[LINK] Dangers of FUD about Nuclear power

Sun Mar 27 21:28:49 AEDT 2011

You're right Philip, Nuclear power is as deadly as the sun. (I'm
learning, I've been hanging around lawyers a lot... :<)   )

I hate FUD. It might sell newspapers but doesn't help the people of the
world survive; we'll return to FUD in a few minutes. 

Qualifier:
This entire topic is waay over my head. I am not a physicist nor am I
capable of even understanding a miniscule of the science surrounding the
dangers of radioactive power generation.

Anecdotally, I lived in the Northern Territory for almost two decades
(on and off) and swam on a regular basis in water holes with radiation
levels above what Japan have officially reported from their recent
incident.

Before the Government National Parked the entire area, I used to camp on
top of the Rainbow Snake where according to Aboriginal lore, the world
was born. Yep radioactive, you might know it under another name,
Jabiru...

But as a person that knows how to source and read others research into
various topics and having a smattering of understanding of the general
import of what they are getting at, I will attempt to pass on a
microscopic amount of the gleaned knowledge, as an unqualified lay
person, if only to pique the interest of persons that here-to-fore chose
to blindly believe the seven o'clock news.

Without further ado, we start at the Moon. That planet that affects the
emotions of us all every 29.5 days (not that I'm especially espousing
astrology...):

A recent Japanese research report suggests:
Quote/: [From: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bss/22/2/59/_pdf]
Radiation Doses for Human Exposed to Galactic Cosmic Rays and Their
Secondary Products on the Lunar Surface.

Abstract On the lunar surface, every human being would be exposed to
galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and their
secondary products such as gamma rays and neutrons. For the human
activity on the lunar surface in the future,
it is important to estimate the effect of these particles on radiation
doses. The annual ambient dose equivalent on
the lunar surface was estimated on the basis of the latest observational
data of GCRs. It is found that the annual
ambient dose equivalent amount to about 570 mSv/yr during the
intermediate period between the maximum and
the minimum phases of the solar activity. This amount of dose is mainly
produced from primary components of
GCRs heavier than proton and helium nuclei. The annual ambient dose
equivalent due to iron nuclei during this
period is about 130 mSv/yr, more than 20% of the total dose on the lunar
surface. Moreover, the dose due to these
neutrons among the secondary particles reaches 50 mSv/yr, suggesting
that the dose due to neutrons must be
considered from the viewpoint of the human activity on the lunar
surface.

Kanako Hayatsu, Makoto Hareyama, Shingo Kobayashi, Naoyuki Yamashita,
Mitsuhiro Miyajim, Kunitomo Sakurai and Nobuyuki Hasebe; "Radiation
Doses for Human Exposed to Galactic Cosmic Rays and Their Secondary
Products on the Lunar Surface", Biol. Sci. Space, Vol. 22, pp.59-66
(2008) .
/Quote

Shame that report wasn't done before Neil and Buzz popped up there...

Philip, you said:

> The Sun generates heat and light from fusion.  The 40 year 
> old boiling water reactors in Japan generate heat from 
> fission.  Anyone who doesn't know the difference should not 
> participate in the debate.  -(:-)=
> 
> Philip

Actually, the radiation from both the Sun and Nuclear Power plants is
ionising and invisible.
Therefore the fuel or the reaction is not what concerns the public, it's
the FUD that's been created around the invisible voodoo that can burn
your skin.

Unfortunately, Slip Slap Slop doesn't work with >500 mSv of radioactive
emissions, so as a rule, standing in an environment like the top of Mt.
Everest, any spot on the moon facing the sun or under a big hole in the
ozone layer is really not recommended.

So now the only thing we need to figure out is what causes holes in
ozone layers ?

Clue number one: It is often burned as a source of warmth and fuel.
Clue number two: It is much much much safer than Uranium.
Clue number three: The Chlorides and Fluorides it gives off pollute our
lungs and create enormous holes in the ozone layer at the same time.

References:
============
The Relationship of Skin Cancer Prevalence and the Increase in
Ultraviolet-B Exposure due to Ozone Depletion
[http://www.ciesin.org/TG/HH/ozskin1.html]

Ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) damages human skin: Acute exposure causes
sunburn and chronic exposure results in loss of elasticity and increased
aging. Some individuals, usually those living in areas with limited
sunlight and long dark winters, may also suffer severe photo-allergies
to the UV-B in sunlight. Increased absorption of UV-B triggers a
thickening of the superficial skin layers and an increase in skin
pigmentation, which act to protect the skin against future sunburns.
This protective mechanism also makes the skin more vulnerable to skin
cancer, however. Strong evidence exists of a dose-response relationship
between nonmelanoma skin cancer and cumulative exposure to UV-B
radiation. Increased risk of malignant melanoma is associated with
episodes of acute exposure that result in severe sunburns, especially
those that occur during childhood. In general, the incidence of
nonmelanoma and malignant melanoma skin cancer has increased
significantly over the past few decades, particularly in the United
States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavian
countries. Researchers are examining the relationship of the growing
risk of skin cancer to increases in ground-level UV-B radiation due to
ozone depletion.

Many sources offer good descriptions of skin cancer as one of the health
effects from increased UV-B. In "Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Effects on
Biological Systems," <http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-503/001-503.html>
Diffey (1991) provides a detailed account of the relationship of UV-B
exposure to skin cancer. Longstreth et al. contribute substantial
information about the relationship between UV-B radiation and skin
cancer in the chapter "Human Health"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-518/001-518.html>  of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) 1991 report Environmental Effects of Ozone
Depletion. Another summary appears in "Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and
its Relationship to Skin Cancer"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-497/001-497.html>  by doctors Amron and
Moy (1991).

Several articles analyze the relationship of skin cancer prevalence to
the increase in ultraviolet radiation due to the depletion of
stratospheric ozone. In the chapter "Skin Cancer and Ultraviolet Light"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-517/001-517.html>  of Global Atmospheric
Change and Public Health, Longstreth (1990) emphasizes that before
evaluating the potential impact of increased UV-B radiation on skin
cancer, understanding the current dose-response relationship between
UV-B exposure and skin cancer is necessary. This, in turn, requires
knowing how the flux of UV-B varies by location and time. In addition to
providing a good summary of the data available, Longstreth includes a
figure showing the variation in ultraviolet radiation (UVR) by month for
Washington, D.C. Other studies couple data from cancer-incidence surveys
with actual measurements of UV-B exposure levels at specific geographic
locations.

More than a decade ago, Scotto, Fears, and Fraumeni provided an early
study of the problem in the 1981 report Incidence of Non-Melanoma Skin
Cancer in the United States
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-526/001-526.html> . Fears and Scotto
(1983) focus on the impact of ozone depletion in "Estimating Increases
in Skin Cancer Morbidity due to Increases in Ultraviolet Radiation
Exposure." <http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-543/001-543.html>  In "The
Association of Solar Ultraviolet and Skin Melanoma Incidence Among
Caucasians in the United States,"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-525/001-525.html>  Scotto and Fears
(1987) create complex mathematical models that supplement the basic data
with information on age, skin color, ancestry, other physical
attributes, outdoor behavior, and other potential confounding factors
gathered from general population interview studies conducted at those
locations. In "Melanoma Mortality and Exposure to Ultraviolet
Radiation," <http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-521/001-521.html>  Pitcher
and Longstreth (1991) use a National Air and Space Administration (NASA)
satellite-based model to estimate ambient levels of ultraviolet
radiation and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/National Cancer
Institute (NCI) database for the death rates from skin cancer to study
the relationship in the United States over a 30-year period. They find a
highly statistically significant association between all measures of
dose and mortality due to melanoma.

Several European studies explore the relationship between skin cancer
and ultraviolet radiation. In "Ultraviolet-Radiation and Skin Cancer,"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-509/001-509.html>  Henriksen et al.
(1990) consider the large variation in annual UV-dose from northern to
southern latitudes in Norway from 1970 to 1980 to quantify the
relationship between environmental effective UV-dose and incidence of
different types of skin cancer. Their results indicate that the
incidence rates of malignant melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer
increase directly with the annual environmental UV-doses occurring in
the four latitudinal regions examined. In "The Relationship between Skin
Cancers, Solar Radiation and Ozone Depletion,"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-520/001-520.html>  Moan and Dahlback
(1992) contend, however, that the dramatic increases in the annual
age-adjusted incidence rate of malignant melanoma from 1957 to 1984 were
not accompanied by increases in exposure to ultraviolet radiation, based
on measured ozone levels. They conclude that ozone depletion could not
be responsible for increases in skin cancer rates. In their Lancet
commentary "Skin Cancer and the Ozone Shield,"
<http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-528/001-528.html>  Staehelin et al.
(1990) also maintain that the increasing incidence of skin cancer in
Switzerland must be attributed primarily to human behavioral changes
rather than ozone depletion. Still, there is agreement that current and
future increases in ultraviolet radiation exposure due to ozone
depletion will exacerbate the trend toward higher incidence of melanoma.

References for Kooks and Dummies:

Eeek Hole in the Ozone Layer
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/ozonlayr.htm

TomK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Philip Argy
> Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 5:35 PM
> To: 'Link list'
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Dangers of Nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On > Behalf Of Tom 
> Koltai
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:41 PM
> To: 'Kim Holburn'; 'Link list'
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Dangers of Nuclear power (was Re: 
> Moderation note:Attempting to suppress....
> 
>  [-snip-]
> 
> You would do what we do with the other reactor that's too hot 
> too touch....
> 
> Cover it up and hope that it doesn't go critical.
> 
> The other reactor? Oh we call that the sun. 
> 
> Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to 
> the previous 11,000 years 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n701> 2/abs/nature02995.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/lin> k
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/lin> k
> 