Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1464

@Panserbjorne9 just WOW, "The worldwide background dose of about 3 mSv per year is much less than the optimum dose of around 100 mSv per year" .. optimum dose? I won't go there. but I agree that alot of the problems Japan is (and will) haveing, is reconciling the reality of what a radiation dose really means to an Individual life.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 2:34:55 PM

@RBeaner Yes. I have never in 15 years in the medical profession heard the phrase 'optimum dose' regarding radiation. I think i'll take a stroll down to Radiology and have a chat with the chairman if he's free.
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 2:36:44 PM

@Panserbjorne9 Hormesis.."In toxicology, hormesis is a dose response phenomenon characterized by a low dose stimulation, high dose inhibition, resulting in either a J-shaped or an inverted U-shaped dose response. Such environmental factors that would seem to produce positive responses have also been termed “eustress”." ...."The hormesis model of dose response is vigorously debated.[1] The notion that hormesis is a widespread or important phenomenon in biological systems is not widely accepted." en.wikipedia.org This obviosly is divergent from the (fairly) well accepted "Linear, No Threshold" (LNT) approach to radiation effects.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 2:43:32 PM

@Panserbjorne9 They could use that super cool program here in the states. One thing I hated about working in offices. You were expected to wear certain types of clothing and would melt if you went outside for any amount of time.
by Nancy 6/1/2011 2:46:51 PM

@you The LNT model says all radiation has Negative effects, the lower the dose, the lower the negative effects. My personal opinion, based on the studies I have read and analysed, is that low dose effects (<20 mSV/yr) are buried in the background of all other effects.. Smog, cigarette smoke, paint "off gassing" and everything else (bad) that makes up modern life
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 2:47:48 PM

@Nancy i have the opposite problem...we always keep it too cold in the lab. even in the offices. makes it hard to type after a while!
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 2:49:17 PM

@Panserbjorne9 the data I've seen on the radiation-hormesis thesis (that low dose is good for you) involves exposure to slightly higher levels of *external* emissions. I'd like to see a study showing exposure to *internal* emitters (ie, ingestion of radionuclides) is beneficial. Big difference! And Luckey's optimism is pretty much crackpot when we consider that up to a million died from Chernobyl's fallout tinyurl.com and the stupid idea that chaotic distribution of radioactive pollution would reliably deliver the hypothetical ideal level low-dose external radiation.
by Ian 6/1/2011 2:51:06 PM

@Panserbjorne9 Most office type buildings keep it cold inside to the point of freezing then when you go outside you about pass out from the heat.
by Nancy 6/1/2011 2:52:42 PM

@Nancy exactly. I've told people that if they don't see me when they come into my office, check under my desk, i'm probably under there hugging my illegal ceramic heater. Then when i leave my car is 400 degrees from sitting in LA sun for 8 hrs. good times
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 2:56:57 PM

@Nancy My guess would be, that office buildings are trying to provide a climate appropriate for their customers, not their employees. If the customer is coming in (typical) wearing a suit jacket, then the air must support that. It is all about the preferred or expected customer.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:00:46 PM

@Ian I don't subscribe to Hormesis, but based on the variability of Background levels throughout the world, I also don't subscribe to the bottom of the LNT.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:03:37 PM

@RBeaner At least in my cases it wasn't an office open to customers situation. Every office I have worked in like to keep it so cold you could store meat in the summer.
by Nancy 6/1/2011 3:06:16 PM

@Panserbjorne9 yep. Walk outside and instant sweat. I used to hate going anywhere at lunch because you would come back dripping in sweat even if you had a few layers you could shed. Most corporate dress codes are based on image and not logic anyway.
by Nancy 6/1/2011 3:07:42 PM

@Ian "Linear No Threshold" in radiation is like (to me) LNT in allergens. Every person is different, many are unaffected by allergens (me), and others are only affected when the allergens get real high (my wife). I believe radiation is similar to this effect.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:07:52 PM

@Nancy prehaps they were storing something you didn't know about!! (I'm calling CSI). LOL
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:08:56 PM

Taking the 'waste' out of nuclear waste
June 1, 2011 By Janet Wilson
While spent nuclear fuel continues to pile up by the ton across the United States, UC Irvine’s Mikael Nilsson says the solution is clear: recycle it at the commercial nuclear power plants that create it.
www.physorg.com
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 3:13:54 PM

@RBeaner One place I worked, that would be totally thinkable.
by Nancy 6/1/2011 3:20:41 PM

@RBeaner , it surprises me in this debate about tolerable limits of radiation that the Japanese government seems so unsure about its own plans. Japan possesses intimate experience with the effects of ionizing radiation on public health. They must know precisely how many excess leukemias and other cancers were found at what dose in their country after WWII. The question arises whether the people of Japan today are willing to live with that burden and, if not, what to do. I don't see much of a debate of the real issues over there yet, only directives given for elusive reasons. The elusiveness of reason makes it really difficult for the citizens to accept government decisions.
by Peter Melzer 6/1/2011 3:22:34 PM

@RBeaner so can you cite a study suggesting that low-dose-radionuclide (like cesium, strontium or plutonium) ingestion is beneficial?
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:27:24 PM

@Peter Melzer The country is facing an unprecedented emergeny, so they should take unprecedented steps. Prehaps at 6PM, all tv channels should have a discussion of relative effects of radioactivity and radiation. Prehaps they should bring in alternative voices to give some balanced view. Right now, noone trusts GOJ or TEPCO, with good reason, but they could change that in 1-2 hours with truth, honesty and discussion.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:28:38 PM

@Ian I wouldn't want to. I never implied it was in any way beneficial. I am into ALARA. but I will say that I think there are no defined, significant, recognizable effects at low level, distinct from other hazards in modern life.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:30:55 PM

@RBeaner there are recognizable effects at low levers, a emission and damage DNA and this is well established. The only question is how effective one's biological response to indisputable damage is. Shooting randomly into a crowd may have no demonstrable effect on a nation's GDP, but it does have demonstrable effects on a micro-economic scale. I'd not infer that random shootings are a nil factor on account of no effect on GDP.
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:37:02 PM

@Ian If I had to eat that spinach or rice, or drink that tea, I would. But only if that was my only choice. Otherwise, I would eat and drink UNcontaminated products. Most food has some level of bacteria, alot of foods have E-Coli, our bodies combat it and reject it, often with no effect. When the bacteria levels get high, it can shut our bodies down and kill us (~14 dead in germany).
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:37:21 PM

Err: there are recognizable effects at low levels, a single emission can damage DNA...
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:37:44 PM

Ingestion is not as the same as inhalation of a radiation emitting particle.
by Lethbridgean 6/1/2011 3:42:47 PM

@Ian , I like your analogy. But who in the crowd wants to be hit?
by Peter Melzer 6/1/2011 3:43:00 PM

@Ian and suntanning for one day "can" cause skin cancer.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:43:46 PM

@Ian It can also improve the DNA. There is still no scientific consensus over that. We do know for a fact that the human race, and all life on Earth for that matter, would never have come to be without some levels of radiation. It is a natural phenomena that is closely related to the evolution of life. It's a huge grey area. Even modern medicine uses radiation of different sorts to fight some types of disease (cancers) and in some cases they actually inject radioactive material in the blood stream.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:45:16 PM

@Lethbridgean I didn't say it was. Internally deposited radioactivity significantly complicates a dose assessment of an individual. That sucks. But now we have to do it, don't we?
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:46:28 PM

@Pedro Jesus - they only inject isotopes with a really short half life. Are you becoming Ann Coulter's biggest fan or something?
by Lethbridgean 6/1/2011 3:47:35 PM

@Lethbridgean Not really, I'm just stating a fact. =)
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:48:14 PM

@Pedro Jesus, can you show a study that found improved DNA from radiation? Or a Super Man who emerged from the mutations of Chernobyl?
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:48:32 PM

@Pedro Jesus Radioactivity has some specific usefull attributes, but they are not randomly applied by medical science. Those are very specific and concentrated applications of radiation.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:48:41 PM

@Pedro Jesus - a misleading fact
by Lethbridgean 6/1/2011 3:48:45 PM

@Lethbridgean Misleading? In what way?
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:49:04 PM

@RBeaner , the point that I was trying to make is in Japan the experience is not unprecedented. They lived it once before, and there is enough data to discuss the effects that can be anticipates and what to do openly.
by Peter Melzer 6/1/2011 3:49:08 PM

@Lethbridgean a non-
fact as well.
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:49:23 PM

@Pedro Jesus - Already answered your rhetorical question.
by Lethbridgean 6/1/2011 3:49:49 PM

@Pedro or how about a new improved Super Animal that has emerged from the Chernobyl exclusion zone ... no, I didn't think so!
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:50:50 PM

improve dna by a random, uncontrolled process ? what kind of discussion is this ?
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:51:15 PM

@RBeaner Of course they aren't. Like you said they "are very specific and concentrated applications of radiation". But is is a fact that it can be beneficial, so modern medicine actually contradicts the "any level of radiation has negative impact on human health".
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:51:28 PM

@Peter Melzer I agree, there is plenty of scientific literature out there for them to discuss it rationally. However, radiation and radioactivity, for the general populace, does not have a rational basis.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:51:50 PM

@Pedro Jesus BS. and i AM MD !
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:51:57 PM

@Pedro Jesus : please prove this sentence: "so modern medicine actually contradicts the "any level of radiation has negative impact on human health"" this is bs.
#
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:52:58 PM