[LINK] Nuke station radiation

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Regards there being NO safe level for radiation and cancer, it appears
perhaps I must clarify emails by noting the type of radiation exposure.

For example, regarding general UV radiation, Jan writes,

>> It's not irrational to fear and doubt something if it's clearly poison
>
> What sort of radiation? Sunlight is radiation. 

Yes, and so that's why, "Australia has one of the highest rates of skin 
cancer in the world. At least two in three Australians will be diagnosed 
with skin cancer by the age of 70. Over 1,000 Australians are treated for 
skin cancer every day (and) the major cause of skin cancer is exposure to 
ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun" <www.sunsmart.com.au/skin_cancer>

> Nearly every object on the planet emits radiation. I think that is what 
> is going on here -- blanket generalisations to a public that doesn't
> have a basic science understanding. Homework .. 
> http://people.reed.edu/~emcmanis/radiation.html

True Jan, and when you read this website you have quoted, you will note:

"I separated these doses received on a short timescale (in a day) and 
doses received over a longer timescale (a year) for a reason.  *A dose 
which is acute, that is, received over a short period of time, has a much 
greater biological effect than one received over longer periods of time* 
This is because radiation acts by depositing energy in tissue, damaging 
your cells. Very minor damage, repeated often, will be better repaired 
than a major assault ..  Both the timing and absolute dose determine the 
effect -- for eg, 1 Sv over the course of 20 years (a US radiation worker 
receiving his or her limit for the year 20 years in a row) will not cause 
radiation poisoning, but a dose of 1 Sv over 5 minutes certainly will."

So, see the point? By saying under 100 Sv is 'safe' is simply a nonsense.

According to your website just 1 Sv exposure can certainly mean a cancer.

Now see what I mean? To quote background radiation is irrelevant, because
it's over years, and even for sunlight, is not all that concentrated. But
*any* damaged nuclear power station emission radiation is quick and dirty
and, can possibly result in a cancer over a very short time period indeed.

So i say yet again, it is shameful that Tokyo Power Co is still so silent.

Whatever, as Tom also writes, it's about time we moved on from this topic?

Cheers,
Stephen