GJBRKS said:At which I could reply that your 430 megatonnes is but 10 seconds worth of rays from that other fusion generator high up above.
Joe Neubarth said:You never cease to amaze me with the silliness of your posts. Please, at least, get a high school education in Physics.
I have seen too many loved ones die because of cancer. Saying that something is not present because the fine measurements to detect it at low levels is just plain silly. If it is present in large numbers and is obvious in large numbers, it only stands to reason that a proportional amount would be present in small numbers.
We know what causes cancer, and it only takes one gamma ray to trip that trigger. YOu can deceive people all you want if they are stupid enough to believe your humerous posts.
I do not know why you feel you have to be silly all of the time, but it is not becoming.
Dmytry said:well there's the source.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/physical/fs52.radiation.cfm
for proving the hypothesis: the history is such that anything is presumed harmless until some large number of people are absolutely certainly harmed by it - e.g. see radium dial painters, see quack radiu, medicines of first half of 20th century, see all the needless nuclear testing in USA (almost twice the testing that soviets did).
Fortunately, now, instead that proving that new drug or medicine is harmful, it has to be proved it is harmless.
NUCENG said:Geiger Counters have been around since 1908. Radiation was known since the Curies. Scientific inquiry and the concept of proving one's hypotheses goes back to the ancient greeks. But we can dispense with all that because Joe Neubarth is here. "The US government will not tell them, but I know." Hypothesis: San Onofre is causing breast cancer."
Proof is not required because Joe Knows. There is no need to consider smoking or California tans. No need to worry about atmospheric quality, or obesity, or any other genetic or environmental causes like radon or petroleum or chemicals, or consumption of Twinkies.
Next he'll trot out the Tooth Fairy Project. Joe knows. The little green men told him so. Tell us it ain't so Joe, BTW why do you all still live in such a dangerous place?
Joe Neubarth said:I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.
Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.
You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.
I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
Indeed. For example, the products for treating morning sickness are not available to the pregnant women without extensive testing...QuantumPion said:It's only fortunate in the sense that by keeping products not known to be dangerous but known to be beneficial off the market, the people harmed by the unavailability of such products are invisible. In other words, no one blames the government when a life-saving drug gets banned from the market due to not being able to prove it is harmless, because no one is aware of products that are unavailable to them. So it's only fortunate for bureaucrats with a safety-at-any-cost mentality.
JaredJames said:Is there more to this I'm not seeing?
Are you saying that equivalent of nuclear radiation (same type of radiation from the bombs) is hitting us (humans) from the sun every ten seconds?
GJBRKS said:No , of course not ...different photon frequencies , no kinetics , no alpha , beta's ...
But I can understand you're temporarily being blinded by my flashes of insight ... ;)
Dmytry said:Indeed. For example, the products for treating morning sickness are not available to the pregnant women without extensive testing...
Think first, ok? The life threatening conditions are only a small fraction of the market, and there are relaxed rules for those.
Joe Neubarth said:I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.
Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.
You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.
I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
Borek said:Do you have data to support this statement?
Note that according to forum rules such data must be published in a peer reviewed magazine.
You were speaking not in generalities, but of a rather rare case (when the new product is for treatment of a life-threatening condition), for which indeed there is exception and much relaxed rules when it comes to testing. It still has to be the case that there must be some prior testing otherwise the chance that the new medication is superior to old ones is too small.QuantumPion said:I was speaking in generalities to make a point. We all take risks, it's part of life and the fact that we do not have unlimited resources.
yes, that is the accepted view. Big doses of radiation, carefully targeted, are useful for curing cancer by their acute toxicity. The neighbouring tissues experience increased probability of developing another cancer though, so the dose to non-cancer tissues has to be kept to a minimum.Someone that already has cancer, receiving radiotherapy treatment, may risk further damage due to acute radiation dose. But they believe based on evidence that it does more good than harm.
QuantumPion said:I was speaking in generalities to make a point. We all take risks, it's part of life and the fact that we do not have unlimited resources. Someone that already has cancer, receiving radiotherapy treatment, may risk further damage due to acute radiation dose. But they believe based on evidence that it does more good than harm.
I already quoted you text from the American Cancer Society stating that low level radiation is not known to cause cancer. You have posted nothing except your own personal opinion based solely on an emotional appeal. Whom between us is more in line with reality?
Joe Neubarth said:because I know what is happening.
You live in a dream world where people only get cancer if they have stepped across an imaginary threshold. Say it ain't so.
Dmytry said:Joe Neubarth: Nuclear authorities, actually, accept the linear no threshold model. The pro-nuclear bs people and healing stones salesmen (radon spring tour salesmen etc) don't. Some altogether claim it false, some view it as mere precaution.
There is a lot of experimental evidence in support of linear effect for small doses (google cell microbeam studies), as well as theoretical support (basically all we know about cancer). The pro- nuclear people evidently have a problem with using the accepted theories, and demand 'proof' in same way how global climate denial crowd or creationist crowd does.
Dmytry said:http://www.google.com/search?q=alpha+particle+microbeam+cell+study
first 5 results should do fine. You go read and educate yourself.
Joe Neubarth said:I do not live next to San Onofre, but I am going to make a concerted effort to get it shut down.
Proof of low levels of radiation causing cancer? I do not need proof down at the lower levels of radiation exposure. I say it is a given for anybody with common sense.
You say it can not be proven for low levels even though we know that radiation causes cancer at higher levels. You live in a dream world.
I deal with reality. People like you with your ignorance of reality and people like me with common sense live in worlds that are poles apart. I have seen too many good people die from radiation exposure. Go look up the breast cancer research numbers and then search your soul.
Dmytry said:ahh, and for acceptance of the LNT: see
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/risk.html
really, guys, you only show your ignorance here by demanding sources for common knowledge. It's as if in one of the scientific forums here someone demanded sourcing on the derivative of sine or cosine.
Joe Neubarth said:I am, because I know what is happening. You live in a dream world where people only get cancer if they have stepped across an imaginary threshold. Say it ain't so.
What is that threshold? 60 REM? 70 REM? One Sievert?
JaredJames said:If it isn't the same radiation, how can you compare them? It's a different issue.
Nothing clever about comparing apples with oranges.
ahh, also, regarding LNT. The EPA page is kind of out of date. The microbeam studies are additional evidence in support of LNT.JaredJames said:Thank you Dmytry.
As a note, I was referring more to Joe's specific claims when requesting sources.
no. Cancer is not 'acute effect', it happens after many years if at all. The acute effects are like, white blood cell decrease, immune system less effective, hair loss in particularly radio-sensitive individuals, etc.QuantumPion said:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull332/33205883235.pdf" , 0.2 Gray (20 Rads) is the threshold between known acute effects. Meaning there is no statistical evidence of doses below 20 Rads directly causing cancer.
Dmytry said:...
Generally, in science, the continuation is adopted as null hypothesis, in absence of proof of non-continuation.
For example, how much money would you bet that 1 gram of matter does not attract 1 gram gravitationally over distance of 2 meters? Such attraction would be EXTREMELY difficult to show, but surely we aren't going to bet our money it isn't true, as simple logic shows there must be some very complicated effect to make gravity not work on 1 gram, but work on 1000 pieces each of 1 gram.
Would you bet human lives on such an assertion? I can't show that 1 gram attracts 1 gram over distance of 2 meters directly, sorry, all i have is theory that it does, based on evidence with larger masses or smaller distances and the perceived complexity of a theory which would fit the experimental data but would not have 1 gram attract 1 gram over 2 meters distance.
It's a simple matter of occam's razor - and occam's razor is very much in favour of LNT.
Dmytry said:no. Cancer is not 'acute effect', it happens after many years if at all. The acute effects are like, white blood cell decrease, immune system less effective, hair loss in particularly radio-sensitive individuals, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome
cancer is never included as acute effect.
http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/train/rad_guide/effects.html#accute
The word 'acute' has specific meaning in medicine.
QuantumPion said:You misunderstood. It is the dose that is acute, not the formation of cancer.
andybwell said:Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent. [/url]
nope.Argentum Vulpes said:@ Joe Neubarth:
I'd be much more worried about living downwind of a coal plant. You will get a little over a 100x more of a yearly dose from a coal plant then a nuclear plant (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html" .
/sarcasm on/
I really hope you and every anti nuke out there get San Onofre shut down.
/sarcasm off/
Really the loss of San Onofre would considerably hurt the state of California. The loss of 2350 GW of base load power would be disastrous. Also the loss of 2K + well paying jobs would be disastrous. But then again the western states with large rivers or reservoirs might not mind all of the money/jobs that would come from making a large base load power plant to replace San Onofre.
@ Dmytry:
Yes the USA accepts the LNT, however France
workers there breathe in all sorts of nasty chemicals when manufacturing ipods for you. Work safety is nearly non-existent. A great example of progressive country when it comes to protection., China
terrible nuclear safety record for past 20 years, not just Fukushima., and Japan
That's always the thing... the hormesis studies always rely on some third world place where they barely even have diagnosis to start with. Places where the only data is from fools who take a consumer grade geiger counter, and think it's mSv/h figures have anything to do with reality. (hint: most counters are overcounting betas).follow Radiation hormesis in their guidelines. Even the medical publication Radiology has come out against LNT saying:
LNT was a useful model half a century ago. But current radiation protection concepts should be based on facts and on concepts consistent with current scientific results and not on opinions. Preconceived concepts impede progress; in the case of the LNT model, they have resulted in substantial medical, economic, and other societal harm.
Boding mine, http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full"
If the LNT were a hard and fast rule then places like Ramsar Iran would be wasteland and the populace that was crazy enough to live there would be in oncology wards. Instead this High background radiation area (260 mSv/y) has no noticeable increase of cancer rates. And there are several other areas on the globe that have a HBRA. http://www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf"
Cancers start from 1 cell. It is a fact that cancer is a clonal expansion of a single cell.Also on a side note if humans were single celled organisms then the LNT would be an essential rule to follow. However last I checked we are multiple celled organisms with several repair functions that evolved on a hot planet. The LNT is just over an over cautionary theory.
Its BS. Firstly, it may come as surprise but soviet union had such thing as dietary supplements, secondarily, the doses required for saturation - such as in the typical radiation protection pills, you can look it up, are on order of several hundreds times larger than the RDA. 130 milligramA factor that must also be looked at when comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima is that the populace living Ukraine/Belarus had a iodine deficiency, therefore when a large quantity of iodine was released into the environment the body picked it up and the thyroid concreted it. Since this iodine was radioactive and in a large dose in the thyroid an increase of thyroid cancers are to be expected. Because of the Japanese high iodine diet I really doubt that there will be a significant increase of thyroid cancers seen. If the Thyroid is saturated with iodine it will not absorb any more, even if it is radioactive.
Very low quality data. Low quality radiation measurements, and low quality healthcare (low quality cancer rate measurement). The lowest is the confidence in the data, the strongest are the deviations from LNT.Argentum Vulpes said:Dmytry did you even bother to read either paper? What dose the fact that HBRAs are in third world areas have to do with anything
To Iran? Ohh come on.. I guess the PhD researchers or the assistants that are sent to do a study are using the cheapest equipment out there and ignoring scientific procedures when taking in data. Thanks for opening my eyes to that fact.
Everyone picks on soviet union all the time. But it could do something as simple as dietary supplements. The far bigger difference for Fukushima, if you want to look for differences, is that the wind was blowing to the west into populated areas, versus to the east into pacific ocean.Also the WHO has come out in a http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1997/Suppl-6/gembicki-full.html" that came to the same conclusion. As for the protection pills being distributed the USSR the government would of had to of handed them out quickly. However they didn't acknowledge the accident till 3 day later after they were embarrassed into it.
No, you are linking a bunch of controversial papers that deny LNT and revert back to old hormesis 'hypothesis' which if you recall was the first hypothesis about effects of the radiation. See all the early 20th century quack radium medicines. You are the effects-of-pollution denial person here.This really bugs me that you are acting just like the global climate change deniers. You have been shown a mountain of evidence from reliable engineers, and reliable sources, yet you arguments come from sources of questionable reliability or from studies with very narrow scopes.