One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[teamsaint]

the last sentence I already knew......

Thanks for the rest of it !

[Vile Consort]

Government funded studies of the Chernobyl corium (it'll be many decades before they can get anywhere close to the Fukushima corium) is of course centred around whether these new elements can be used for nuclear bombs.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

[Budapest]

It's a fact depending on your opinion of human nature (I can actually provide links, but it's incredibly time consumming and I don't have time at the moment).

And also consider this: ever since the monkeys (humanity) started mucking around with atoms in the early part of the 20th century, cancer rates have gone through the roof. Cancer used to be a very rare disease (19th century) and going back before then it was almost unknown (see here for a recent study). Don't you think that this is a bit of a coincidence? Ok, there's cigarettes of course, and a number of other things; but weighed against that are the atmospheric bomb tests in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, carried out by Russia, America, Britain, France and China, that released huge amounts of radioactivity into the environment. Then there was Chernobyl, and now Fukushima.

There used to be a 1 in 4 chance of getting cancer. Now it's 1 in 3. They say it's because we are all living longer, blah, blah, blah. That's not my experience of cancer, which has wiped out half my family, most of them in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

[Dave2002]

"the US has 5% of world population and uses 25% of its resources." I think that that is now a myth...certainly if you look at this chart http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/mint...on-by-country/ which puts a different perspective.

The resource chart looks nice, but has the usual sort of eye catching viaual distortions if you examine it carefully. Doesn't mean the basic data is wrong, but the visual represention may be misleading.

[MrGongGong]

There used to be a 1 in 4 chance of getting cancer. Now it's 1 in 3. They say it's because we are all living longer, blah, blah, blah. That's not my experience of cancer, which has wiped out half my family, most of them in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

It's a shame you said this. The main reason why "more people" are getting cancer IS because people are living longer. To extrapolate individual experiences into generalisations is very iffy indeed. Correlation does not imply causation.......... the reason why fewer people get polio is connected with the development of the digital synthesiser, i've met people ( I did used to live in Totnes ) who would seriously believe this.
None of which is any reason not to worry about Fukushima or become complacent.

[Resurrection Man]

Ok, so when I did give you facts, like on the online banking thread, you didn't respond. I even said I was happy to be proved wrong, which I am.
I could outline other peoples ideas on here, but you would certainly want to do deeper research for yourself anyway. So I will cut out the middle man, and leave you to ignore or investigate this interesting and important area !

Incidentally, RM, I just remembered that on the "Posh Boys " thread you strongly suggested here

29-04-12, 22:28
Thread: Posh Boys in trouble?
by Resurrection Man Replies
317
Views
4,000

"And so what? If they have the education and experience it doesn't matter where they come from. To discount them simply because they come from a public school background is surely the sign of a bigot?"

that I was a bigot, and in fact I hadn't said anything at all about public schoolboys.. I thought I should give you another chance to respond.I may be many things but I really hope I am not a bigot.

As regards VC's thoughts.....I really don't know the technicalities. But in general governments are in the business of downplaying radiation dangers.in any case, hand on heart, and in terms of risk, would you rather live 5 miles from Fukushima or anywhere in Cornwall? I know where I would choose.

TS...I owe you a few apologies. First for not responding sooner but I don't always get the time to revisit threads and/or forget to set up the email notification. That and the fact that my email account considered the email notifications that I did receive as junk!

Second for not responding to the online banking thread but to be honest I think that we can all produce statistics to suit our own particular viewpoint. However, I will try and respond over on that thread. As far as examples go then my original comment does still stand. Anyone who makes a broad-brush statement such as 'there are plenty of alternatives out there' or whatever the exact words that you used were, then I think it is beholden on that person to produce evidence to support the wild claims. Anyway, we've bounced this one back and forth and so I'm guessing that examples won't be forthcoming.

Last but not least, I owe you an apology for implying that you were a bigot. Unlike some, if I mess up then I'll be the first to admit it and I do so here without reservation. I got several threads confused in my mind and this resulted in the suggestion as to bigotry.

Pace?

[teamsaint]

RM

thank you for your reply, and your apology.
I am all for strongly felt debate.I wouldn't post some of the things that I do, if I wasn't ready for it . Sometimes the heart is as important as the head, though !

As regards alternative and suppressed energy sources, this is a controversial and difficult area, in which the truth is hard to pin down. There are strong suggestions that people may have lost their lives as a result of what they have done or said. Whatever the truth of that the powers that be can certainly be ruthless.
I really don't want to point you in particular directions. I am certainly not an expert in this area.If you are interested, you will need to investigate for yourself.If you aren't interested, then there is little point in me giving you examples.However, it has been suggested to me that Brian O'Leary, The Energy Solution Revolution is a good place to start.There is plenty of other stuff "out there".
In any event I think we need to radically and urgently look at the way we produce energy, whatever methods are to be used.That requires open minds , I think.

Re the statistics, I absolutely agree that these can always be used to support a case. Very dangerous things in the wrong hands!

[Frances_iom]

one recent study would seem to confirm the earlier report in which I suggested that low level radiation damage was not cummulative though I agree short exposure to high levels causes damage - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/p...sure-0515.html

[Budapest]

It's a shame you said this. The main reason why "more people" are getting cancer IS because people are living longer. To extrapolate individual experiences into generalisations is very iffy indeed. Correlation does not imply causation.......... the reason why fewer people get polio is connected with the development of the digital synthesiser, i've met people ( I did used to live in Totnes ) who would seriously believe this.
None of which is any reason not to worry about Fukushima or become complacent.

MrGongGong I did try to emphasise in my previous post that there's absolutely no proof of any connection between the cancer epidemic of the last 70 years and the development of nuclear energy over the last 70 years. Studies suggest, though, that before the 20th century, cancer was almost unknown (see my previous post). In the time frame after the worst of the Black Death and before the height of the Industrial Revolution, many people lived into their 70s and 80s (take a walk around any really old graveyards in the UK, for instance). Now people are dropping dead like flies from cancer. With regard to nuclear power, this comes into the 'funny coincidence department', and not 'correlation does not imply causation'. Shortly after Chernobyl reactor No.4 blew its top in April 1986, a friend and I were hiking in a remote part of Scotland that received high doses of radiation (even today, there are still areas all over western Europe that are 'hot'). More than 25 years later, if I go to a doctor tomorrow and am diagnosed with a cancerous tumour there's no easy/cheap way of finding out if it's connected to the Chernobyl reactor No.4 explosion. However, it can be done, at a price; but much less than the billions of tax payer's money that governments use to prop-up the nuclear industry. To counter people like me, who point out the seemingly obvious about nuclear power and cancer, why don't governments set our minds at rest by doing a proper survey - full body scans looking for radionuclides, of, say, a representative sample of 1000 people who have died of cancer?

Yes, and radioactive pigs might fly.

And in the meantime, here's more paranoia...

Cancer epidemic blamed on nuclear power

[Bryn]

And in the meantime, here's more paranoia...

Cancer epidemic blamed on nuclear power

Many a true word ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Committee_on_Radiation_Risk

Lest anyone mistakenly believe the ECRR was some formal body, rather than an informally constituted pressure grouping.

[Budapest]

MIT seem to have gone downhill (the corporate dollar).

Admittedly I'm about to crash out for the night and have only had a quick read of the above linked article. I might have missed something; but, this MIT piece talks about 'radiation' and seems to compare natural background radiation to the radiation that comes from nuclear power plants. It uses Iodine (131?) as an example, which has a short half life of 8 days and while lethal it does not remain lethal for long. When fission occurs in a nuclear reactor it creates elements that do not exist in the natural world (incredibly lethal stuff like Plutonium and Americium). This is man made crap that has half lives measured in tens of thousands of years. There is enough plutonium, for example, in Fukushima reactor 3 (which uses MOX fuel) to kill off a large percentage of life on earth; and that's just one reactor.

Sticking to the point: the MIT study linked to above does not take into account any of these lethal man made isotopes. It does not even acknowledge the existence of them.

Frances_iom, I've bought you a plane ticket to Japan, and have even put up a tent for you right in front of Fukushima Daiichi reactor No.3 - it's a nice view of the Pacific Ocean, which even glows in the dark. You also have internet connection, so that you can tell us how safe plutonium is.

[Budapest]

Right, so the ECRR is a group of concerned doctors and scientists, rather than a formal body (ie, a governmental body). I don't know about you but I'd rather trust the former rather than the latter.

[Frances_iom]

MIT seem to have gone downhill (the corporate dollar).
Frances_iom, I've bought you a plane ticket to Japan, and have even put up a tent for you right in front of Fukushima Daiichi reactor No.3 - it's a nice view of the Pacific Ocean, which even glows in the dark. You also have internet connection, so that you can tell us how safe plutonium is.

Radiation is basically the same no matter the source - energetic particles tho the chemistry of the radiating substance differs (eg Iodine is held by Thyroid esp in young children - hence the use of Iodine tablets which fill the receptors.) Many oceans 'glow' in the dark - phospherence.

Anyway thank you for your kind offer - does it include a stop over each way as the IoM flights seldom connect with international

[MrGongGong]

hummm

(and i'm not saying that there's nothing to worry about !!! )

but

MrGongGong I did try to emphasise in my previous post that there's absolutely no proof of any connection between the cancer epidemic of the last 70 years and the development of nuclear energy over the last 70 years.

and

To counter people like me, who point out the seemingly obvious about nuclear power and cancer,

seem to be somewhat contradictory ?

Coincidences DO seem "funny" but they wouldn't be co-incidences if they didn't
and you do seem to be suggesting that correlation is implies causation

I would be very very wary of anything described as "obvious" (look how many people play the lottery for example ...........)

[Resurrection Man]

If there was an increase in cancer, that was not correlated with us living longer, then I'd put my money on the increase in processed food that 'we' shove down our throats. We are what we eat.

But the facts are that, if you remove deaths due lung cancer from the stats (a cancer which is almost completely self-induced by smoking), then the overall mortality has reduced since 1950. See here http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/19/1/239.full which somewhat detracts from the hysteria surrounding radiation.