Fukushima

I got interested in Fukushima today (where they’ve just started removing fuel rods), after reading on ZeroHedge that

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government is planning a state secrets act that critics say could curtail public access to information on a wide range of issues, including tensions with China and the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

I then read an August 2013 article in New Scientist:

Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says the Kanda estimate is probably the best he is aware of, and closely matches figures released on 21 August by Tepco, of 0.1 to 0.6 TBq per month for caesium-137 and 0.1 to 0.3 for strontium.

He points out that the north Pacific contains an estimated 100,000 TBq of caesium-137 from H-bomb testing in the 1960s, so the fallout from Fukushima is adding only a fraction of that. Total discharges from the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK released 39,000 TBq over 40 years, he says.

Buesseler says that during his own sampling survey in waters 30 to 600 kilometres from Fukushima in June 2011, three months after the meltdown, the highest levels he found were 3 Bq of caesium-137 per litre of seawater. By comparison, the natural weathering of rocks results in about 10 Bq of radioactive potassium-40 making it into each litre of seawater.

On an international level, even if all the waste from Fukushima was dumped neat into the Pacific, dilution would eliminate any radiation risks to distant countries like the US, says Simon Boxall of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK.

For reference, the Hiroshima bomb released about 90 TBq (teraBecquerels) of radioactive material. And Chernobyl in 1986 apparently released between 5 and 14 million TBq. But while Fukushima is adding 0.6 TBq per month, one BBC report gives the total released as 370,000 TBq (as of 12 April 2011), although much of that went into the atmosphere.

Is it dangerous to eat Pacific fish, as some people (e.g. Margo) seem to think? I don’t know, but since I’m someone who habitually downplays the risks associated with smoking and carbon dioxide, it seems only appropriate to also play down the risks of radioactivity from Fukushima.

However, since I equally habitually distrust governments and experts who are currently playing down Fukushima, perhaps I should be alarmed? For while the EPA says there’s “no safe level” of environmental tobacco smoke, it’s recently been raising acceptable thresholds for radioactivity:

But now an update to the 1992 manual is being planned, and if the “Dr. Strangelove” wing of the EPA has its way, here is what it means (brace yourself for these ludicrous increases):

A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.

But maybe they’re right to raise the thresholds. For I’m beginning to wonder whether radioactivity really is as dangerous as it’s made out to be, and whether the fear of it may be as overblown as the current hysteria about tobacco smoke.

My reasoning stems from the abundant and apparently normal plant and animal wildlife in the exclusion area around Chernobyl, which remains the largest accidental release of radioactivity.

Chernobyl’s abundant and surprisingly normal-looking wildlife has shaken up how biologists think about the environmental effects of radioactivity. The idea that the world’s biggest radioactive wasteland could become Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary is completely counterintuitive for anyone raised on nuclear dystopias.

For it seems that, after taking a bit of a knock around the time of the accidents (forests turning red), nature soon bounced back. I watched a documentary [see below] about wolves in the exclusion zone, which found that, apart from the wolves being highly radioactive, the wolf population levels were exactly the same as in a clean reference area, and they were breeding successfully along with beavers and bison. Researchers also found that there were slightly more abnormalities, but on the whole plants and animals were seemingly as healthy as elesewhere, and in fact had slightly higher densities and reproduction rates.

 

However they did say that, although it was safe for plants and animals (and they actually been adding rare species of horses to the exclusion area), it wasn’t safe for humans. Why’s that? What’s special about humans?

It also reminded me of the populations of theoretical cells I was modelling a year or two back, and my theory of ageing, which was that fast-reproducing cells, which work harder than slow-reproducing ones, gradually get replaced by slower and slower-reproducing cells, so that aged multicellular organisms repair damage more slowly, and also very often shrink in size.

I also found that when an extra background deathrate was imposed on these populations, their reproduction rates didn’t fall so much. Predators act to boost the birthrates of their prey.

And maybe the same applies with background radioactivity? It also presumably imposes an extra deathrate on a population of cells, just like predators on prey, and so increases cell reproduction rates, and slows the ageing process. And when radioactive materials began to appear around 1900, they were actually claimed to have a rejuvenating effect. And perhaps they actually did!

But, since cancers consist of rapidly reproducing cells, it may also be that while a little bit of background radioactivity will slightly boost cell reproduction rates, a lot of it may boost cell reproduction rates to the levels found in cancers. And even higher levels will impose a deathrate on cells that exceeds their birthrate, causing death.

All the same, I’m not planning to buy a packet of caesium-137 when I next go shopping.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Fukushima

  1. wobbler2012 says:

    In my minds eye I try and picture these Japs removing the fuel rods and all I can think of is KerPlunk.

  2. TomO says:

    Tera Bequerels?

    BED is where it’s at…

    But as…. I always do when radiation is discussed

    PLEASE READ THIS

  3. smokervoter says:

    Glad to see you’re writing about this topic because I live on the west coast of the Pacific and, much closer to the bone, I was once in the business of buying and reselling Pacific seafood (crabs from Mexico).

    I remember right after the earthquake and tidal wave that the doomsayers jumped right in there and were predicting the end of the world as we know it within a month. They were the usual suspects – the enviro-loons (antismoker types) on the Left and the Alex Jonesers on the Right. I was sceptical. I’ve done quite a bit of sailing in the Monterey Bay (it’s a very deep body of water) and have a gut feeling about the dilutive capacity of the ocean. When I think of all of the mega zillion gallons of sea water between here and Japan it’s hard to get very worked up about it. But I’m no scientist.

    I must admit that the precious bodily fluid crazy general portrayed in Dr. Strangelove had a lasting effect on my attitudes. I laughed my head off at him and consequently at the fluoride conspiracy folks at the John Birch Society. That was back in my lefty days of old. That’s not really very scientific, it’s theatrics. So I’m as bad as the drama queens who are claiming The Fukushima End is at hand.

    I’ve since read some very prescient old writings by the John Birchers involving long term socialist aims.

    I’m wondering where I’d be standing on eating and selling those crabs if I was still in that business today.

    For now, just for the record, I continue to buy seafood at the store (I love seafood, especially crustaceans) which, being in California, is undoubtedly of a Pacific Ocean source. Needless to say, I’ll try to learn more about the subject as time marches on.

    • I was anti-smoking in primary school (convinced I would never smoke, even if a gun was pointed at me) then an ecobeliever then a lefty loony then an Alex Jones fan in my 40s. Then I finally started thinking for myself. I think?

      I think, therefore I am – but is what I think what I think it is?

      I don’t know about exposure to radiation from Fukushima, but exposure to Alex Jones via slow poisoning from his radio show six days a week was something which required some recovery from. And I think most of the ‘Truth Movement’ big shots are double agents. 90+% facts and lots of worthy information, but with added disnfo, fearmongering and refusing to name the real culprits and ultimately rendering people powerless. Then your Icke-types (or tykes) pander to the alien believers and half the ‘Truthers’ are Jew-bashers because some of the big bankers are Jewish. It’s like blaming the hoodie epidemic on Jews because they are traditionally tailors.

      It’s the new ‘acceptable’ face of anti-Semitism, which the fake ‘Truthers’ are only too keen to encourage and grow in numbers to take the heat off the real Devil’s disciples.

      I thank God (literally) for people like Frank, who try to get to the truth. I might not always agree but then I might not always know. But the fun is in having the alternative views. Not fun – the right. One of the “rights” which has disappeared among the “right” for same-sex “marriage” and the “right” for prisoners to vote and the “right” for bats to live in your house undisturbed – is the right to exposure to a range of opinions and the right to be taught how to form opinions and not rely on others all the time.

  4. XX What’s special about humans? XX

    Law suits.

  5. margo says:

    I’m glad you’re looking at this, Frank. I’ve been looking ever since it happened in March 2011. It is very difficult to know how alarmed we should be. For every report that ‘it’s not so bad’ there’s another telling you that it it’s terrible. It comes down to who you choose to believe: governments and the nuclear power industry or ‘independent concerned scientists’ (how independent are they? why would they lie?)
    When I started looking, I was already biased by having already formed the theory that smokers were being scapegoated to hide the damage caused by industrial environmental pollutants (particularly radiation from bombs and nuclear plants). That made me particularly interested in Fukushima. And information previously hidden and lied about had recently come out about Chernobyl.
    There seems no doubt that Tepco (the owners of the Fukushima plant) lied from the beginning (about the amount of radiation released and the number of melt-downs). And, somehow, a kind of media black-out was imposed. It was all right to report about the tsunami and the earthquake but not OK to talk about the nuclear plant.
    Points that strike me as important include: 1) the fact that the radiation from a nuclear plant (and a bomb) contains elements that do not occur in nature. Therefore, this is not just about increasing ‘background radiation’; 2) the stuff leaked into the Pacific has been pouring in since the beginning and still is pouring in, twenty-four-seven non-stop, and will continue to; raising the ‘acceptable level’ as a response to increasing it is fishy beyond belief.
    I’ve read reports that marine life is in big trouble (and other reports saying this was happening before Fukushima); I’ve read reports that thyroid problems and other illnesses near the exclusion zone are rife and that doctors are not allowed to record them as radiation-induced.
    As for Chernobyl and the ‘wildlife sanctuary’, I’ve read this too, and also other things: it looks OK there, but there are ‘hot spots’. Are some of the animals migrants from less ‘hot’ parts? Do they pass through and die elsewhere? Do they reproduce normally? I’ve read that birds are hatching fewer chicks, some have albinism and weird feathers, and some trees have mutated. Not far off, there are still (after 30 years) deformed and very ill children.
    And Chernobyl is not as bad as Fukushima. The contamination is mostly contained in the exclusion zone. Most of the core of the plant is still in there, still leaking slowly out. Fukushima is not contained, and is a much bigger plant (6 reactors), and no-one seems to know where the core is. What we know is that this stuff never goes away. The half-lives of some radioactive elements are enormous. It’s forever. It seeps into the air, the earth, the sea and the food chain. Which, I think, is why cancers that were exceedingly rare when I was young in the 1950s are now quite common.
    Keep digging, Frank.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I was already biased by having already formed the theory that smokers were being scapegoated to hide the damage caused by industrial environmental pollutants (particularly radiation from bombs and nuclear plants).

      I’m inclined to the same view. In the UK, lung cancer started getting blamed on smoking at a time when London was experiencing dense smogs and thousands of deaths. It’s very convenient to blame the patient for his own disease. And in fact, that’s all “lifestyle medicine” ever does.

      There seems no doubt that Tepco (the owners of the Fukushima plant) lied from the beginning (about the amount of radiation released and the number of melt-downs).

      This does seem to be standard practice everywhere.

      1) the fact that the radiation from a nuclear plant (and a bomb) contains elements that do not occur in nature. Therefore, this is not just about increasing ‘background radiation’;

      I believe that caesium-137, and a number of other radioactive elements, are uncommon in nature. But I think that radioactivity fundamentally always consists in alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions, regardless of the source. And so does background radioactivity. So while some of these substances may be new, they’re not actually doing anything new, just increasing the levels.

      the stuff leaked into the Pacific has been pouring in since the beginning and still is pouring in, twenty-four-seven non-stop,

      I’m not sure about this. From memory, the reactors initially mostly vented radioactivity into the atmosphere. And there was relatively minor leakage into the sea. However, since they’ve been pouring lots of water into the reactors to cool them, they’ve apparently been storing this water in growing numbers of tanks dotted all over the site. And some of these have leaked into the ground and into the sea. But I may be wrong about that.

      I’ve read reports that marine life is in big trouble (and other reports saying this was happening before Fukushima); I’ve read reports that thyroid problems and other illnesses near the exclusion zone are rife and that doctors are not allowed to record them as radiation-induced.

      I’ve read a few reports vaguely along these lines, but seen no evidence.

      As for Chernobyl and the ‘wildlife sanctuary’, I’ve read this too, and also other things: it looks OK there, but there are ‘hot spots’. Are some of the animals migrants from less ‘hot’ parts? Do they pass through and die elsewhere? Do they reproduce normally? I’ve read that birds are hatching fewer chicks, some have albinism and weird feathers, and some trees have mutated. Not far off, there are still (after 30 years) deformed and very ill children.

      Yes, there are hot spots close to the reactor. But according to the documentary above, the wolves were distributed all over the exclusion zone including the hot spots, and were reproducing inside it, with normal numbers of normal pups. They did say that there were higher numbers of abnormalities, but didn’t show any.

      Now, maybe this non-technical documentary was painting a deliberately upbeat picture. But nevertheless the Western scientists who ventured into the exclusion zone were fully suited up (although the Russian ones were not), and the human population over a large area had been moved out. So the documentary painted a picture of thriving wildlife in the zone, from which humans were excluded.

      And Chernobyl is not as bad as Fukushima. The contamination is mostly contained in the exclusion zone. Most of the core of the plant is still in there, still leaking slowly out.

      From what I’ve read, in terms of TBq released, Chernobyl was substantially worse. And the radioactive material released was not contained, but formed a plume that went all the way round the world, and contained a lot of radioactive elements. Most of the core is indeed still there, buried under concrete. By contrast, I’ve read that a lot of nasty stuff that was not contained in Chernobyl was contained in Fukushima.

      The Fukushima fallout is notable for what it doesn’t contain. Some very nasty contaminants like strontium-90, americium-241, and various plutonium isotopes are all absent in any significant quantity because the concrete vessels around the reactors appear to be largely intact. In Chernobyl, the explosion and subsequent fire spewed these extremely dangerous isotopes far and wide.

      Anyway, as ever, it all depends who you believe and who you don’t believe. And on this particular matter I can’t really yet say that I believe anyone at all!

      • margo says:

        Yes, we can only wait and see. Except that we won’t see what is hidden away and kept from us, and in many cases the damage won’t manifest for years – and then it’ll be blamed on lifestyle, no doubt. Easy enough to do that. ‘Not with a bang but a whimper’ – and a long, slow whimper at that. To me, this is a kind of object-lesson: deception and suppression of information going on right in front of our eyes. It’s taught me the scale of it all.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Revenue loss after restaurant tobacco smoking ban imposed in Korea

    editor | November 29, 2013

    Six out of 10 restaurants in South Korea suffered revenue declines after the imposition of a tobacco smoking ban in July, according to a story in The Korea Herald quoting the results of a survey published yesterday.

    Nearly 59.3 per cent of restaurant owners who responded to the survey said their revenues had fallen as a result of the new smoking regulations.

    The average reported fall in revenues was 17.6 per cent.

    The smoking ban that went into effect on July 1 affected only certain restaurants, based on size.

    But all restaurants will be smoke-free by 2015, when stronger regulations are due to come into force.

    The survey, which consulted 300 restaurant owners, was commissioned by the Korea Smokers’ Association.

  7. Ivor Ward says:

    The simple truth is probably that people living on the radon rich granite areas of Cornwall will be exposed to a much higher dose of radiation than the people of Japan let alone those on the West Coast of America. Cancer death seems higher today because we live a lot longer and have controlled a lot of the earlier causes of death, such as malaria, and typhoid, TB etc. We have also learned to identify more cancers and have sub-sets for a lot more. The simple truth is that life has never been so good for the Western and developed Eastern World. Fukushima was a major success story for nuclear power. An unprecedented (as far as we know for Japan) Earthquake and Tsunami killed 23,000 people and countless animals. It lifted 5,000 ton ships a mile inland. It destroyed buildings for 217 square miles yet through it all the Power Station stood there. If it had been a modern power plant with passive shut down there would have been no problem but as it was a 40 year old first generation plant the cooling was done by diesel pumps which were submerged. They were remarkably successful in bringing it under control after the early hydrogen explosions. A lot of work still to be done but so far the tsunami killed thousands and the nuclear plant killed no-one. If we get a Tsunami warning when the Canaries collapse into the sea I am taking refuge at Hinkley point. It will be the safest place to be. You will not find me clinging to a wind turbine or hiding down a coal mine.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Fukushima was a major success story for nuclear power… yet through it all the Power Station stood there.

      It wasn’t destroyed. But it’s hardly a success story either. For the wall around the Fukushima plant was only about 6 metres high.

      The protective sea wall seen in the CCTV footage was designed to withstand a 19ft tsunami but not the 46ft wave that hit Japan on 11 March.

      ajw.asahi.com

      TEPCO had estimated the tsunami that hit the No. 1 nuclear power plant spanning the towns of Futaba and Okuma was 14 to 15 meters high.

      • beobrigitte says:

        It wasn’t destroyed. But it’s hardly a success story either. For the wall around the Fukushima plant was only about 6 metres high.

        And there were cracks in the walls of each reactor long before the earthquake and tsunami struck. TEPCO was told about it which resulted in the “safety expert” being “persuaded” to omit these in the reports.

        • XX And there were cracks in the walls of each reactor long before the earthquake and tsunami struck. XX

          Seems to be an occupational hazard with reactors.

          A good friend of mine worked on a reactor here in Berlin, and was sacked for complaining about the cracks. And HE was safety engineer!

    • margo says:

      Have you seen the state of that nuclear plant? Don’t bother looking at Tepco’s pictures, hunt out the others. It wasn’t built with such a huge earthquake or tsunami in mind. As for killing no-one, how do you know? For a start, there have been deaths among workers, but we have been assured by Tepco that they were ‘nothing to do with radiation’. Do you believe that? I don’t.

      • XX but we have been assured by Tepco that they were ‘nothing to do with radiation’. Do you believe that? I don’t.XX

        There is also the question of how different countries view “safe levels,” even within the “E.U.”

        For example, C.T scans. Here, I have had six or seven in the last year. Everyone else in my section included. Many before me, and there will be many after me as well.

        That is an acceptable amount.

        In Britain, they get worried about a couple of X-Rays in that time.

  8. margo says:

    Coincidentally enough, there’s a youtube video out today from RT:

    November 29 2013 Breaking News Fukushima worldwide Nuclear …
    (I hope I got that right)
    It doesn’t paint a rosy picture. Ivor Ward may choose not to watch or not to believe it.

  9. Pingback: Fukushima | Frank Davis | RadiationAlerts.org |...

  10. Fukushima getting worse
    November 25, 2013 freepress.org

    The whole world is trying to watch….so Tokyo Electric has complained that the media is actually photographing their operations! With a state secrets act on its way, we anticipate a formal crackdown. Tokyo Electric wants to open four other reactors in Japan and pursues overseas investments while toying with the fate of the Earth at Fukushima.

    Fukushima radiation has been confirmed off the coast of Alaska, & will soon be in California. Reports from the Pacific of the disappearance of sardines and salmon, the death of California sea lion pups, a horrible plague among starfish off the northwest coast of the US, and much more, remind us how little we know about the effects of pouring gargantuan quantities of radiation into the ocean.

    And that the survival of human life on our planet has never been more threatened.
    http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2013/1996

    • Oh, DO fuck off!

      You could pour the entire contents of Fuchyoushima into the Pacific, and it would make NO difference!

      We are talking of homeopathy levels here.

      I.e FUCK ALL!

      • smokervoter says:

        +1

        To tell you the truth FT, that’s what my gut tells me too.

        I have a friend who spent 8 years traversing the seven seas as an onboard machinist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and if there was one thing he wanted to impress upon me it was that there is an incredible amount of seawater on this planet. Terra Firma is the exception to the rule.

        And besides that, the author is rooster proud of banning a McDonald’s in Bexley, wherever that is.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Johan BongaertsFriends of FOREST

    Hey everyone! Just found this :

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/jun/16/house-of-commons-catering-cigarettes

    See how times have changed since 1947! MP were worried about tobacco taxes being raised, and consequences in the population (and themselves, lol).

    “Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite Is it not a little unfortunate at this moment that a Question should appear on the Order Paper suggesting that hon. Members should obtain cigarettes at a cheaper price than the general public at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just raised the tobacco tax, for which hon. Members opposite voted with enthusiasm. ”

    HOUSE OF COMMONS, CATERING (CIGARETTES) (Hansard, 16 June 1947)

    hansard.millbanksystems.com

    HOUSE OF COMMONS, CATERING (CIGARETTES) (Hansard, 16 June 1947)

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/jun/16/house-of-commons-catering-cigarettes

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Seems like an appropriate time to share this again since we are on radiation

    The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

    Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

    Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

    Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

    Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Average Annual Total
    361 mrem/year

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

    or

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

    http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

    Click to access 320-063_bkvsman_fs.pdf

    • beobrigitte says:

      But smoking costs society billions too.

      The chart includes: (in £ billion)
      1. – Loss of economic output from smoker deaths. (£4.9)
      2. – Loss of economic output from passive smoker deaths. (£0.71)
      3. – Loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9)
      4. – Loss in productivity from smoker absenteeism (£ ca. 2.5)

      Sir, I have a few questions:

      To 1.: Smoker deaths. What age group are you referring to?
      Those in their 60s and seventies are no longer producing economic output. They have DESERVEDLY retired.

      To 2.: WHAT illness EXACTLY is due to ONLY passive smoking?

      To 3.: What is the loss of productivity of coffee and toilet breaks?

      To 4.: Smoker absenteeism. What is the loss of productivity from non-smoker absenteeism?
      (Here I have to apologize to my non-smoker colleagues who currently are off sick; I do believe you are not well and please do take your time to get well!!! However, I do begrudge that I still am well with not even a sniffly nose in sight….. I worked with some of you last week, HOW come you all “got it” whilst I now have to work extra time? Do your best to infect me next time!!!!!)

  13. beobrigitte says:

    Is it dangerous to eat Pacific fish, as some people (e.g. Margo) seem to think? I don’t know, but since I’m someone who habitually downplays the risks associated with smoking and carbon dioxide, it seems only appropriate to also play down the risks of radioactivity from Fukushima.

    The problem associated with “being alarmed” is that rational thought is reduced to a little doubt in the back of the mind.

    However, since I equally habitually distrust governments and experts who are currently playing down Fukushima, perhaps I should be alarmed? For while the EPA says there’s “no safe level” of environmental tobacco smoke, it’s recently been raising acceptable thresholds for radioactivity…

    A prime example of the damage done by being “alarmed”. Tobacco Control must be very “alarmed” since 60 years; it invests a lot of money into conjuring up “proof” of their FEAR.
    Anybody not infected with this fear askes as a first question: “How come we DO live longer these days considering that generations grew up with and near tobacco smoke”?

    The Fukushima “accident” might cause one or the other change as will Chernobyl. I did watch recently a youtube documentary on the wolves around Chernobyl. Their number are steadily increasing and so are the numbers of their food.
    I can think of only one reason, why the alarmists give in to their fear: our reproduction rate is not very efficient; we carry usually one young for nine month and then need to nurture our offspring for quite a number of years before they are capable of directing their own survival with whatever is available. AND it will take another few years before this offpring is capable of reproducing.
    Rats and rabbits have this problem sussed! But they, too, are mammals…
    And………… the dinosaurs became extinct, too!!! That probably reminds the alarmists that they have no chance to live forever and ever – and it scares them even more into coming up with stupid things like “prevention”… “health&safety” … and whatever their fear directs them to next.
    The future these scared alarmists have in mind sounds just too much like hassle and a joyless existence.

  14. Tony says:

    Way off topic:
    http://www.trendingcentral.com/bacon-make-live-longer/
    “Energy Metabolism Professor Michael Ristow fed roundworms a dose of niacin, discovering that they lived one-tenth longer than those who went without. “
    As Rose pointed out long ago, nicotine oxidises to nicotinic acid (=niacin =Vitamin B3) when burnt in air.

  15. Bill says:

    Frank
    As you are clearly a thinking and feeling scientist as opposed to a ‘I’ll tell you whatever truth you want as long as you cross my palm with grant money” scientist could you have a look here and give this genuinely interested fellow human being a scientific view of the page contents?

    http://rexresearch.com/fukushimamour/fukushima.htm

    • Bill says:

      Forgot this page as well.
      http://aetherforce.com/the-radiation-hoax-nuclear-scientist-eats-drinks-and-swims-in-radiation/

      Blow the mind that page, at least it does mine.

    • Frank Davis says:

      To be quite honest, I know very little about radioactivity, apart from what little I learned in a few classes some decades ago, and the half-remembered anecdotes of a physicist friend. But I’m always willing to learn. There’s nothing I like more than something I know sweet FA about.

      That said, Yull Brown’s formidable pipe in the first link encourages me to think that there might be something to his idea.

      And the second link (I haven’t watched the video yet) seems to follow my train of thought about Chernobyl: why were plants and animals in the exclusion zone flourishing so well? Perhaps radioactivity isn’t quite as dangerous as we have been led to believe?

      • Frank Davis says:

        I’ve now watched the entire Galen Winsor video, and it’s pretty mind-blowing. He said he used to not only go swim in reactor cooling tanks, but also drink the stuff as well.

        Which reminds me that one of the most shocking things about the Chernobyl documentary above was learning that they found huge catfish and carp in the Chernobyl cooling tanks. Carp (or maybe it was catfish) apparently just keep on growing. And these ones had been growing for 25 years

        I guess that the most impressive bit of the Galen Winsor video was the last half hour, when he produced a gamma ray geiger counter and various radioactive substances, and showed how even gamma rays were blocked by his hand. And he poured some onto his hand. And then he swallowed some.

        Basically, his message was that a nuclear power station was the simplest and cheapest and safest way to boil water (and drive turbines). He said that there was almost nothing that could go wrong, and the China Syndrome was a complete fiction.

        I can’t say I’m convinced, though. But it’s certainly become a very interesting idea.

        • Bill says:

          Thanks. I am terminally suspect about anything these days that is being pushed by if the government, settled scientists, the faithful, the righteous, the media, big business. These folk will sell their souls for a fiat note.

  16. john, the non smoker says:

    Ref; time lost to industry due to smoking breaks.Way back when I was a leading hand,and my lads would decide it was time for a smoke, I would go outside with them, outside, as this was an aircraft hanger,I would happily stand around chatting away, and should,as often happened,a superviser, would come by, and enquire as to my presence, I would patiently explain,that my lads were on a smoke break and I was on a non smoke break, the face of the enquirer was a picture to see as conflicting ideas,and emotions, passed through,usually not another word would be said and he would wander off, with an expression like a stunned mullet, it used to give me a warm feeling , due to my bolshi background , it was almost Zen.

  17. Low-level waste (LLW): radioactively contaminated industrial or research waste such as paper, rags, plastic bags, medical waste, and water-treatment residues. It is waste that does not meet the criteria for any of three other categories of radioactive waste: spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste ; transuranic radioactive waste; or uranium mill tailings . Its categorization does not depend on the level of radioactivity it contains.

  18. get smart says:

    Twenty teams consisting of a radiation expert, a nurse and a clerk were dispatched to Fukushima by the end of July. Some 82 people were involved from the university. More than 5,000 people were examined. A GM survey meter (e.g. TGS-146B, Aloka, Co., Japan) was used for screening. Fig. 1 illustrates a screening test carried out by a university staff member. A count exceeding 100,000 cpm was regarded as indicative of radioactive contamination, requiring decontamination. A decontamination room was prepared by the Self-Defence Forces. For a count of between 13,000 and 100,000 cpm, decontamination was advised. If the count was less than 13,000 cpm, no decontamination was needed.

  19. Pingback: An Evolutionary Model of Cancer | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.