant a pipe, but I suppose a bong would work, too.

:shrug:

[Zoeisright]

10. Yep, you're right. Doctors are just now admitting that

mammograms may have caused breast cancers.

And anyone who unrecced this is in deep denial.

[Paradoxical]

14. Anybody who says "nuclear radiation" needs to take a physics class.

Radiation is a short reference for electromagnetic radiation.

It is a single entity with differing traits based on intensity and frequency.

Your body is currently emitting radiation. The ground is emitting radiation. Any thing that does not operate at 100% efficiency releases radiation.

My point is that there are perfectly safe levels of radiation. And that includes radiation produced from ionized atoms.

What's important is the characteristics of the radiation, not necessarily the source of the emission.

[upi402]

24. Valence electrons are one thing

The choice to build a nuclear plant that melts down and puts us at risk is quite another. I just took a physics class, so what. You can have a Phd in it and still not be able to pour piss from a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

Give it up. They aren't going to be built here. They will begin shut-downs, in fact.

[Paradoxical]

25. Never once did I say I support nuclear energy.

Read what I posted and respond to that. Is it that difficult?

[upi402]

34. lol

ya right

done

[athena]

26. That is actually incorrect.

What can cause cancer is "ionizing radiation," which is not a single entity and does not have to be electromagnetic. It can also be made up of particles. A photon or charged particle that is energetic enough to break atomic bonds, or a neutron that is energetic enough to break up a nucleus, is "ionizing radiation."

There is nothing wrong with saying "nuclear radiation", since nuclear reactions produce ionizing radiation.

There are natural sources of ionizing radiation, but given that ionizing radiation can cause cancer, I am not sure you can claim that it is ever "perfectly safe". The level may be low enough that the probability of cancer is unmeasurably low, but that does not mean that a very low level will not cause cancer at a very small rate.

If you increase the levels of ionizing radiation in your environment, you will also increase your chances of getting cancer. You may do this by going outdoors on a sunny day or moving to a house that has high levels of radon. But that does not mean that an accident at a nuclear power plant is nothing to worry about.

[rdking647]

16. there is danger in everything.

nothing is completly safe.. It becomes a matter of tradeoffs and acceptable risks..
Do you get in a car??? your accepting a certain risk
Do you eat meat? or any food you didnt grow yourself?

there are risks to everything. Its just a matter of coming up with an acceptable amount of risk..
Lets say all nuclear power plants indirectly cause 5000 cases of cancer in the US every year. an extreme amount by any objective standard. And yet that is less than 1/6 the amount killed every year by car crashes
its about 1/2 the number of people poisoned each year..

personally I thing nuclear power falls into the acceptable risk category

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Nuclear power plants are great (except for that pesky waste thing) ...until they have an accident.

Then, they can become a long-term fucking nightmare.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. It's one thing to willingly take a risk

It's quite another to have a risk imposed on you by someone else.

[upi402]

23. To be powerless over risk from a firm's wreckless drive for profit

I agree, +1,000
Sure we need energy and yes we get background radiation. But I'll be damned if I justify needless exposure so some company can make more money. The safe level is zero, the closer I get to that -the better.

Maybe I want to spend my dose on laying on the beach... then that's my free choice and my measured risk/benefit.

[rdking647]

28. safe radiation

uv radiation is different than nuke radiation.. and the safe level is not zero its some some number above zero
and building a nuke plant in this country is not a reckless drive for profit

It took the 5th largest quake on record and a giant tsunami to cause japans crisis..
i consider it acceptable risk

[rdking647]

27. gas lines blowing up

like they did a short time ago in california.. a risk imposed on you by someone else..