The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The Japanese will have the statistics of the consequences of radioactive matter on one hand and their jobs and homes on the other hand. A Geiger counter doesn't help. There are hot spots and there are spots that are cleaner.
Imagine people who have just got a real job, hope for a career, pay a mortgage for a home that they can't sell because more people leave than move into the area. A high cancer rate doesn't mean everyone gets cancer. There will even be healthy children being born, even if there is a high rate of disabilities. What would you do, move away?
And what will people do who don't live in Japan, but live near a nuke that so far hasn't melted down, but it could? Or people who are told that a new plant is planned in their area?
How much has the still birth rate in Japan risen so far? That should be showing up by now, and it should be at its peak, surely? The radiation level is dropping all the time, as far as I know.
Fukushima, Tokyo log fewer births | The Japan Times Online
The number of births between April and June slumped 25 percent in Fukushima Prefecture and also declined significantly in Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures, but the tally rose in northern and western Japan, a recent survey showed. The Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which conducted the nationwide survey, believes many pregnant evacuees gave birth in areas they considered to be at less risk of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear crisis.
The number of births between April and June slumped 25 percent in Fukushima Prefecture and also declined significantly in Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures, but the tally rose in northern and western Japan, a recent survey showed.
The Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which conducted the nationwide survey, believes many pregnant evacuees gave birth in areas they considered to be at less risk of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear crisis.
I also found this:
573 deaths 'related to nuclear crisis' : National : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri)
A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey. This number could rise because certification for 29 people remains pending while further checks are conducted....A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster...
A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.
This number could rise because certification for 29 people remains pending while further checks are conducted.
...A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster...
IOW these deaths are (prbably) not related to radiation or pollution, but evacuation conditions. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And again, ingesting or inhaling radioactives is not as carciogenic as you would think. People who had accidents while working in the bomb programmes have gone on to die of heartfailure at age ninety with plutonium in their bodies.
People who had accidents while working in the bomb programmes have gone on to die of heartfailure at age ninety with plutonium in their bodies.
sounds rather like " My grandmother smoked 40 a day and died in her bed at age 90" Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
It is exactly like that.
In other words duplicitous propaganda by means of anecdote?
Okay, Radiation is a carciogen. A carciogen very like all other carciogens. If I came across as trying to deny that radiation causes cancer, then I am very sorry, because the science behind the link is based on very large samples both in animal experiments and follow up studies on accidential human exposure and these data have been gone over with an astonishingly fine comb over and over again. Radiation is one of the most well understood carciogens. And one of the things which is very well understood about radiation is exactly how powerful a carciogen it is. If you get so-and-so many extra rems, then publically available statistics will tell you exactly how much this increased your lifetime risk of cancer above the baseline. Radiation levels are also very easy to measure. - basic Geiger counters good enough to detect even very minor variations in background radiation can be bought for the price of a resturant meal, or built by anyone capable of reading basic blueprints and not soldering their own tumb onto a circut board. Scientific grade radiation measurement equipment is even more ridiculusly sensitive, and ubiquitous because it is so very useful in nearly every branch of science. What this means is that the level of additional radiation in northern japan is not in doubt. A conspiracy to lie about it would simply not work - the published numbers have to be correct, because anyone and everyone down to highschool students looking to score extra credits can check them.
Finally, northern japan just did not recive enough rems to do anything to the cancer rate. Which is why I objected so vorciousferly to the "uninhabitable" claim. It is simply wrong. The evacuation zone did recive doses that would statistically matter, but the only people in it at that point in time were the emergency workers.
My daughter used to eat lots of sand when she was a baby. I don't know why, but try to argue with a baby... Do you seriously believe I would have used a Geiger counter to see how much sand she could eat without increasing her risk of cancer in a statistically relevant way?! I wouldn't have taken her to the beach, if I had had reason to suspect radioactivity there and that's that. And then I would have raised hell about nukes (I have always done that anyway).
I could write a terribly long post about the contamination after Chernobyl and compare it to northern Japan, but what for? Fortunately even CEO's of nuclears admit that nuclear power is too expensive to be considered if its dangers can somehow be downplayed. Hey, it's too expensive anyway! We are flogging a dead horse here.
Alpha radiation: short range, low energy, easier to miss with a casual screening with the detector, harmless outside the body. Deadly if ingested/inhaled. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Radiation is a carciogen, but it is a relatively weak one. heck, it gets used to treat cancers.
Katrin:
I am talking about radioactive matter which you eat or inhale
And again, ingesting or inhaling radioactives is not as carciogenic as you would think.
Look at it this way: alpha emission is short range even in air and won't set off detectors at a distance like beta or gamma will. In addition, it will be stopped by the skin. So alpha in the environment is harmless. But if you ingest it, the beta and gamma will mosly just fly out of your body as if it were transparent but the alpha will be deposited in your body in its entirety. And it won't be stopped by a layer of dead skin cells but the energy will be deposited in live tissue in the respiratory, digestive, or circulatory systems. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Because of the short range of absorption, alphas are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled, in which case they become extremely dangerous. Because of this high mass and strong absorption, if alpha-emitting radionuclides do enter the body (upon being inhaled, ingested, or injected, as with the use of Thorotrast for high-quality X-ray images prior to the 1950s), alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, and with large enough doses can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of gamma or beta radiation, with the average being set at 20 times. ...
by DoDo - May 23 39 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2339 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments