Gentlemen,
As fascinating as this discussion is, other than Julie and Larry's
Digital Geiger counter project, the rest of this discussion has little to do
with the core subjects that this list is intended for. If you wish to
continue, please take the discussion off-list.
-Mike
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM, marbux <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:51 AM, JS Kaplan <kg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I have set off radiation detectors at Schipol, Newark, Gatwick, and
> > Dulles airports.
> > Big deal. Usually flights crossing the Rockies and those
> > near-circumpolar flights
> > to Europe are exposed to higher radiation than normal. Triggering a
> detector
> > in and of itself is no cause for alarm nor is it indicative of global
> > radiation
> > contamination.
>
> I agree that in isolation such information would not be conclusive
> evidence.
>
> > Then you are aware of the importance of not being an environmental
> > whack job. Having the most reliable data and keeping clear of bandwagon
> > hysteria ploys separates the geeks from the freaks. Scaring the public is
> > a tactic and usually isn't a means to make friends.
>
> The "environmental whack job" you're talking to has won a large number
> of lawsuits involving toxic substances where both human exposure and
> the resulting hazard and injuries were squarely at issue, despite the
> concerted efforts of the best lawyers multinational polluters could
> hire. Which is but to say that I've managed to convince both judges
> and juries that my case was solid.
>
> I also hope that you might agree that false reports of safety are far
> more dangerous than false reports of hazard, since the former tend to
> result in people not taking precautionary measures.
>
> As to your "scare tactic" allegation, so far I haven't said a word
> about the hazard, only explained that Jim's following statement was
> erroneous:
>
> "The amount of radiation you can expect to receive is zero. Anyone who
> tells you that we in the U.S.A. are going to receive any dose at all
> is ignorant of how this works, or is trying to sell advertising."
>
> > What isotope has been released with that kind of half-life?
>
> I guess you haven't been paying close attention to the relevant news
> reports. At Fukushima, reactor plant 3 lost coolant and exposed at
> least the top three meters of its fuel rods to the atmosphere,
> resulting in at least partial fuel rod melting and at least several
> releases of radioactivity. Still unresolved is whether that reactor's
> spent fuel pool also lost coolant. Wikipedia has been doing a pretty
> fair job of keeping up with the situation at that plant.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Reactor_unit_3
> >.
>
> Reactor 3 uses mixed uranium and plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. It takes
> little study of the partial meltdown situation thus presented to
> comprehend that both uranium-238 and plutonium oxide would be among
> the components of the radioactivity that was released from this plant.
>
> How do you
> > suppose
> > it will hitch a ride across the entire Pacific Ocean
>
> Perhaps rather than writing another treatise for your benefit, I could
> refer you to The New York Times report of a leaked U.N. Comprehensive
> Test Ban Treaty Organization report predicting that fallout from the
> Fukushima plants would reach the U.S. by March 18?
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?_r=2&hp>.
> Really, this is a no-brainer if one understands even a smattering of
> the science involving particulates suspended in airborne aerosols.
>
> and in what
> > quantities?
>
> I don't know and neither does anyone else, despite the multitude of
> public relations statements being spewed on mainstream media about the
> expected doses being harmless to human health.
>
> Perhaps
> > there might be a future issue outside of Japan, but for now seeing as
> Japan
> > imports almost everything and is in pretty piss poor shape, how about
> > lending
> > a hand over there before sending premature alarms up here?
>
> Sorry. I've made a financial contribution but don't expect to do much
> more than that. I've got other fish to fry.
>
> I have lived
> > through
> > Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Russian and Chinese nuke tests and my
> mom
> > and uncle were exposed to more fallout in the 40's and 50's and we are
> > doing fine.
>
> Let's see ... That sampling of three people can tell me exactly what
> about a potential cancer incidence of 1 per million people exposed,
> which would still cause hundreds of deaths in the U.S.? The fact that
> you weren't hit by a bolt of lightning is no proof that no one is ever
> hit by lightning. Your argument is a logical fallacy.
>
> The regulatory posture of the federal government remains unchanged
> since the seminal work in 1979:
>
> "The self-replicating nature of cancer, the multiplicity
> of causative factors to which individuals can be exposed, the
> additive and possibly synergistic combination of effects, and the
> wide range of individual susceptibilities work together in making it
> currently unreliable to predict a threshold below which human
> population exposure to a carcinogen has no effect on cancer risk."
>
> Inter-Agency Regulatory Liaison Group Work Group Report on the
> Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and
> Estimation of Risks." 44 Federal Register 39869, 39876 (July 6,
> 1979).
>
> And for that reason, government risk assessments for carcinogens
> assume a linear relationship between dose and response, that there is
> no "safe" dose of a carcinogen.
>
> More directly to the point, no one yet has even proposed a
> pharmacological mechanism by which substances that cause cancer might
> have a "no effect" level. At least in theory, a single atom or
> molecule of a cancer-causing substance that acts at the genetic level
> can trigger uncontrolled cell division. Moreover, we still have no
> means whatsoever for assessing the risks of substances -- like some
> varieties of radio-active particles --- that cause cell mutations.
>
> Yet we are currently being bombarded with "news" reports that the
> fall-out from the Japanese reactors will result in doses so low in the
> U.S. that there will be no risk. Such statements have no scientific
> basis. There will be risk, although the severity of the risk is
> debatable. But such debate --- if principled --- will frankly admit at
> the outset that there will be a very wide degree of scientific
> uncertainty in any conclusion reached as to the risk.
>
> > I think I'll take Mr. Darrough's opinion seeing as he actually works
> > inside Oregon
> > State's reactor and has seen duty on two US nuclear wessles.
>
> That makes it all the more important that when Jim writes something
> that is erroneous, the error should be brought to his attention,
> correct? Or perhaps you think bug reports are a useless exercise?
>
> > Folks, I am usually among the first to call conspiratorial foul and yell
> > about
> > government greed and disinformation. I also have a son stationed 40 miles
> > from Tokyo who has yet to be recalled. The fact is, Japan is very far
> away
> > and the nuclear radiation emitted from these disasters, while dangerous
> > at the sites, is not YET a threat outside Japan.
>
> That is a mere wish, not an established fact. I am very sorry that
> your son has not been evacuated from Japan along with the families of
> members of the military and of the State Department. It's very
> unfortunate, but the U.S. government has a long and sordid history of
> needlessly exposing members of its military to harmful levels of
> radiation (in atomic bomb testing).
>
> But that might be fairly attributed to those who have arrived at the
> wrong answer to the question, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one
> saw it, did it fall?" The slimy part of atomic energy is the history
> of doses once claimed to be safe that turned out to be harmful, claims
> that were based on no more than scientific uncertainty, on no one
> having seen that tree fall.
>
> > Can we keep guessing, non-primary sourced information, agendas, and
> > emotional
> > content not pertinent to Linux etc off of here?
>
> Like you just did? I did not start this conversation. I merely brought
> an error to the attention of the person who did start the thread. I
> agree that the discussion is off-topic, but writing a rant on the same
> subject and ending it with a plea for no more to be said exhibits just
> a bit of a double standard, yes? If you wanted to ask that the
> conversation end, I think it would have been more appropriate not to
> continue it yourself in the same post.
>
> If you want to make
> > statements
> > and suppositions prior to any damaging affect reaching Oregon, how about
> > posting them on cnn.com or in the Weekly please?
>
> No. Because I've nowhere else seen anyone claim that zero fallout from
> the Japan nuclear incidents would reach the U.S. Even the folks who
> claim that the doses will be harmless acknowledge that the fallout is
> going to reach our shores. Jim was in error and I called the bug to
> his attention.
>
> I responded where the subject was raised by someone else. Why no
> similar plea to the others who posted in this off-topic thread? Oh
> yeah. It 's because I'm an "environmental whack-job." Right.
>
> Name-calling "usually isn't a means to make friends."
>
> Best regards anyway,
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> EUGLUG mailing list
> euglug@euglug.org
> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
>
--
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. -- Richard Feynman
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
