[LINK] Match Koltai - Was Fukushima scaremongers becoming increasingly desperate

Sat Mar 26 20:55:12 AEDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
> Sent: Saturday, 26 March 2011 4:52 PM
> To: link
> Cc: Bernard Robertson-Dunn
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Fukushima scaremongers becoming 
> increasingly desperate
> 
> 
> > Fukushima scaremongers becoming increasingly desperate
> > Dead horse long ago flogged down to a mere red stain
> > By Lewis Page
> > Posted in Physics, 25th March 2011 16:22 GMT
> > The Register 
> > 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debun
> > k/
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > This is beyond ignorance now.
> 
> So if leaking and overheated reactors, with broken down fuel 
> rods, are of so little concern, why does anyone bother with 
> secondary containment buildings?  Why is the fuel sealed in 
> helium inside zirconium alloy tubes?  Why is the water which 
> touches the outside of these tubes normally prevented from 
> being released to the atmosphere by the reactor vessel and 
> the secondary containment building?
> 
> Because ionising radiation is DANGEROUS, including being 
> carcinogenic - and because reactors contain 50 to 100 tonnes 
> of fuel, which contains or can release large amounts of short 
> to moderate half-life radioactive isotopes which are 
> extremely damaging to all living things.
> 
> Considering how out of control the situation has been, and to 
> a lesser extent still is - with huge explosions and now 
> evidence that the reactor vessel of unit 3 is leaking liquid 
> water - its a wonder that there hasn't been wider 
> contamination of Japanese land and people.  This has been 
> largely due to the wind generally blowing the contaminated 
> air out to sea.  Also, it would not have been at all 
> surprising if the cores had melted down in one or more of the 
> three reactors which went for a day or several days without 
> even evaporative cooling - after the initial withdrawal of 
> workers last week.
> 
> I think most of the concern about nuclear power is perfectly 
> reasonable
> - the risk of accidents, including meltdowns or other 
> releases of radioactive steam and gas etc. from the reactor 
> vessel, and the long-term costs and dangers of storing the 
> waste.  This doesn't include people freaking out right now in 
> California because tiny amounts of radioactive iodine have 
> reached there, or downing large amounts of iodine based on 
> over-estimating the low levels of radiation most people have 
> suffered so far.
> 
> What I find most extraordinary is the extremes some 
> pro-nuclear folks are going to to present this reasonable 
> concern and alarm (reactor buildings exploding is *not* good 
> . . . ) as "scaremongering".
> 
> There are even some pro-nuclear people who indicate black and 
> white choices, as if nuclear power firstly could save us from 
> CO2 caused climate change (which it obviously can't) and as 
> if it is the only or the best way of tackling CO2 emissions.  
> For instance, from Barry Brook in Adelaide:
> 
>   It's nuclear power or it's climate change
>   http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/24/np-or-cc/
> 
> My best guess is that these people have some inordinate 
> affection or love of big, shiny, expensive, complex, power 
> generation systems, which involve exotic physics and lots of money.

Dear Robin and other persons exhibiting similar strong nuclear phobias.

Unfortunately, the pro-nuclear lobby are correct, we do not have an over
abundance of realistic alternative energy choices, as several events
have managed to reach criticality simultaneously; Peak oil. Carbon
particle poisoning of human lungs and of course global warming and
dimming. "The end is nigh" as they say and unless you want to see the
end of civilisation as we know it, possibly an open mind is in order.

Am I saying that Nuclear energy is safe ? Nope. But it's a lot safer
than the chnemicals that have been preserving our foods, the pollution
in our air and the myriad of deaths from car and motor bike accidents.

Road Toll for NSW 1908 to 2009 67,946 (the bumper year for road
accidents [1]) was 1970 with 1309 fatalities.)

Total deaths from nuclear related accidents in NSW since the HIFAR went
critical (Lucas Heights switchon) at 11:15 pm local time on January 26,
1958 and under load since 1962, would be zero. [2]

 Road Toll for NSW from date of HIFAR criticality  till 2009 46,984

 Mesothelioma [asbestos carcinogenic related] deaths since 1960 =
estimated 10,000 - Predictions for the next 40 years, 25,000 deaths.[3]

Skin Cancer [Ionising Cosmic Radiation @ sea level]
There were 3,559 new cases of melanoma in NSW in 2006 (2,171 male and
1,388 female). This represents 10.9% of all new male and 9.1% of all new
female cases of cancer in NSW. In 2006, melanoma was the third most
common cancer in both males and females (Tracey et al., 2008). 
In 2006, there were 451 deaths from melanoma (293 males and 157
females), according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics mortality
data. The NSW Central Cancer Registry (CCR) reports different figures:
454 deaths overall (301 in males and 153 in females). [4]

Murder, In 1995, there were 321 cases of murder in Australia, an average
of about one a day. [5]

Cosmic Radiation from Flying [@ 10,000 metres above sea level].
In 1997 I received a letter from United Airlines telling me that I had
flown in excess of 1 million miles.
At 747-200/400 cruising speed and intercontinental altitude parlance,
that equals 2 months and eight days in the air.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency "International Basic
Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the
Safety of Radiation Sources". For European countries, the most recent
version of which is outlined in directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996
lays down then basic safety standards for the safety of nuclear workers
and the general public.

The annual exposure dose limit for a member of general public [not
nuclear worker] is 1 milli-Sieverts (mSv) with occupational limits set
at 5 mSv. The exposure dose from cosmic radiation at flight altitudes is
usually no higher than 0.005 mSv per hour unless flying over the poles
in which case multiple by at least three. Rough estimates show that it
will take a minimum a 200 flight hours to approach annual dose limit for
general public. Cosmic Radiation Table at bottom of [6]

So I guess in 1997, I got irradiated and should now be shopping around
for a coffin.

I now quote from a lengthy paper entitled: Medical response to radiation
incidents and radionuclear threats which summarises all the nuclear
accidents over the last six decades.

For those that don't wish to read the entire (rather boring paper), the
takeaway is:

Quote/ [Excerpt @ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC381053/]
Between 1944 and 2002, 134 deaths were registered from 420 incidents
worldwide, including 28 radiation deaths among reactor operators and
fire fighters in the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.
/Quote.

Now could we stop discussing it, please. Or could we move this rather
moribund discussion to alt.rec.henny.penny

[1]
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_200
9.pdf
[2] http://dl.nfsa.gov.au/module/56/
[3] Professor Julian Peto is a University of Melbourne 2008 Meigunyah
Distinguished Visiting Fellow. http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5164/
[4]
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/can/can_melacdth.asp
[5]
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2
/8F1F383829EF039FCA2570EC001B2FC4
[6]
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/Factsheets/is_cosmic.cfm

Additional reading for the truly anti nuclear lobby:

HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT:  RESULTS OF 15-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
STUDIES
http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/programs/response/cherno/conference/con
cl.html

Postscript: An open mind has been proven to prevent the sky from
falling.

TomK 