Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 945

In case ya' missed it...
Beware the Data Diddlers by John W. Gofman
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

During a lifetime in biomedical research, I've concluded that it is hard to prove anything about anything. There are sampling errors, confounding variables, and necessary equipment that has not yet been invented. The path to understanding is only darkly lit, and the stones strewn along the way are numerous.

Acquiring truth about health and biology is difficult at best. In contrast, acquiring falsehoods about health and biology seems to be inordinately easy. Consider the legions of peer-reviewed professional journals that have carried "evidence" favoring various pharmaceutical, dietary, surgical, or physical therapies for almost every problem -- and the number of disappointments when the initial glowing reports are undermined by later reports suggesting no health benefits at all.

I call such information "biomedical un-knowledge" -- shorthand for all the findings that are the opposite of what is true about health and disease.

When I was younger, I assumed that no one wanted "un-knowledge." I no longer make that assumption. Consider the "wish-list" that nuclear energy-promoting governments seem to have for the radiation research they sponsor. It goes something like this...
www.ratical.org
by Rob in SF 5/2/2011 5:04:05 PM

@Askwhy I like the way you wrote that. Easy to understand.
by Nancy 5/2/2011 5:06:10 PM

@Askwhy #1 and #2 sound right to me in a simplistic context. However I would disagree with the 3RD and last affirmation because it is confusing. It suggests that any radiation level leads to cancer and/or death but there is no scientific confirmation of that.
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:06:12 PM

And now for the good news ( well it would be if we could trust Tepco to act in the interests of those it has caused harm )
(Reuters) - Japan's government will not put a cap on the liabilities faced by Tokyo Electric Power Co (9501.T) (Tepco) for damages stemming from its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Monday.

Under Japanese law, the operator of a nuclear facility can be granted an exemption from damages caused by a reactor if the accident was deemed to have been triggered by "a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character."
www.reuters.com
by elainekirk 5/2/2011 5:06:32 PM

@Pedro Jesus -- perhaps rewording "even a few uSv can amount to a variety of cancers" to say "even a few uSv elevated above normal background radiation can amount to a variety of cancers" ?

Would you view that as more accurate?
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:07:46 PM

Granted, there is debate as to that last point -- do a few uSv over the long term amount to increased cancer rate -- but think that is a debate which needs to be stirred. As has been pointed out, there is particular shortage in this world of scientific long-term low-dose radiation studies.
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:10:40 PM

@Askwhy : no, i think your sentence is correct. scientifically speaking, any single radiation dose can provoke cancer or alter the dna of a fetus or other cell.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:11:13 PM

re TEPCO's current problems at Kashiwazaki Kariwa NPP:

Amendment of the report regarding emergency countermeasures for safety at Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power Station [May 2, 2011]: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11050209-e.html

Oil leakage in auxiliary boiler building (non control area)[May 2, 2011]:
www.tepco.co.jp
by es 5/2/2011 5:13:18 PM

@Askwhy I think you could describe the difference between accumulated radiation (Sv/year) and the average radiation measured (Sv/h) and the varying predicted effects on health, otherwise people might get confused with the numbers. For example: exposition to a few mSv/h for a few seconds or minutes may be negligible whereas the same exposition for a long period of time, lets say months, would likely lead to cancer and death.
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:14:22 PM

@Askwhy Useful to you? link: www.projectrho.com

There are two kinds of radiation exposure: acute and chronic. Acute is a sudden dose that occurs over a few seconds to minutes. Chronic is a dose that occurs over a few days to years. Acute radiation syndrome is damage due to raw energy which burns internal organs (the technical term for such direct tissue damage is "nonstochastic effects" or "deterministic effects"). Chronic radiation syndrome is damage to the cellular DNA, leading to cancer and genetic defects in the victims future offspring (the technical is, surprise-surprise, "stochastic effects"). Chronic doses also cause skin ulceration and blindness due to cataracts scarring. For our purposes, acute doses happen due to reactor accidents, solar storms, nearby nuclear explosions, and hits by particle beam weapons. Chronic doses are due to the unavoidable radiation filtering through the reactor shielding, the normal background radiation in space, and prolonged stays in regions like the Van Allen radiation belts.

Deterministic effects mean that X amount of acute radiation exposure will cause Y amount of tissue damage. Stochastic effects mean that X amount of chronic radiation exposure will raise your chance of getting cancer by Y percent.

The point is, if an unfortunate person received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert over the course of 20 years, they will NOT suffer from radiation poisoning. But an unfortunate person who received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert over the course of five minutes certainly will.

For acute doses, simply figure the exposure in Grays suffered by the crewperson, and refer to the Acute radiation syndrome chart below. When a person receives an acute dose, they suffer what is listed under "Immediate symptoms." Then they appear to get better, but this is only temporary. After the Latent phase time passes, the person will start to suffer what is listed under "Post-latent symptoms".

To figure chronic doses, one has to calculate the Dose Equivalent. Split the radiation into the x-ray/gamma-ray Grays and the neutron Grays. Multiply the Grays by the radiation type's Quality Factor to get the Equivalent Dose (in units called "Sieverts"). Gamma-rays have a quality factor of 1.0, neutrons have a quality factor ranging from 2 to 20 for neutrons of energies 0.01 MeV to 2.0 MeV (just use the average of 10). Add the two Sievert doses together and look it up in the Chronic radiation syndrome chart.

Doctors go further, calculating the Effective dose, which is a weighted average of the equivalent dose to each organ depending upon its radiosensitivity. But that's probably a bit too much detail for our purposes. Rocketeers will always keep close watch on their radiation dosimeters that measures their current chronic dose. There will also be a crewperson or officer who is assigned the job of logging and monitoring the chronic dose of every person on board. If a crewperson gets close to their maximum allowable dose, they may be restricted to the more shielded sections of the ship, or even grounded from shipboard duty until they recover.
by marie rich 5/2/2011 5:14:47 PM

@Edano There is no evidence of that. That is definitely not scientific.
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:15:22 PM

@Pedro Jesus : of course, this is proven.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:16:03 PM

@Pedro Jesus that was the primary purpose in juxtaposing those 3 statements -- to illustrate (sans confusing numbers) the relative dangers of the different measurements as they relate to super-simplified timeframes for exposure...
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:16:20 PM

@marie rich you bet -- thanks!
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:16:41 PM

@Askwhy yw
by marie rich 5/2/2011 5:17:10 PM

It all comes down to odds. There are enormous amounts of empty space in an atom, a molecule, a cell, and large amounts of non-critical tissue. But any dose in a direct hit on the nucleus can cause DNA damage.
by radioguy 5/2/2011 5:17:43 PM

@radioguy : correct.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:18:39 PM

@Askwhy I'd use this:
Symptom benchmarks
Symptoms of acute radiation (dose received within one day):
0 – 0.25 Sv (0 – 250 mSv): None
0.25 – 1 Sv (250 – 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.
1 – 3 Sv (1000 – 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.
3 – 6 Sv (3000 – 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, peeling of skin, sterility; death if untreated.
6 – 10 Sv (6000 – 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.
Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death.

en.wikipedia.org
by Rob in SF 5/2/2011 5:19:04 PM

From: www.physics.isu.edu According to the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation committee V (BEIR V), the risk of cancer death is 0.08% per rem for doses received rapidly (acute) and might be 2-4 times (0.04% per rem) less than that for doses received over a long period of time (chronic). These risk estimates are an average for all ages, males and females, and all forms of cancer. There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the estimate.

BEIR VII risk estimates for fatal cancer are similar to the values from BEIR V, but they also estimated incidence rates, which were about 50% of the fatal cancer rate.

Risk from radiation exposure has been estimated by other scientific groups. The other estimates are not the exact same as the BEIR V estimates, due to differing methods of risk and assumptions used in the calculations, but all are close. -------- As PedroJesus points out, there is uncertainty. On the other hand, if you have "only" 10 microSieverts/hr, but are exposed to it year-round, you're looking at 88 milliSieverts (or 8.8 REM) over the course of a year.
by Markfm 5/2/2011 5:19:21 PM

especially when the cell is in mitosis state.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:20:07 PM

Beir VII Phase 2 "The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans." www.nap.edu
by Bobby1 5/2/2011 5:21:23 PM

@Edano No it isn't. That is only a mathematical extrapolation of the statistical analysis of radiation exposure and it's effects. In reality we are all exposed to certain levels of radiation and, according to some theories, life would never have developed without radiation. It is also highly unlikely that mammals such as humans would be able to survive in a radiation free environment. You shouldn't mix statistical analysis with factual evidence. It's to separate and different things.
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:21:44 PM

@Rob in SF, for those with even the slightest tolerance for hearing me talk about this issue, or even better for those who have an interest in hearing more, yes, I would use actual numbers. Mostly, however, I am running into people who just go tharn (deer-in-headlights) when I mention the numbers. It means nothing to them, and a table with details just makes them glaze over.
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:21:50 PM

(two)
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:22:15 PM

For children: fukushima.greenaction-japan.org
by marie rich 5/2/2011 5:23:28 PM

@Askwhy "do a few uSv over the long term amount to increased cancer rate" Yes. There's the rub...
Add this:
“Such a low but long-lasting dose of radiation can be far more damaging than a short-term high dose,” Hesse-Honegger writes. “In addition, hot alpha and beta particles are significantly more dangerous than gamma radiation because they are absorbed by the body and essentially irradiate it from within.
legacy.signonsandiego.com
by Rob in SF 5/2/2011 5:26:41 PM

@Pedro Jesus Well put. I don't know about the "necessity for development" side of that, but that puts the measurement of the effects of radiation into context.
by radioguy 5/2/2011 5:26:53 PM

@Pedro Jesus : i don't mix it. you cannot talk about "good" and "bad" effects of radiation. in fact, it's the same. any mutation in dna can be good for evolution or/and lead to cancer.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:27:12 PM

@Askwhy "I am running into people who just go tharn (deer-in-headlights)" Use cattle-prod.
by Rob in SF 5/2/2011 5:28:51 PM

@Edano Exactly, some of those mutations might have developed to the wonderful creatures that we are today. So you can't really say that ANY exposure will lead to cancer and death. This is what I tried to state there. Statistical analysis can be highly misleading if interpreted as fact.
by Pedro Jesus 5/2/2011 5:29:52 PM

@Rob in SF I might just have to pick one up... (The sad thing is, I can always grab someone's attention if I show them the Unit 3 explosion footage -- BIG BADA BOOM, Lookie Lookie!)
by Askwhy 5/2/2011 5:29:53 PM

mutations occur and are necessary for development of live, for biodiversity. but radiation is not the only source for mutations. but it is definitely proven that any amount of radiation or other toxic agent can lead to mutations. it is coincidence, but it is possible.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:30:20 PM

@Pedro Jesus : no i don't say it must. but it can. depends (not only) on the state of the cell.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:31:56 PM

@Askwhy I get what your trying to do. My understanding is there is or is not risk at low levels depending on how the person is exposed (internal/external) other factors like age and depending on what group of scientists you ask. Maybe something explaining at one point official opinions differ but that some consider it a risk? Your right, you can't throw a big chart with lots of numbers at some people. They will simply lose interest and glaze over.
by Nancy 5/2/2011 5:32:07 PM

that's why you don't do xrays on pregnants. they can sue you if sth happens to the baby.
by Edano 5/2/2011 5:33:30 PM

@Rob in SF there are apparently lots of images of mutated children post Chernobyl. I can't bring myself to go search for them, the freakishly mutated foal was plenty for me. But things like #3 going boom and freakishly mutated children pretty much get the point across,, just has to be presented in a properly factual context of what your looking at.
by Nancy 5/2/2011 5:33:57 PM

@Askwhy Me too. You see the eyes glaze over. Add yet, suddenly it's mesmerizing news--worth getting out in the streets over--when we kill some guy in some foreign country exactly halfway around the world who never in his wildest dreams killed or maimed a fraction as many as ultimately can be laid at the feet of the nuclear industry. It never ceases to amaze me the total failure of sense of scale. Of what's important.
by radioguy 5/2/2011 5:35:23 PM

@Edano My mothher took "only one or two pills" of thalidomide. I was born with an extra uvula (throat), two sets of wisdom teeth, and a spinal column that has 'soft/cartiliginous' vertebra, instead of bone. But no flippers, tg!
by marie rich 5/2/2011 5:35:46 PM

@Edano Hello. GE was forced to develop ultrasound, now it's practically an iPhone app.
by Rob in SF 5/2/2011 5:36:09 PM

Pedro Jesus: To put it simply, avoiding any unnecessary radiation if you want to continue being who you are.
by estacion 5/2/2011 5:37:06 PM

@Pedro Jesus @Nancy @Edano Any exposure increases the probability of cancer or death. That is why there is no safe dose.

Fetuses, infants, children, women, patients treated with radiation, people with chronic conditions, all have a higher risk of developing cancer, than the 25-year old robustly healthy male Caucasian.
by Bobby1 5/2/2011 5:37:27 PM