Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1465

@Pedro Jesus -Just like last night when you stated that a leaky reactor pipe is not a containment breach. If the piping is part of the vessel then it is in fact a containment breach.

by Lethbridgean 6/1/2011 3:53:30 PM

@Edano Man, I've had a few friends who've been through radio-therapy and it saved some of them (not all, unfortunately). Are you saying modern medical use of radioactive material is BS? You should know better.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:55:14 PM

@Edano Chill, the reference was to using radioactivity to kill a tumor or cancer treatment.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:55:46 PM

@Pedro Jesus because it destroys the cancer cells. as a side effect, it also destroys normal cells
.
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:56:26 PM

it is destructive.
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:56:44 PM

@Lethbridgean Semantics. Leaky pipes are indeed breaches but not in the sense of a physical breach in the bottom of the containment caused by reactions with the molten fuel. You're taking my specific comment out of context.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:57:06 PM

@all Radiation therapies are used to DESTROY targeted cancerous tissue....not enhance DNA. Wow.
by LM 6/1/2011 3:57:12 PM

@Pedro, the efficacy of radio-therapy stems from the cellular lethality of radiation selectively targeted to
cancer cells. But your theory it should produce new improved cancers by improving their DNA sometimes ... but it doesn't happen
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:57:25 PM

it destroys cancer cells because cancer cells have a higher mitosis rate.
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:57:28 PM

@Edano at the levels applied, yes. That is the purpose, and it works.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 3:57:39 PM

@Edano , biologically that happend to the bacteria that lived on this planet billions of years ago. They endured much higher rad levels than we will ever tolerate and evolved resistance. The question for the people around Fukushima will be what risk they are willing to live with and how can it be tolerably minimized. They can't stay indoors for the rest of their lives?
by Peter Melzer 6/1/2011 3:57:45 PM

@LM I never said that medical use of radioactive material enhances DNA. Please, don't take my comments out of context. What's wrong with you guys today?
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:58:16 PM

i give it up. here is a profound absence of knowledge about dna and evolution. evolution takes part in millions of years.
by Edano 6/1/2011 3:59:06 PM

@Pedro so why would radiation only improve the DNA of non-cancerous cells?
by Ian 6/1/2011 3:59:09 PM

@Edano I never said otherwise.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 3:59:26 PM

@Pedro Jesus - "@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." Sound familiar?
by Maureen Burke 6/1/2011 4:00:27 PM

@Pedro Jesus Sorry...radiation at any dose is not good for you and even those who have to resort to it to treat cancers are at greater risk of developing more later on as a result of the treatments.
by LM 6/1/2011 4:00:49 PM

@Ian Forget the DNA enhancement comment... I read too many scientific research articles.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:01:07 PM

i wonder why they build containments around the core.
by Edano 6/1/2011 4:01:16 PM

@LM Someone just posted a link here not long ago, it was today, that contradicts that. It's right here on this page or on the other scribble page.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:02:07 PM

@Peter Melzer We would like to keep the current concept of humans in existence. What Pedro said (may I paraphrase) is that humans exist today only because of genetic (DNA) changes in the past, when this earth had much more radioactivity, causing various cell mutations. Some beneficial, and some negative
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:02:10 PM

@RBeaner so what ?
by Edano 6/1/2011 4:03:12 PM

@Maureen Burke OK, let me make it more clear. The first sentence regards the evolution of life over millions of years. There are some nice theories about that out there. Do some research. The next sentences were regarding Ian's comment. You're just picking me over the DNA improvement thing and disregarding the focus of my comments. Please, disregard the DNA improvement sentence and read the rest of my comments. That might help putting them into context here. My fault.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:04:37 PM

This was my post. I found this head-scratcher of an article. "We live with chronic radiation deficiency"
Japan Needs to Avoid Russia's Mistake on Chernobyl
TUCSON, Ariz., June 1, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Japan's already reeling economy could be crushed by over-reaction to the Fukushima disaster, warns radiation scientist T.D. Luckey in the summer 2011 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
www.prnewswire.com
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 4:05:50 PM

@RBeaner Spot on. I was not implying any X-Men type of DNA improvement.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:05:58 PM

@Pedro Jesus They didn't tell my father he could have endless 'harmless' treatments when he was dying of lung cancer. They place limits on how much exposure for a dam good reason.
by LM 6/1/2011 4:06:00 PM

Wow...I feel like I'm on a Fox News show...need a break...
by LM 6/1/2011 4:06:51 PM

this is no way science, what i read here.
by Edano 6/1/2011 4:07:09 PM

@LM Sure, I never said anything otherwise. The DNA improvement comment was regarding the evolution of life on Earth over millions of years like RBeamer just said. My initial comment was over the "any kind of radiation exposure has negative impact on human health" comment (phrasing might not be accurate). There is no scientific consensus on the LNTM. There are other approaches. That's all I wanted to say about it.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:12:25 PM

Yeah, Edano, i'm scratching my head. JAPS is a good journal. Well respected. I have no idea what to think about this- i'm baffled. Going to look further into this guy.
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 4:12:28 PM

@Panserbjorne9 : gimme the link ? i did not follow from the beginning.
by Edano 6/1/2011 4:13:14 PM

@Edano Don't be narrow, no one here said radiation exposure was a good thing today. Prehaps you should re-read the posts, and see if anyone said radiation (in general) was a good thing. As to Science, naturally occurring radioactivity has been an ongoing thing on earth, decreasing since the dawn of earth. Has this had an effect on the DNA of humans?
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:14:02 PM

@Edano www.jpands.org appropriately under the header 'Medical Controversy'
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 4:17:55 PM

@Edano Here's the link and the quote was "We live with chronic radiation deficiency, Luckey believes. The worldwide background dose of about 3 mSv per year is much less than the optimum dose of around 100 mSv per year; this is 100 times lower than the dose that divides healthful from harmful effects of excess radiation" www.prnewswire.com
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:17:59 PM

@Edano this was the news story that started the discussion. www.prnewswire.com
by Panserbjorne9 6/1/2011 4:18:26 PM

this is the biggest bs i have read in years.
by Edano 6/1/2011 4:20:09 PM

@Panserbjorne9 I like that it came from a medical controversy arena, maybe we will see some scientific arguments against it.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:20:49 PM

Hi all Just logged on & read the current convo. Strikes me that a downside of the blog format is the probability of mis-communications when jumping in to live chat & posting quickly before the convo moves on. I think I've just read a classic e.g. of this
by UKVal 6/1/2011 4:22:02 PM

@Edano Chronic exposure of around 50 mSv per year for two decades in accidentally contaminated apartments in Taiwan was associated with only 3.5 cancer deaths per 1,000, compared with the 116 per 1,000 "normally" expected.
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:22:45 PM

.. and now I'm probably doing it too!!
by UKVal 6/1/2011 4:23:01 PM

@RBeaner billstclair.com
by Edano via Billstclair 6/1/2011 4:24:25 PM

@Edano ty for reposting that -I love it!
by UKVal 6/1/2011 4:24:56 PM

@Edano sorry, that was from www.prnewswire.com ,but that's not where this discussion has lead, the idea is that humans developed in a relatively hirad enviornment. Is this disputed?
by RBeaner 6/1/2011 4:25:33 PM

@UKVal You've just hit the spot there. Sometimes we react to some comments too hastily without trying to absorb the whole information and understanding the intended context. I've just been bashed for a single sentence and most of what I tried to say was utterly ignored. At least RBeaner grasped my intended meaning. I should have been more clear on my statements. It's my fault.
by Pedro Jesus 6/1/2011 4:27:53 PM

@Edano , that corresponds to about 1 rem a year. If the man was right, radiation workers would constitute the oldest group of professionals around.
by Peter Melzer 6/1/2011 4:28:46 PM