One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[teamsaint]

Blimey.......the plutonium thing is scary.
paranoid? no
Not all the big organisations are as benign as some would have us believe.

oh, and if they can lie to us about meltdowns, when we all knew in our hearts that this was happening,they can certainly try to dupe us about radiation levels............

[Budapest]

teamsaint, I've concentrated on plutonium because most people are familiar with it. There are many other alpha emitters/poisonous cocktails that come out of a fission reactor, amongst which are strontium, americium and polonium (do you remember the Russian defector, Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisened with polonium 210?). These are all alpha emitters as well and are not easily detectable. This sort of crap has been released into the environment by Fukushima and no one is testing for it (admittedly it is difficult to test for).

The IAEA are a complete joke and are just lobbyists for the nuclear industry. You'd think that the WHO would be a bit nobler; alas not: more than a quarter of a century later the WHO are still part of the biggest medical cover-up in history with regard to Chernobyl.

[MrGongGong]

Is the water in the Szechenyi baths radioactive ?

[teamsaint]

teamsaint, I've concentrated on plutonium because most people are familiar with it. There are many other alpha emitters/poisonous cocktails that come out of a fission reactor, amongst which are strontium, americium and polonium (do you remember the Russian defector, Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisened with polonium 210?). These are all alpha emitters as well and are not easily detectable. This sort of crap has been released into the environment by Fukushima and no one is testing for it (admittedly it is difficult to test for).

The IAEA are a complete joke and are just lobbyists for the nuclear industry. You'd think that the WHO would be a bit nobler; alas not: more than a quarter of a century later the WHO are still part of the biggest medical cover-up in history with regard to Chernobyl.

keep the info coming Budapest..Thanks. You don't have to convince me about anything in your posts today.......
We are sleepwalking while the radio rabbits on about dubious bogof deals......

[An_Inspector_Calls]

teamsaint, I've concentrated on plutonium because most people are familiar with it. There are many other alpha emitters/poisonous cocktails that come out of a fission reactor, amongst which are strontium, americium and polonium (do you remember the Russian defector, Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisened with polonium 210?). These are all alpha emitters as well and are not easily detectable. This sort of crap has been released into the environment by Fukushima and no one is testing for it (admittedly it is difficult to test for).

The IAEA are a complete joke and are just lobbyists for the nuclear industry. You'd think that the WHO would be a bit nobler; alas not: more than a quarter of a century later the WHO are still part of the biggest medical cover-up in history with regard to Chernobyl.

You seem to be the sort of person who sees a conspiracy everywhere - a la Foucault perhaps?

I can't think of any studies that have been more open that those conducted by the WHO on Chernobyl, nor the studies carried out after the Japanese nuclear bombs, nor those associated with the developemnt of the LNT model for radiation effects upon health .

Re plutonium (Pu), and its risks. Whilst I would not be chuffed with the idea of several tons of PU being ejected into the atmosphere from Fukishima (a possibility, not a fact, as you state), may I observe that:
(a) Pu is very heavy,the majority of it won't go very far as it will fall back to earth (or sea) quite quickly
(b) if ingested your assertion that one particle (i.e. an atom?) will kill you is utter nonsense
(c) the human body is very poor at assimilating Pu
(d) inhalation is the greater risk (but see (a)) and even so there are data on the effects of health for this as well.
And it must be remembered that the LNT model, whilst based on a radiation exposure, is based on data from populations where their exposure was to both radiation and contamination. And these studies do not indicate high PU toxicity.

[Budapest]

You seem to be the sort of person who sees a conspiracy everywhere - a la Foucault perhaps?

I can't think of any studies that have been more open that those conducted by the WHO on Chernobyl, nor the studies carried out after the Japanese nuclear bombs, nor those associated with the developemnt of the LNT model for radiation effects upon health .

Re plutonium (Pu), and its risks. Whilst I would not be chuffed with the idea of several tons of PU being ejected into the atmosphere from Fukishima (a possibility, not a fact, as you state), may I observe that:
(a) Pu is very heavy,the majority of it won't go very far as it will fall back to earth (or sea) quite quickly
(b) if ingested your assertion that one particle (i.e. an atom?) will kill you is utter nonsense
(c) the human body is very poor at assimilating Pu
(d) inhalation is the greater risk (but see (a)) and even so there are data on the effects of health for this as well.
And it must be remembered that the LNT model, whilst based on a radiation exposure, is based on data from populations where their exposure was to both radiation and contamination. And these studies do not indicate high PU toxicity.

An_Inspector_Calls, I reckon you work for Albanian intelligence, or else you're an agent of the alien lizards who really control the earth.

But seriously, recently a 350 page peer reviewed report was published under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences called Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. This report says that between 1987 and 2004, worldwide 842,000 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster, and of course people will continue to die for a long time to come (you can download a PDF version of the report here). One of the report’s conclusions is as follows:

1. An important lesson from the Chernobyl experience is that experts and organizations tied to the nuclear industry have dismissed and ignored the consequences of the catastrophe.
2. Within only 8 or 9 years after the catastrophe a universal increase in cataracts was admitted by medical officials. The same occurred with thyroid cancer, leukemia, and organic central nervous system disorders. Foot-dragging in recognizing obvious problems and the resultant delays in preventing exposure and mitigating the effects lies at the door of nuclear power advocates more interested in preserving the status quo than in helping millions of innocent people who are suffering through no fault of their own. It need to change official agreement between WHO and IAEA (WHO, 1959) providing hiding from public of any information which can be unwanted of nuclear industry.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment has been translated from Russian into English, and the translator was obviously having a bad day with regard to the last sentence of the above quote. What’s being referred to in that sentence is the agreement between the WHO and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), made in May 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly. Here’s part of that written agreement…

whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.

With regard to WHO studies on the the Japanese bombs and Chernobyl, all medical data was classified top secret for the first 4 years and 3.5 years respectively. In both instances it remains top secret to this day. For their report on Chernobyl the WHO handpicked one hundred medical studies from government agencies of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia (50% of the Chernobyl radiation went beyond the borders of the former USSR). The Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment report uses data from more than 1000 peer reviewed studies done by independent scientists, from all areas effected by Chernobyl radiation.

RE: plutonium, it's Liz's golden jubilee and back in the 50s, whilst visiting a nuclear power station, she was famously handed a lump of plutonium in a plastic bag, so that she could feel how warm it was. Regarding your points: a) if your assertion is correct, it's still getting into the food chain, and with our global economy can still end up on anyone's plate anywhere in the world; b) I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself properly: it's reckoned that one millionth of a gram is lethal; c) can you point me to some studies that show this? d) see what I've written above.

I'm still going to remain paranoid.

[Frances_iom]

...
But seriously, recently a 350 page peer reviewed report was published under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences ...

is http://atomicinsights.com/2011/04/ch...sequences.html relevant - BTW it's Liz's diamond jubilee - the golden one was a decade ago.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I thought you'd cite the work of Yablokov; people like you usually do. It's widely discredited elsewhere in the peer review paper mainly because of the misattribution of European cancer deaths to Chernobyl without any attempt to demonstrate causation.

Well, if the WHO has supressed those reports, it's amazing how anyone deveoped the LNT model isn't it, even though it was in use by the beginning of the 60s (at least)? As for information coming out from Chernobyl: I was in the industry at the time and there was plenty of information forthcoming.

Do the Pu research yourself: it's easy to turn up - I should think even a glance at Wiki will do. It's not as harmful as you make out.

And of course, your body is already riddled with the stuff (as is everyone else on this forum).

[amateur51]

is http://atomicinsights.com/2011/04/ch...sequences.html relevant - BTW it's Liz's diamond jubilee - the golden one was a decade ago.

I tried to follow up the two links referred to in the attached Atomic Insights link to no avail

"Apparently, Mr. Nader does not frequent Atomic Insights (see, for example Chernobyl Consequences – Myths and Fables Versus Science published in September 2010 or Defusing Misinformation About a “New” Chernobyl Study Before it Has Too Much of a Head Start from November 2010). There is no real surprise there." [these are directly linked in the about AI link]

Is it me (it's been known ) or is it a technical goof?

[Budapest]

Frances_iom and An_Inspector_Calls, Atomic Insights is a pro-nuclear lobby group. If you want to refute the report I cited it might be better to link to an organisation that's a bit more neutral. Here's part of what you can find on Frances' Nuclear Insights link...

However, Nader’s point regarding the silent treatment is an important one; a false report that goes unchallenged can develop a life and a credibility that will be difficult to overcome. It is incumbent on the people who have done the real science and found completely contrary results to directly confront the purveyors of falsehoods. We need to help the public understand that the report is not just an opinion and not just a matter of controversy; it is simply wrong.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment uses stats from more than 1000 scientific studies. The likes of 'Atomic Insights' does not address any of this science. Instead they just say it's a "false report"; and who are these people who have done 'the real science'? are they talking about the World Health Organisation? Government scientists from the former USSR? or maybe pixies? If you can point me to some serious science that refutes the report, as opposed to pro-nuclear lobby organisations, I will take notice.

I find it amazing that people still don't believe the true consequences of Chernobyl, despite the mounting scientific evidence and numerous books and documentaries about it. Perhaps the best thing to do is go to the parts of the former USSR that are effected by it, and see for yourself.

And of course, your body is already riddled with the stuff (as is everyone else on this forum).

I was debating this elsewhere, and one person arguing with me said that plutonium is a natural substance found in the environment... as a result of the bomb tests.

It's a bit like Dr Strangelove; and dare I mention the cancer epidemic again.

[MrGongGong]

It's a bit like Dr Strangelove; and dare I mention the cancer epidemic again.

You can but it's about as real as Radio 3's commitment to Jazz

[Budapest]

I tried to follow up the two links referred to in the attached Atomic Insights link to no avail

"Apparently, Mr. Nader does not frequent Atomic Insights (see, for example Chernobyl Consequences – Myths and Fables Versus Science published in September 2010 or Defusing Misinformation About a “New” Chernobyl Study Before it Has Too Much of a Head Start from November 2010). There is no real surprise there." [these are directly linked in the about AI link]

Is it me (it's been known ) or is it a technical goof?

amateur51, here's the links to the articles you provided:

Chernobyl Consequences – Myths and Fables Versus Science

Defusing Misinformation About a “New” Chernobyl

Both are on a web site called 'Atomic Insights', which is run by someone I've never heard of called Rod Adams, who describes himself and his web site as such:

Publisher: Rod Adams – Pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Former Engineer Officer, USS Von Steuben. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast. (see here)

So, Rod has no academic background whatsoever and worked as an officer on a US Navy nuclear vessel. Go look at the Chernobyl Consequences report I cited (you can find it here), see all those doctors, professors, PHDs, MAs, yada, yada, 1000s of them. But Rod, who wears dark sunglasses, and, if I could be bothered to look it up, undoubtedly works for corporate nuclear interests, is to be believed over such credible evidence.

I repeat, if you want to persuade me that the huge number of cancer deaths is not linked to the likes of Chernobyl you'll have to provide better evidence than someone called 'Rod'.

It's absolutely terrifying how astroturfing has completely misled people. It's also criminal.

[amateur51]

amateur51, here's the links to the articles you provided:

Chernobyl Consequences – Myths and Fables Versus Science

Defusing Misinformation About a “New” Chernobyl

Both are on a web site called 'Atomic Insights', which is run by someone I've never heard of called Rod Adams, who describes himself and his web site as such:

Publisher: Rod Adams – Pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Former Engineer Officer, USS Von Steuben. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast. (see here)

So, Rod has no academic background whatsoever and worked as an officer on a US Navy nuclear vessel. Go look at the Chernobyl Consequences report I cited (you can find it here), see all those doctors, professors, PHDs, MAs, yada, yada, 1000s of them. But Rod, who wears dark sunglasses, and, if I could be bothered to look it up, undoubtedly works for corporate nuclear interests, is to be believed over such credible evidence.

I repeat, if you want to persuade me that the huge number of cancer deaths is not linked to the likes of Chernobyl you'll have to provide better evidence than someone called 'Rod'.

It's absolutely terrifying how astroturfing has completely misled people. It's also criminal.

Many thanks for your trouble, Budapest

[Budapest]

You can but it's about as real as Radio 3's commitment to Jazz

With regard to jazz, this one might not everyone's cup of tea, but it might lighten this thread a bit (it's a YouTube vid)...

Spyro Gyra - Morning Dance

(I'm now dancing around my desk, trying to forget about this crazy fecked-up world)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Budapest,

Perhaps it might be useful to table some of the details of that first reference you gave Amateur51.

From that, here's the description of the study conducted this centrury by the WHO (and admirably reported in an Horizon programme a few years back):
"An inter-agency initiative, the Chernobyl Forum, was launched in 2003 to provide assessments of the environmental, health, and socio-economic consequences of the Chernobyl accident. The following UN organizations (FAO, IAEA, OCHA, UNDP, UNEP, UNSCEAR, WHO), the World Bank and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine joined the efforts to generate “authoritative consensual statements” on the environmental and health consequences attributable to radiation exposure arising from the accident and provide evidence-based recommendations for mitigation of these consequences."

You would have us believe that FAO, IAEA, OCHA, UNDP, UNEP, UNSCEAR, WHO are all fellow conspirators?

Next, concerning the report you believe and advocate, the driving force behind the report:
The preface of the report states that the writing was undertaken “with the initiative of Greenpeace International”. The acknowledgement states that the authors “provided original material or reviews of specific topics to Greenpeace International,” and ends by saying, “This English edition would have been impossible without Dr. Janette Shennan-Nevinger, who tirelessly scientifically edited our very rough translation.” Sherman-Nevinger is known for, inter alia, her work with Alec Baldwin and Ernest Sternglass on the discredited Tooth Fairy Project

And the scientific/statistical rigour of the report you think so highly of:
The report’s version of the Chernobyl incident is dramatically different from the scientific consensus. Possible reasons include the following:

a. The introduction to the report states the reason that it is not an acceptable voice for science: It blatantly denies the legitimacy of the scientific method. “Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation based disease require a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility. … It is not necessary to calculate standard errors … Today’s ‘scientific protocols’ with, for example, ‘confidence intervals’ and ‘case control’ are not perfect. … It is correct and justified for the whole of society … to use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts.”

In other words, one can report a much larger number of “Chernobyl victims” if not limited by the usual scientific practice of using only direct correlation of statistically significant data. That is certainly true. The data cited in this report were accumulated by stumbling across correlations of various illnesses of symptoms, regardless of where such symptoms have ever been known to result from irradiation. Most have not. Conceding that such post hoc pattern building is generally discouraged by scientists, the authors argue that in the Chernobyl situation, it is required. There is no attempt to replicate or peer-review the data. The need for statistical significance is specifically denied.

b. The author’s theory of radiation damage is bizarre. “One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: Only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flow… We simply do not know when a only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature.” Water flow in a toilet works that way because it has a siphon; a glass of water does not. But more important, no evidence is offered to support this unorthodox theory of radiation damage. “Exposed to radiation” does not necessarily mean injured, as implied.

c. Fear of radiation was rampant and deep seated, and government actions were confusing and contradictory. Several of the medical specialists who investigated the aftereffects of Chernobyl noted that fear of radiation could by itself explain the spread of depression, alcoholism, absenteeism, drug abuse, sleeplessness, and the symptoms that such ills create and sustain. One example: Prior to 1986, the rate of abortions downwind of Chernobyl was fairly constant. The following year showed an additional 50,000 to 100,000 abortions, which thereafter returned to nearly the previous level. This is presumably because physicians advising pregnant women were ill-informed about the after effects of low-dose radiation and added to the problem, rather than alleviating it. It was repeatedly reported that fear of radiation was more destructive than the radiation itself.

d. The Ukrainian government offered incentives for citizens to declare themselves “Chernobyl victims.” The original contract with the Soviet government promised that any person injured by the reactor would be fully taken care of, at the expense of the Russian government. This provision came to include housing, hospitalization, and other medical care and cash. The program became so lavish and expensive that resentment grew against the “victims,” who were judged to be parasites. There were even fund-raising tours through the United States and elsewhere by malformed ‘Chernobyl victims” who didn’t even all live in or near Chernobyl.

e. Radioactivity does not possess all the scary properties attributed to it in the report. The report claims as “damage” a wide range of symptoms extending far beyond those previously shown to result from irradiation.