Agree. It is these unjustified upper limits on radiation and chemical toxins
that put huge undue costs on society. Cancer risks are lower with hormetic
levels of radiation, optimized at no less than 100 mSv/yr. 100 to 1000 mSv
spread over the year's time stimulates the immune and DNA repair mechanisms,
reduces neoplasms. Higher radon levels in house reduces (!) lung cancer
incidences.
http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf
http://radiationhormesis.vpinf.com/ has links
Whether LENR turns out to be more economic than fission plants will be seen.
The small modular buried fission plants coming up are more costly per KWh than
traditional large fission plants, but can be located close to the load in each
city. These may have an important interim future (misguided greens and
reluctant regulators notwithstanding.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alain Sepeda
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective
where did you get that numbers.
probably bad usage of the false no threshold linear law, that green abuse
despite it is proved false since long.
the estimated death toll, taking into account
- the fast response
- the facts that even the worst evacuated zone don't cause more tha
30mSv/year and that small long term effect start from 200mSv fast dose for
adult, and 100mSv fast dose for kids
- the fact that only few workers get less than 1Sv (level where short terme
effet appears, better cured today that in the 50s), about 600mSv
- the fact that in tchernobyl the main health problem where family violence,
alcoolism, suicide, caused by stress of moving, and fear or radiation, with a
rate of 1000 suicide, plus violences...
- the fact that the main radiation death were 10-20% of the few hundred
suicide firemen that receive many Sv, yet survive (if you survive after 2
month, the only risk then are cancer, but about 15%more cancer per sievert)
- then few of the thousands of kids with 131iode inudced thyroid cancer
(amplified by late evacuation, and malnutrition )
is
0 in the population because of radiation (no effect, even hormesis to be
expected)
0.1 in the workers because of the cancer induced (1Sv induce 5% death by
cancer, 600mSv much less, few workers concerned)
many thousands of suicide because of traumatic syndrome, linked to tsunami,
death of all their family (28000 dead because of living near the sea. we should
shutdown the sea), forced evacuation and moving,loss of their jobs and family
history ans possesions...
many more thousands dead because alcoholism and family violence.
maybe the death toll, of fukushima but much even more of the tsunami, could
be reduced by cleaning the zone, occupying the victims in that big heroic
mission, and then letting them settle back when they feel safe.
it seems to be what they are doing, cleaning , measuring dose, even thinking
about robotized farming in the tsunami washed zone.
when numbers will be published people will understand that the fear is over...
anyway nuke will be dead, because lenr is cheaper.
sorry to be rough, but here we can talk of scientific data rejected by the
media, yet validated by peer review.
2012/1/28 Mark Goldes <mgol...@chavaenergy.com>
________________________________________
From: Mark Goldes
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Yamali Yamali
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective
The eventual death toll from Fukushima is estimated to reach as high as one
million. The Northern Lights are particularly beautiful lately for a little
recognized reason. Here are some comments from the nuclear scientist who
publishes pissinontheroses.com
"The recent solar event will interact with high atomic weight fallout (both
radioactive and NON-radioactive) in the upper atmosphere and produce a witches'
brew of new radioactive fallout via nuclear spallation processes.”
"Experts" are starting to get a glimpse into how little they know about the
witches' brew coming out of Fukushima. Today's revelation is that
FukushimaUranium is forming Bucky Balls via the action of salt water.
So what is so bad about Radioactive Uranium Bucky balls? Well, picture
some one throwing very fine, non caking, radioactive "talcum powder" into the
air; that in essence is the outcome of this finding.
But it gets worse, imagine that radioactive "talcum powder" behaving and
dispersing the exact same way when thrown into the water.
But it gets worse, notice in the picture above that the Buck Ball is
actually a cage, now picture plutonium atoms trapped inside that cage.
But it gets worse, now picture how much greater a target these Bucky Balls
are for spallation in the upper atmosphere.
What this finding means is that ALL the dispersion models are wrong, and
NOT in the good way. It also means that the internal impact and damage from
inhaling or consuming these particles is far greater than would otherwise be
expected. However, don't expect the "it's safe" mantra to change.
If you want to even begin to have an idea how bad this situation is,
Google the medical effects of Nano Particles(and remember they are discussing
NON-Radioactive nano-particles)
Mark
______________________________________
From: Yamali Yamali [yamaliyam...@yahoo.de]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective
Sorry - answered to the wrong mail at first.
> the standby diesel generators depend upon the grid
They don't. The whole point about diesel backup power is that the grid
might be unavailable. Fukujima happened because the diesels were damaged
(strange idea, in hindsight, to place them so close and relatively unprotected
to the waterline) and they shut down the nuclear reactors rather than leaving
them running to provide power for continuous operation. But I see Jed's point
about feasability in general. Human error will always happen and can never be
ruled out - so sooner or later something like this is bound to happen again.
It'll be slightly different, of course, and the lessons learned will be
different, but eventually it'll happen.
The thing I don't like about the nuclear discussion is that its often
totally out of perspective. People talk about Fukujima (which, afaik, didn't
cause any deaths) and forget the earthquake itself. I got in a discussion about
nuclear energy recently with somebody who's major argument was that "20.000
dead people in Japan are enough". She seriously thought they were caused by
radiation rather than water or fallen ceilings.
Our government ordered a "stress test" on all our plants (in Germany
they're all along streams rather than the coast) in the aftermath of Fukujima.
One of the scenarios was the simulation of a quake causing a broken dam
upstream from a plant. They did fairly well in the simulation - but the point
is that the worst case scenario would still have caused more than a million
deaths. All from the tidal wave washing downstream through narrow, densly
populated valleys - none from radiation. Yet the conclusion was to get rid of
nukes as fast as possible and (counter intuitively) subsidize alternatives like
building more nice green and politically correct dams and large pump hydro
storage plants... oh well.
