Radiation Warning
Originally Posted by Londonsloop
have listened twice now to the CNN link provided by his masters voice and didn’t hear the Commissioner say that the number 4 reactor was empty.
Originally Posted by Londonsloop
the more envious I am about those safely ensconced down under in a nuclear free country.
Originally Posted by GlobalMaster
Are you a 'professional' paid to hose down publically reported concerns, or do you just like to personally affront people for the hell of it?
Originally Posted by GlobalMaster
Hopefully those who read this forum have gathered that all is probably not what it seems and are doing some research before making up their mind.
Originally Posted by GlobalMaster
At this point both the primary and secondary containment vessels at the Fukushima nuclear reactor #4 are breached.
To my mind, these things are a bit like aircraft accidents; all sorts of red-herrings, furphies and theories flying around just after, but in the cold hard light of day after the dust has settled (!), valuable lessons can be learned and nuclear, the power of the future, will be even safer.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 20th Mar 2011 at 12:30.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UpSideDown
Age: 45
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I look into what’s happened, the more envious I am about those safely ensconced down under in a nuclear free country.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
I agree with Bloggs ,
All the reactors were shut down as soon as the earthquake hit, all the reactors are in containment vessels. 4 5 and 6 are issues with spent fuel ponds not the reactors themselves. Every reactor had stopped producing heat , its only residual they are controlling. There is no way this can be anything like a Chernobyl unless someone explodes a nuclear weapon right over the top. Chernobyl was a runaway nuclear fission reaction that did not have a containment vessel which exploded violently. The worst readings at the Fukushima plant read fatal doses in around 24 months of exposure. Chernobyl was fatal with a minute or so of exposure.
Having said that lets not deny that this would have released radiation into the environment, but it is a mosquito level compared to the A380 sized amount released by Chernobyl.
The media are to blame for this misinformation, because almost all journalists can't even spell these days why trust them with the facts? You can't pure and simple, thats why more people are turning to the internet for news, they dont have to sit in front of a TV and listen to this ****, we can choose our own areas to read and get rid of the TV journos completely. Last time I watched commercial news on TV would have to be around 10 years ago now, and loving it!
All the reactors were shut down as soon as the earthquake hit, all the reactors are in containment vessels. 4 5 and 6 are issues with spent fuel ponds not the reactors themselves. Every reactor had stopped producing heat , its only residual they are controlling. There is no way this can be anything like a Chernobyl unless someone explodes a nuclear weapon right over the top. Chernobyl was a runaway nuclear fission reaction that did not have a containment vessel which exploded violently. The worst readings at the Fukushima plant read fatal doses in around 24 months of exposure. Chernobyl was fatal with a minute or so of exposure.
Having said that lets not deny that this would have released radiation into the environment, but it is a mosquito level compared to the A380 sized amount released by Chernobyl.
The media are to blame for this misinformation, because almost all journalists can't even spell these days why trust them with the facts? You can't pure and simple, thats why more people are turning to the internet for news, they dont have to sit in front of a TV and listen to this ****, we can choose our own areas to read and get rid of the TV journos completely. Last time I watched commercial news on TV would have to be around 10 years ago now, and loving it!
the difference is ingesting radioactive particles and getting a dose of radiation like an xray. when you get a small particle inside you, it releases radiation to locallised tissue for an extended period and cause the dna and cells to change aka cancer. you don't eat the radioactive particles when you stand in the sun so comparing the 2 is bs.
if you are saying its all ok, go enjoy a class of milk before bed time. it will heat itself.
if you are saying its all ok, go enjoy a class of milk before bed time. it will heat itself.
Saw them quarantining pax arriving from Japan in India yesterday for radiation exposure checks.
One suspects though, that that's a mild overreaction and a bit of jobsworthing, like having 12 army guys around a run of the mill boomgate.
One suspects though, that that's a mild overreaction and a bit of jobsworthing, like having 12 army guys around a run of the mill boomgate.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this was excellent...
It's about time the media were publicly called over the bull****, misinformation and hysteria-mongering they peddle as "news". As usual, Rob Fyfe leads the way!
Onya Rob.
It's about time the media were publicly called over the bull****, misinformation and hysteria-mongering they peddle as "news". As usual, Rob Fyfe leads the way!
Onya Rob.
Grandpa Aerotart
This about covers it
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The sooner the MSM is utterly ignored by the vast majority of the population the better off the world will be.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The sooner the MSM is utterly ignored by the vast majority of the population the better off the world will be.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chimbu Chuckles
That chart shows the dose of ionising radiation from exposure to radiation generally in the form of electromagnetic waves.
This is not the same thing as consuming a spec of Caesium-137 dust. Get a spec of Caesium-137 (fission byproduct with half-life of 30 years) or Plutonium-239 (reactor fuel with half-life 24,000 years) on your skin - no problems. Just wash it off. Minimal if any damage done.
Get a spec of the above in your lungs - big problems. Best of luck to you.
Analysing radiation dosage generically in micro-sieverts is a very broad-brush way of determining the likelihood of becoming ill with certain levels of exposure. When you start consuming particles which are radioactive, you are in altogether different territory.
But surprisingly Banana farmers will receive the most radiation of anyone.
Bananas contain the radioactive isotope Potassium-40. But the physical characteristics of radioactive substances are not the same, and to compare them all on an equal footing is just ridiculous. What is the half-life? How much is absorbed? In what body tissues? What type of radiation is it? Gamma? Beta? Neutron? Alpha?
If you want to understand why you can eat "radioactive" bananas and not get sick, you need to understand what is meant by the term "homeostasis"and how potassium-40 levels are regulated in the body.
And who in the MSM should be most guilty of dumbing-down this radioactivity argument to the point where it bears almost no resemblance to reality? Well none other than the notorious loon and anti-science wingnut, Andrew Bolt.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 21st Mar 2011 at 04:25.
Grandpa Aerotart
Dutchroll et al you sound just like bradleymarsh (and the MSM and a few Pollies) on here last year insisting the world was about to end from Bird Flu
You want to slam Bolt?
At least he gets his information from the very top nuclear physicists in Australia not some dumb bitch from a single issue advocacy group that is against nuclear energy in any way shape or form like the women on 3AW a few days ago claiming 100s of 1000s and probably MILLIONS would die as a result of the leaking radiation at Fukushima.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation exposure at Chernobyl?
Approximately 60.
How many from the MSM hype?
Couple of 100,000 babies aborted in western Europe because the parents were terrified they would be born deformed. Million more people horribly mentally effected not by radiation but by irrational fears perpetrated by the 24 hr news cycle. The areas surrounding Chernobyl are now natural wonderlands abandoned by panicked Govts.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation poisoning post Hiroshima AND Nagasaki in the 65 years since those bombings?
Less than 500.
Slightly over 100000 died as a direct result of blast and heat and immediate effects of severe radiation poisoning...less than half the number of Japanese civilians killed in a single conventional bombing raid a few nights before the Hiroshima raid.
Close to 100,000 survivors are still being closely monitored as is anyone that was within cooee of Chernobyl or 3 mile Island.
There were 24 Australian POWs within 1.5km of ground zero at Nagasaki, all survived the blast and most lived to be VERY old men.
Within just a few years after the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki you could not tell they had been bombed at all - they were thriving cities with people going about their normal lives. Now just 65 years later they are REALLY thriving cities with no abnormal patterns of cancer evident.
Now if a direct nuclear bombing raid on two cities is such a relative non event (tragic though it was) why do we have the MSM getting 'hard' over a relatively contained minor leak from a damaged power station when 10s of 1000s of people are missing/dead after the worst earth quake and tsunami in god knows how long?
Left wing anti nuclear political agenda?
No couldn't be, could it?
Can you point to a MSM scare campaign that has EVER come to pass?
No - thought not.
The 24 hr news cycle hurts more people than anything I can think of short of sundry dictators - which as often as not are fawned over by the same MSM.
You want to slam Bolt?
At least he gets his information from the very top nuclear physicists in Australia not some dumb bitch from a single issue advocacy group that is against nuclear energy in any way shape or form like the women on 3AW a few days ago claiming 100s of 1000s and probably MILLIONS would die as a result of the leaking radiation at Fukushima.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation exposure at Chernobyl?
Approximately 60.
How many from the MSM hype?
Couple of 100,000 babies aborted in western Europe because the parents were terrified they would be born deformed. Million more people horribly mentally effected not by radiation but by irrational fears perpetrated by the 24 hr news cycle. The areas surrounding Chernobyl are now natural wonderlands abandoned by panicked Govts.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation poisoning post Hiroshima AND Nagasaki in the 65 years since those bombings?
Less than 500.
Slightly over 100000 died as a direct result of blast and heat and immediate effects of severe radiation poisoning...less than half the number of Japanese civilians killed in a single conventional bombing raid a few nights before the Hiroshima raid.
Close to 100,000 survivors are still being closely monitored as is anyone that was within cooee of Chernobyl or 3 mile Island.
There were 24 Australian POWs within 1.5km of ground zero at Nagasaki, all survived the blast and most lived to be VERY old men.
Within just a few years after the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki you could not tell they had been bombed at all - they were thriving cities with people going about their normal lives. Now just 65 years later they are REALLY thriving cities with no abnormal patterns of cancer evident.
Now if a direct nuclear bombing raid on two cities is such a relative non event (tragic though it was) why do we have the MSM getting 'hard' over a relatively contained minor leak from a damaged power station when 10s of 1000s of people are missing/dead after the worst earth quake and tsunami in god knows how long?
Left wing anti nuclear political agenda?
No couldn't be, could it?
Can you point to a MSM scare campaign that has EVER come to pass?
No - thought not.
The 24 hr news cycle hurts more people than anything I can think of short of sundry dictators - which as often as not are fawned over by the same MSM.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 21st Mar 2011 at 08:06.
Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very glad you posted that link Chimbu.
Did you miss the bit on 15 Mar about 400 mS/hr between reactors 3 and 4? Now go back to your graphic on radiation doses and look up 400 mS. Hint: it's in the brown box, and the brown box is not good.
In the latest update on that link Iodine-131 levels in milk and vegetable in certain areas are above safety levels. Iodine-131 is an interesting fission by-product. It is more toxic in low doses than in high doses. It's used in thyroid cancer treatment. In larger doses it can cure cancer (it just kills the thyroid cells), but in very small doses it can actually cause the thyroid cancer.
Look, we can to and fro about this all day long. I'm not saying the radiation chart is inaccurate. But you have to look at the caveats written on the chart itself, especially the last line:
"If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet png image and things go wrong, you have no-one to blame but yourself".
Go ahead. Read it. It's right on the very last line of the chart. It makes a big difference what type of radiation you're talking about and how the exposure occurs. You see? Nothing is as simple as you want to make it out to be, and it's certainly not as simple as the naive Bolt would have you believe.
Yep. 60 is not too many I suppose. How about the approximately 6000 cases (and increasing) of thyroid cancer due to radioactive iodine intake, most of which are attributable to the accident? Not significant?
Any words of wisdom for them? Just hang in there young fella?
There's those words again Chimbu. "Direct radiation poisoning." 45% of atmoic bomb survivors were found in a study 10 years ago to have thyroid disease attributable to radiation exposure. This is not direct radiation poisoning, but is a result of radiation exposure. Any words of wisdom for them too? How exactly do you tell a thyroid cancer patient that their radiation exposure years ago was just harmless?
I can't explain the survival of the Australian POWs anymore than anyone else, other than to say they were lucky, and good on them. The odd smoker never gets lung disease. So smoking doesn't cause lung disease?
The first bit is correct. They are thriving cities (and why shouldn't they be?) The second bit is absolute crackpottery, and demonstrably false. Hard evidence is available in the form of many studies and very good post-war medical records kept by the Japanese. Thyroid cancer. Solid tumour cancers. The list goes on, and all are evident in statistically significant quantities among Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. Particularly those who were young at the time, as radiation is known to have an increased risk when the young are exposed (hence the skin cancer thing - most damage is already done when you are young).
Read Bolt all you like. You will not find any credible science on his blog.
Did you miss the bit on 15 Mar about 400 mS/hr between reactors 3 and 4? Now go back to your graphic on radiation doses and look up 400 mS. Hint: it's in the brown box, and the brown box is not good.
In the latest update on that link Iodine-131 levels in milk and vegetable in certain areas are above safety levels. Iodine-131 is an interesting fission by-product. It is more toxic in low doses than in high doses. It's used in thyroid cancer treatment. In larger doses it can cure cancer (it just kills the thyroid cells), but in very small doses it can actually cause the thyroid cancer.
Look, we can to and fro about this all day long. I'm not saying the radiation chart is inaccurate. But you have to look at the caveats written on the chart itself, especially the last line:
"If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet png image and things go wrong, you have no-one to blame but yourself".
Go ahead. Read it. It's right on the very last line of the chart. It makes a big difference what type of radiation you're talking about and how the exposure occurs. You see? Nothing is as simple as you want to make it out to be, and it's certainly not as simple as the naive Bolt would have you believe.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation exposure at Chernobyl? Approximately 60.
Any words of wisdom for them? Just hang in there young fella?
How many people died as a direct result of radiation poisoning post Hiroshima AND Nagasaki in the 65 years since those bombings?
Less than 500.
Less than 500.
I can't explain the survival of the Australian POWs anymore than anyone else, other than to say they were lucky, and good on them. The odd smoker never gets lung disease. So smoking doesn't cause lung disease?
Now just 65 years later they are REALLY thriving cities with no abnormal patterns of cancer evident.
Read Bolt all you like. You will not find any credible science on his blog.
Grandpa Aerotart
The fatalities from the 6000 Thyroid cancer cases post Chernobyl - I actually read somewhere it was 8000 is included in the 60. There were just 15 deaths from those 6-8000.
The atomic bomb survivors is probably the most closely studied cohort in human history - by a joint US/Japanese group formed in 1945/46, Around 450 - 500 have died from causes that could be sheeted home to the actual attacks in the 65 years since. The survivors are all now VERY old and cancer is essentially a disease of old age...what % of cancer patients world wide were at Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No one is saying there were no transient spikes of radiation close to the reactors - just that over all there is NOTHING that justifies the overhyped reporting that has been on going since the earth quake/tsunami. If you're going to quote from that report quote it completely and in context. The also say quite clearly the radiation found on vegetables and in milk have been well below levels considered injurious to health.
So far more people have been admitted to hospital from panic consumption of Thyroid protective drugs in the United States than we know have been effected by radiation in the immediate area of the reactors - that may change - but thus far there is absolutely NO justification for the disgraceful reporting that is ongoing.
How much credible science is being used in the reports by the MSM - how much was used by the 'expert' interviewed on 3AW claiming millions might die? None that I can see. That link from IAEA was on Bolt's blog.
Perspective is what you lack dutchroll - people die all the time. How many die as a result of radiation compared to die in coal mines, wind farms, oil rigs, car accidents, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, war, extra judicial murder by despotic or theocratic govts - I could go on.
We are witnessing the MSM in action against one of their environmental bogeymen, nuclear power. Where is the balanced reporting?
If Fukushima ends up as bad as Chernobyl - and there is zero chance of that - 60 people might die. That is a tragedy - but not as great a tragedy as 15000 dying in an earthquake/tsunami - let alone the children now orphaned etc. But the MSM have lost interest in that aspect already, and its been mere days.
The very real worry is this self indulgent feast of biassed reporting might actually do long term harm to the nuclear power industry around the world and even more people will be pushed into energy poverty and die as a result.
Bet you don't see THAT tragedy reported in the MSM.
The atomic bomb survivors is probably the most closely studied cohort in human history - by a joint US/Japanese group formed in 1945/46, Around 450 - 500 have died from causes that could be sheeted home to the actual attacks in the 65 years since. The survivors are all now VERY old and cancer is essentially a disease of old age...what % of cancer patients world wide were at Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No one is saying there were no transient spikes of radiation close to the reactors - just that over all there is NOTHING that justifies the overhyped reporting that has been on going since the earth quake/tsunami. If you're going to quote from that report quote it completely and in context. The also say quite clearly the radiation found on vegetables and in milk have been well below levels considered injurious to health.
So far more people have been admitted to hospital from panic consumption of Thyroid protective drugs in the United States than we know have been effected by radiation in the immediate area of the reactors - that may change - but thus far there is absolutely NO justification for the disgraceful reporting that is ongoing.
How much credible science is being used in the reports by the MSM - how much was used by the 'expert' interviewed on 3AW claiming millions might die? None that I can see. That link from IAEA was on Bolt's blog.
Perspective is what you lack dutchroll - people die all the time. How many die as a result of radiation compared to die in coal mines, wind farms, oil rigs, car accidents, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, war, extra judicial murder by despotic or theocratic govts - I could go on.
We are witnessing the MSM in action against one of their environmental bogeymen, nuclear power. Where is the balanced reporting?
If Fukushima ends up as bad as Chernobyl - and there is zero chance of that - 60 people might die. That is a tragedy - but not as great a tragedy as 15000 dying in an earthquake/tsunami - let alone the children now orphaned etc. But the MSM have lost interest in that aspect already, and its been mere days.
The very real worry is this self indulgent feast of biassed reporting might actually do long term harm to the nuclear power industry around the world and even more people will be pushed into energy poverty and die as a result.
Bet you don't see THAT tragedy reported in the MSM.
Perspective is what you lack dutchroll - people die all the time.
Dutchroll never said millions would die... but what he does say makes sense...
Chimbu, your quoting statistics and numbers, Dutchie is quoting very real biological and physical risks.
That radiation exposure cube chart oversimplifies what is really a very complex problem. Does it take into account long term exposure to radioactive particles which continue to give off radiation? How long for? What about exposure from ingested radioactive particles where there are no safe maximum exposure limits?
It shows clearly that Bolt doesn't have a very clear understanding of radiation or even what radiation is for that matter, nor where it comes from..
But if you want to take radiation advice from some two bit radio announcer whos tucked away safely in Melbourne, be my guest...
I for one, am not a anti-nuclear fan, (hell, I even considered a career in the nuclear industry before I decided to do something stupid, and fly) but I believe lessons will have been learnt from Fukashima to make future reactors safer. We need nuclear in the long term...
But the current risk cannot be dumbed down as to fit some random cube on a pseudo-chart thats floating around the internet...
Grandpa Aerotart
Please listen to the last approximately 25% of this program. Then come back to me with your doom and gloom.
Note the first 75% or so is not about Fukushima or the Japanese tragedy unfolding. The Nuclear Physicist being interviewed is the Dean Of Science at Australia Nation University. Note also the qualifications of those interviewed last night on 4 Corners
MTR1377 Media Player - Andrew Bolt with Steve Price 22nd March
Note especially the comments made by this highly qualified Nuclear Physicist about the risk of cancer from ingesting/inhaling Iodine or Caesium.
Note the first 75% or so is not about Fukushima or the Japanese tragedy unfolding. The Nuclear Physicist being interviewed is the Dean Of Science at Australia Nation University. Note also the qualifications of those interviewed last night on 4 Corners
MTR1377 Media Player - Andrew Bolt with Steve Price 22nd March
Note especially the comments made by this highly qualified Nuclear Physicist about the risk of cancer from ingesting/inhaling Iodine or Caesium.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh the irony
Yep, oh the irony. Andrew Bolt interviewing Professor Aiden Byrne. Probably the first scientifically credible academic Bolt has referred to in the last few years!
The same Professor Aiden Byrne who agrees that the evidence for planetary warming caused by industrially produced greenhouse gases is very strong, and the fundamental physics behind the theory is completely sound. Isn't it just amazing to see Bolt pick a guy as a highly credible physicist one week (which he is), yet whose expert opinion he would rubbish and insult (and probably accuse of being an alarmist liar) in any other week?
The same Andrew Bolt who referred only two days ago to the certifiably insane conservative extremist Ann Coulter's opinion that the radiation from this accident might even be good for the Japanese!
Anyway, I digress.
I listened to the interview, and I'd agree that, if accurately reflected, the ABCs reporting was alarmist. However once again I find myself repeating the same thing as previously:
Radiation sickness from direct acute exposure (which is mostly what they were talking about in the interview) is not the same thing as radiation effects which can appear many years later. The ABC were referring, somewhat unjustifiably, to what might happen in a worst-case scenario, and Professor Byrne was saying, quite correctly, that an uncontained explosion breaching the reactor containment vessel seems very unlikely.
You've got very selective hearing regarding the inhalation of radioactive particles. What the Professor said is that for the exact reasons above (ie there has been no explosion), that this scenario is unlikely. when Bolt questioned whether that could have happened in the Chernobyl accident, the Professor quite clearly said that it was "conceivable".
Bolt then proceeded to argue with the very expert he had been lauding for his qualifications and expertise only a minute earlier, putting words in his mouth! Bolt says "the answer is no". The Professor once again qualifies it by stating that it is conceivable, we just don't know yet. Bolt's obviously not happy with that answer, because like everything scientific which Bolt attempts to talk about, his opinion is determined in advance, no matter what the science says, and no matter what any credible experts say.
As for Iodine being inhaled, I'd like you to point out at any stage where I have said that is the normal means of ingesting radioactive Iodine. It is not. And even if it was, Iodine-131 is quickly absorbed in the blood, then concentrated in the thyroid.
Caesium-137 inhalation can indeed result in internal exposure. That's common knowledge. I can only assume (listening to it several times) that the Professor was referring to Iodine-131, or perhaps the fact that Caesium-137 behaves much like Potassium in the body, which I've already been through.
So to reiterate, the entire interview centred around the fact that an explosion inside the reactor has not occurred, and is probably unlikely to occur. The Professor's opinion seems eminently reasonable, but is NOT a discussion on other risks such as in-utero exposure, nor a discussion on the specifics of the potential effects of various sources of radioactivity, nor many other permutations and combinations. He is very clearly talking solely about the likelihood of a "Chernobyl" type accident.
I have not in any post preached doom and gloom about this accident. I have said that your views on "risks" associated with radioactive exposure, starting with your diagram, are grossly over-simplistic, particularly long term risk as opposed to short term exposure.
Yes, serious head bash, because you're missing the entire point of my argument.
The same Professor Aiden Byrne who agrees that the evidence for planetary warming caused by industrially produced greenhouse gases is very strong, and the fundamental physics behind the theory is completely sound. Isn't it just amazing to see Bolt pick a guy as a highly credible physicist one week (which he is), yet whose expert opinion he would rubbish and insult (and probably accuse of being an alarmist liar) in any other week?
The same Andrew Bolt who referred only two days ago to the certifiably insane conservative extremist Ann Coulter's opinion that the radiation from this accident might even be good for the Japanese!
Anyway, I digress.
I listened to the interview, and I'd agree that, if accurately reflected, the ABCs reporting was alarmist. However once again I find myself repeating the same thing as previously:
Radiation sickness from direct acute exposure (which is mostly what they were talking about in the interview) is not the same thing as radiation effects which can appear many years later. The ABC were referring, somewhat unjustifiably, to what might happen in a worst-case scenario, and Professor Byrne was saying, quite correctly, that an uncontained explosion breaching the reactor containment vessel seems very unlikely.
You've got very selective hearing regarding the inhalation of radioactive particles. What the Professor said is that for the exact reasons above (ie there has been no explosion), that this scenario is unlikely. when Bolt questioned whether that could have happened in the Chernobyl accident, the Professor quite clearly said that it was "conceivable".
Bolt then proceeded to argue with the very expert he had been lauding for his qualifications and expertise only a minute earlier, putting words in his mouth! Bolt says "the answer is no". The Professor once again qualifies it by stating that it is conceivable, we just don't know yet. Bolt's obviously not happy with that answer, because like everything scientific which Bolt attempts to talk about, his opinion is determined in advance, no matter what the science says, and no matter what any credible experts say.
As for Iodine being inhaled, I'd like you to point out at any stage where I have said that is the normal means of ingesting radioactive Iodine. It is not. And even if it was, Iodine-131 is quickly absorbed in the blood, then concentrated in the thyroid.
Caesium-137 inhalation can indeed result in internal exposure. That's common knowledge. I can only assume (listening to it several times) that the Professor was referring to Iodine-131, or perhaps the fact that Caesium-137 behaves much like Potassium in the body, which I've already been through.
So to reiterate, the entire interview centred around the fact that an explosion inside the reactor has not occurred, and is probably unlikely to occur. The Professor's opinion seems eminently reasonable, but is NOT a discussion on other risks such as in-utero exposure, nor a discussion on the specifics of the potential effects of various sources of radioactivity, nor many other permutations and combinations. He is very clearly talking solely about the likelihood of a "Chernobyl" type accident.
I have not in any post preached doom and gloom about this accident. I have said that your views on "risks" associated with radioactive exposure, starting with your diagram, are grossly over-simplistic, particularly long term risk as opposed to short term exposure.
Yes, serious head bash, because you're missing the entire point of my argument.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You owe to yourself and your family not to put yourself in a situation where you could be contaminated by anything that could cause you to be affected down the track, regardless of what ever the professionals say. No airline is going to pay you out twenty years down the track, if you develop some weird cancer or other terminal disease. Selfish it might be, but your family, your life is nbr 1. End of story.