Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2187

@dean i know you don't look down ;)
by Edano 8/19/2011 12:45:37 PM

; @ Edano, I did that one time trying to listen to a noise on my bicycle and hit a parked suburban... OUCH
by dean 8/19/2011 12:46:41 PM

www.orionint.com found this during my research, concerning ultra low level radiation effects
by dean 8/19/2011 12:50:19 PM

@dean that happened to me, too and it destroyed my bicicle completely. :(
by Edano 8/19/2011 12:51:43 PM

@Edano, my bicycle was destroyed and I had some therapy to get back going again.
by dean 8/19/2011 12:52:21 PM

@dean i was astonished about the power. i underestimated that.
by Edano 8/19/2011 12:53:12 PM

@ Edano, agree,,, my top bar had 3 wrinkles in it
by dean 8/19/2011 12:53:56 PM

When I read that link, I came away with the impression that the intent of conducting the low level radiation effects was to have the regulatory agency relax the standards for radiation exposure. I don't know it the facility was built but will find out. I rather like the LNT model's more conservative approach and, Japan has proved that limits can always be adjusted "upwards" at wil
by dean 8/19/2011 12:57:16 PM

@dean Do you know what approach they use in Japan at setting safety radiation exposure limits? We know prior to the Fukushima accident the Japanese limits were 10 fold more conservative than international ones.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:08:30 PM

1. Radiation occurs everywhere as a natural part of the world...everyone and everything is naturally radioactive.
2. The no-safe-level theory of radiation only applies to enormous exposures (above 100 REM) absorbed over a short period of time.
3. Low levels of radiation exposure over long periods of time, up to 500 times typical natural background levels, are not harmful.
4. Low level radiation is beneficial to human health, improves damage recovery, and is essential to the functioning of the immune system.
5. Way too much or way too little of a good thing can be deadly.
link is
by dean 8/19/2011 1:09:52 PM

www.hiroshimasyndrome.com
by dean 8/19/2011 1:09:59 PM

A really wacky theory of what happened at Fukushima: www.youtube.com
by vasra 8/19/2011 1:10:39 PM

S. M. Javad Mortazavi (Japan) : "Our radiation protection policy is based on linear extrapolation from the dose-response data of high doses of ionizing radiation. According to the results of many worldwide studies, this assumption is not compatible with observed health effects of low levels of radiation. Obviously LNT and current radiation protection regulations exaggerate the risk of low level ionizing radiation (in the range of 1-50 cGy) and cause radiophobia (Yalow RS 1990). It is concluded that according to new findings, the existence of radiation hormesis and adaptive response are not deniable and abandoning the LNT theory in low dose risk estimations will be a real necessity in the near future."
by dean 8/19/2011 1:10:48 PM

@dean and let's not forget smiling cures irradiation.
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:11:43 PM

@ Pedro, perhaps the Ministry of Health may have thought there was justification to raise the limits.. .
by dean 8/19/2011 1:12:06 PM

@Edano, yes protecting the beef,, happy cows
by dean 8/19/2011 1:12:26 PM

@dean Interesting. But it is indeed undeniable that later research as been supporting the radiation hormesis theory.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:13:00 PM

www.hiroshimasyndrome.com these are the Q & A's on fukushima from that link
by dean 8/19/2011 1:13:39 PM

@dean Well, of course, but what I meant to ask was why were Japanese safety limits 10 times below international ones? Why is Japan so much more conservative than the rest of the world concerning radiation exposure.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:14:20 PM

@Edano It is no BS and you should know better. The evidence has been amounting for the last 8 to 10 years. If you're in search of the truth you can't deny some research only because it doesn't support the theory you're more comfortable with. This would be bad science.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:15:48 PM

this is my last comment on stupid theories based on a clear agenda:

"The United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences),[26] the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress)[27] and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR) all agree that radiation hormesis is not clearly shown, nor clearly the rule for radiation doses.

A report commissioned French National Academy concluded that there is sufficient evidence for hormesis occurring at low doses that LNT should be reconsidered as the methodology used to estimate risks from low level sources of radiation, like deep geological repositories for nuclear waste.[28] On the other hand, the United States-based National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements states that there is insufficient evidence for radiation hormesis and that radiation protection authorities should continue to apply the LNT model for purposes of risk estimation.[29]" en.wikipedia.org
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:23:32 PM

@ all, I am far from experienced in the medical studies and detailed research conducted on this topic. When I read and learn of the 3 different approaches I see alot of controversy internationally on which method or combination of methods to adopt. My career in nuclear began in 1967 and since then I have undoubtedly been on the conservative side when it comes to exposure. DOE limits, company limits, working limits all have been at lower and lower levels. My gut feeling has been to approach changes which raise allowable limits with caution. I think that industry translates raising limits to profits at the expense of employee safety and would abuse such increased levels. Maybe my mind will change during my research.
by dean 8/19/2011 1:23:42 PM

@Edano The hormesis theory is not linked to any agenda that I know, it doesn't even apply to nuclear accidents. But I respect your convictions. Maybe someday the hormesis theory will be proven wrong, or maybe it will be proven right. Right now we can't dismiss it as stupid or unscientific. In fact, if you've been following recent research on the subject, nearly all recent studies contradict the LNT at very low radiation exposures, so the model you support is not accurate either. From a medical point of view, however, it is definitely safer to go for the LNT (although it is by definition impractical anywhere in the universe we know) because it allows more conservative regulations on radioactive emissions.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:33:14 PM

@dean M6.8 quake hits Miyagi and Fukushima
A magnitude 6.8 earthquake jolted the disaster-affected prefectures of Miyagi and Fukushima in northeastern Japan on Friday afternoon. A tsunami advisory was issued, but was later lifted.

The Meteorological Agency says the quake struck at around 2:36 PM. Its focus was off Fukushima, at a depth of 20 kilometers.

Tremors with an intensity of 5 minus on the Japanese scale of zero to 7 were observed in Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. Smaller tremors were felt in wide areas from northern to western Japan.

The agency withdrew a tsunami advisory issued to coastal areas of Miyagi and Fukushima about 40 minutes after the quake.

No abnormalities are reported at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that was struck by the March 11th earthquake and tsunami. www3.nhk.or.jp Morning all! No abnormalities.....sure.
by LM 8/19/2011 1:33:33 PM

Sorry @dean My iPad autofilled your name!
by LM 8/19/2011 1:34:13 PM

I spent a couple hours at the National Library of Medicine digging through the hormesis-advocacy journal Dose Response and could not find one 'study' that involved ingestion of radionuclides. At best, any hormesis effect comes from low level external radiation exposure. The closest hormesians had to internal was radon exposure, but that recently collapsed as a possible foothold for hormesis this largest study on low-dose radon : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
by Ian 8/19/2011 1:35:39 PM

in germany, near to berlin, a study has begun to use the batteries of electric cars as energy storage for renewables. every not moving car will supply the power of its battery to the electrical grid and vice versa will be charged. this is part of a dynamic system of decentral power generation and wide spread mini storage systems:

"Based on this initial work our scope of investigation now focuses on the one hand side on different storage solutions, e.g. wide spread use of e-car batteries or use of electrolysers, to store energy in the national gas grid. Especially the motivation for the e-mobility project e-SolCar and its interactions to other research activities on the roadmap to the total gridintegration of renewable energies will be described in the text below."
www-docs.tu-cottbus.de
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:41:45 PM

@LM hi and ty for the EQ post
by dean 8/19/2011 1:41:47 PM

@Ian I don't think the hormesis theory involves internal exposure. I've never read anything that indicates or hints that relationship. Our bodies are not prepared to block radioactivity emitted from within because we don't naturally emit ionizing radiation and we didn't evolve to digest substances that do. That is not the case here.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:42:57 PM

www-docs.tu-cottbus.de www.tu-cottbus.de www.mwe.brandenburg.de
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:43:30 PM

@Edano That is very interesting. We have some similar small projects on study in Portugal.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:45:07 PM

I'm waiting for the day where your radio antennae on your vehicle will also serve to collect electrical energy and transform it to useful energy to drive the vehicle
by dean 8/19/2011 1:47:17 PM

it's hard to find english docs on this study.
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:47:34 PM

@dean The Tesla coil?
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:48:04 PM

@dean You are most welcome!
by LM 8/19/2011 1:49:31 PM

@dean this is already possible, but the microwaves would grill the drivers.
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:50:00 PM

something like that @ Pedro,
by dean 8/19/2011 1:50:24 PM

lol @ Edano..see, alittle research may eliminate that one major problem
by dean 8/19/2011 1:51:15 PM

@dean oh i'm sure someone will find microwave hormesis.
by Edano 8/19/2011 1:52:11 PM

@ Edano the mental health organization has already done that with the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator
by dean 8/19/2011 1:54:42 PM

@dean There was an article on New Scientist a couple of years ago about something of that kind but for indoors. The coils would be embedded in the walls and would provide energy to power and or charge LCDs, laptops, cell phones, you name it. The technology is already available, it is only a matter of implementing it on modern designs. Of course some LNT supporters might oppose that evolution. And it is not microwave. It's EMF.
by Pedro Jesus 8/19/2011 1:54:57 PM

@Pedro, in which case the application of hormesis theory to nuclear disasters is inappropriate.
by Ian 8/19/2011 1:56:06 PM

@ Pedro, I know of people who live under the high voltage transmission lines who claim they have cancers etc blamed on the EMF
by dean 8/19/2011 1:56:28 PM

Electrotherapy en.wikipedia.org
by dean 8/19/2011 1:57:35 PM

I can see it now.. health care of the future, stand at a device in your home where you are exposed to external radiation (or have the radiation source in your bed) and receive deep brain electrical impulse shocks... then head off to enjoy your day at 150 years old
by dean 8/19/2011 2:00:40 PM