the regulation is based on the linear law no threshold which is false. low dose are much less toxic, and sometime protective, and slow dose are much less toxic. that is a long time know fact, much before LENR...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html http://e2phy.in2p3.fr/2001/tubiana2.doc (sorry in french, try googl translation, or maybe find englsh equivalent) http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/ramsar.html However when you get dose around 1Sv and people start to vomit, the statistics match reality. >From what you says here (LENR trained me to be careful with consensus and media claims) the tanks are dangerous. The rate of survival of the hundred of suicide firemen who stopped the fire in chernobyl, was above 80% despite many Sv absorbed... this let think that Soviet Union have some experience in high radiation syndrome. It seems their rate of cancer is higher, but nothing to compare with the risk of smoking, or drinking alcohol, or eating too much. For liquidators, the main risk is cardiovascular like the population, and most concerns are psychologic for the population (and are serious). from other sources, and earlier weeks, the claim of leaks were compared to a quarter to the banana production on the planet and a quarter of a single coal power plant annual radioactive emission. we should also compare with rare earth mines radioactive productions, required by wind turbines. I know that in france the river Rhone is the biggest radiation leak (all natural). The local impact of leaks is serious, but the regional and local impact is negligible (yet easily detected, because we can measure radioation more easily than chemical). Maybe it is worse that the data few weeks ago. Anyway we should compare with real danger and not with regulation done to exaggerate risk and work in "as low as reasonably acceptable" (ALARA). On that subject I find contradiction like I see on LENR and many subjects. I noticed many huge exaggeration on the net, of few orders. I don't really know the government positions (they are not much relayed by media), but some technical report clearly disagree with what looks like scaremongering. What is strange is the huge claims of risk, while the reactor were much less leaking than in chernobyl, and while the wind were helping much to limit the tragedy. I would ask people interested in that question to look for evidence of manipulations by activists groups. anyway, nuclear energy is dead, and we should focus more on LENR development. We should also focus on decommissioning method, and radioactive waste incineration in LFTR or Hybrid-LENR reactors. 2013/8/22 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > >> If the local wildlife has ingested 600 times the amount of radioactivity >> to be eaten by humans, I find myself asking myself: how the hell can they >> continue to survive and presumably reproduce? >> > One thought I have here is that 600 times permissible levels for humans > might not be all that much. Sometimes regulators can be a little > squeamish. I suspect this is as much for political reasons as health > reasons -- it looks bad to say "a little radiation never harmed anyone." > > Eric > >
