Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 12:57am PT
|
I'm not very good at trolling
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 12:58am PT
|
mimi, at which part?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:00am PT
|
The part about Fukushima not being a serious problem.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:01am PT
|
Nothing I have posted to this thread suggests in any way that Fukushima is not a serious problem.
WTF?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:04am PT
|
"And I maintain that so far I continue to be more worried about mercury in fish than radiation from fukushima."
Sorry, I mistook your comment for cynicism.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:07am PT
|
The melt through at Fukushima is a serious problem. Especially locally. But they hype and hysteria is out of control. There is little evidence that "we're gonna die" if we eat fish from the Pacific.
The map I posted above is a perfect example of the hysteria. To this day people continue to believe it has something to do with radiation. It has absolutely nothing.
Yet there are the idiots...
To date there is little evidence. In part I'm sure because it's either being suppressed or Japan is doing their best to cover it up. But beyond that it's beyond difficult to quantify what is going on. The map I posted above simply does not exist for the radiation. At best it's models.
My friend Jay has been doing his best....
http://earthjay.com/?page_id=910
and a big dose of STFU
http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:12am PT
|
LOL! Duh, I get it now. You're worried about your sashimi tuna being nuked. Face the music, pal. I guess once the entire Pacific tuna fishery is hot, no one will care. Everyone will be glowing.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:14am PT
|
No, I'm not worried about that. At all.
Do I need to repeat myself? I'm more worried about Mercury. As we all should be.
And really... AGW and ocean acidification will wipe out the fisheries soon enough...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:15am PT
|
The Fukushimanator is coming .......
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:16am PT
|
The Fukushimanator is coming .......
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:19am PT
|
I can't even make it through 30 seconds of the OPs video.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:22am PT
|
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full
PNAS 100, 13761 (2003)
Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know
David J. Brenner, Richard Doll, Dudley T. Goodhead, Eric J. Hall, Charles E. Land, John B. Little, Jay H. Lubin, Dale L. Preston, R. Julian Preston, Jerome S. Puskin, Elaine Ron, Rainer K. Sachs, Jonathan M. Samet, Richard B. Setlow, and Marco Zaider
Abstract
High doses of ionizing radiation clearly produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer induction. At very low radiation doses the situation is much less clear, but the risks of low-dose radiation are of societal importance in relation to issues as varied as screening tests for cancer, the future of nuclear power, occupational radiation exposure, frequent-flyer risks, manned space exploration, and radiological terrorism. We review the difficulties involved in quantifying the risks of low-dose radiation and address two specific questions. First, what is the lowest dose of x- or γ-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure. Second, what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses? Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology. This linearity assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation-induced cancer risks and an overestimate of others.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:26am PT
|
It's not the level of contamination of Pacific seafood that will kill you. It's the level of contamination where no one will purchase Pacific seafood. Is it starting to register? Greenpeace, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's and Walmart will be all over it.
I'm sincerely relieved to learn that the levels are not as bad as what's being reported.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 02:03am PT
|
The Fukushimanator is coming .......
....and nobody knows what it will look like.
Cool.
I'm always looking for more shite to be afraid of and argue about.
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 02:16am PT
|
Ed H. - would you please do a little brush clearing over on the "RIP million dollar man" thread? There are some really confused people over there.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 10:48am PT
|
Dilution is the solution for pollution.
Seriously, though. We use spectral gamma ray tools in oil and gas logging. We also use scintillometers for some applications.
The ones I have used are K-U-T (Potassium, Uranium, Thorium) scintillometers. They have a big crystal and somehow identify the daughter elements when K, U, or T decays.
Ed can explain how this works, but I am curious if there are also scintillometers for other radioactive elements.
I had a small KUT instrument for many years. You would be surprised at how much gamma radiation is out there. Red Fiestaware dishes are loaded with thorium. Bananas are loaded with potassium, and igneous minerals in general give off a fair amount of radiation.
I suppose that it only takes one extremely well placed gamma ray to cause cancer. If it hits the DNA strand just right.
Anyway, we are constantly being pierced by low levels of background radiation.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 10:54am PT
|
Mmmmmmmmm..........Placenta......mmmmmmmmmmm........
Said in a Homer Simpson voice.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 11:14am PT
|
Fukashimanator is coming.....
Fearmongers rejoice.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 28, 2013 - 11:40am PT
|
Thanks Ed,
My daughter had sent the link to me and asked if it was real. I did some research and told her it appeared to be sensationalist nonsense to me. However, I am not competent to opine as an expert in such matters. In other words, like nearly everybody including the guy in the video, I am incompetent in regard to radiation, Geiger counters, etc. and should comment with great caution.
So, I went to somebody I trusted to know more than I do.
Why do people post this stuff? Perhaps they are ignorant and do not realize it (Werner does though). Perhaps they are trolling by crying wolf which does nothing positive for anybody but may boost their ego (pretty much how I feel about all trolling).
The catch 22 associated with knowledge is that it requires competence to recognize competence. The ignorant can easily convince themselves that they are competent simply because they are not. It makes life terrifying because every time I think I know something, I have to question myself. The hardest question to answer is "what don't I know?"
Most of us are unaware of how little we know and how much there is to know. The competent tend to have doubts and the incompetent tend to be very self-assured.
I have taught engineering for 30 years so I have some experience identifying the incompetent.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!