Article

2011-03-18 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-03-18 09:42|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Exactly!

Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-18 10:08|| 2011-03-18 10:08|| Front Page Top

#2 Some how I lived through it too. The one thing that does need to be checked is milk that is to be fed to the kiddies for any elevated levels. Of course that assumes we've been checking prior for a level we've already been living with, not something made up just now that is ridiculously perfectionist.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-18 10:55|| 2011-03-18 10:55|| Front Page Top

#3 And don't forget about the giant spiders. and the giant rabbits terrorizing the countryside from the fallout.

Posted by Mr. Bill 2011-03-18 12:52|| 2011-03-18 12:52|| Front Page Top

#4 My dad was actually working as a research biologist at that time, on researching the fallout from the various nuclear tests. He and his fellow bio/zoologists were doing surveys of animal nests and burrows and the animals themselves, looking for evidence of dangerous levels of radiation. Didn't find all that much then, which people since have found rather surprising. No six-legged desert rats, or two-headed roaches. I know that one series of tests was called Operation Plumbbob; Dad used to have a framed certificate of his participation.

Posted by Sgt.Mom 2011-03-18 13:15|| http://www.celiahayes.com 2011-03-18 13:15|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't wanna spoil your fun and it's certainly too early to know the long term ramifications of the Fukushima accident. But there have been studies from Chernobyl indicating that while the risk is low there were thousands of cancer cases attributable to Chernobyl and that the risk increases over time. I suspect the low risk would be cold comfort if your were one of those cancer patients. Can't happen here? You're absolutely certain of that?

Here is an abstract of one study from the U.S. National Institutes of Health:

The Chernobyl accident, which occurred April 26, 1986, resulted in a large release of radionuclides, which were deposited over a very wide area, particularly in Europe. Although an increased risk of thyroid cancer in exposed children has been clearly demonstrated in the most contaminated regions, the impact of the accident on the risk of other cancers as well as elsewhere in Europe is less clear. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the human cancer burden in Europe as a whole from radioactive fallout from the accident. Average country- and region-specific whole-body and thyroid doses from Chernobyl were estimated using new dosimetric models and radiological data. Numbers of cancer cases and deaths possibly attributable to radiation from Chernobyl were estimated, applying state-of-the-art risk models derived from studies of other irradiated populations. Simultaneously, trends in cancer incidence and mortality were examined over time and by dose level. The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models predict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400-72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000-59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates -- other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions -- that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-03-18 13:19|| 2011-03-18 13:19|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't wanna spoil your fun

You don't spoil my fun Ebbang Uluque6305. Cancer cause research always provides the expected answer---otherwise, no more grants.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-03-18 13:35|| 2011-03-18 13:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Ebbang, the Chernobyl incident threw portions of the actual fuel into the atmosphere. The radiation readings were much higher than anything projected for the Japanese plants and the prevailing winds carried that radiation over heavily populated areas and major food growing acreage.

There will be consequences from the tsunami- and quake-induced damage to the Japanese reactors but the conditions for Chernobyl-level results don't seem to obtain.

Posted by lotp 2011-03-18 13:51|| 2011-03-18 13:51|| Front Page Top

#8 Cancer cause research always provides the expected answer---otherwise, no more grants.

Really? Always? You know that for a fact? How? You mean cigarettes don't cause cancer? Radiation doesn't cause cancer? Hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

And what do you tell that miniscule number of people who will get cancer from Fukushima? Tough luck, huh? Too bad but we need our neon lights.

The (Chernobyl) radiation readings were much higher than anything projected for the Japanese plants and the prevailing winds carried that radiation over heavily populated areas and major food growing acreage.

Gosh, I thought the Pacific Ocean was food producing acreage...er...that is if you like fish, which I do.

Anyway, calm down, I'm not in a panic but here's the bottom line: the average Joe (that'd be me) doesn't have the first frickin' clue how much radiation is too much but all the news reports I've seen say our exposure here will be very low. Cool. So I understand that I will most likely survive this incident. But I'm not in a real big hurry to make light of it either and I'm really, really glad I don't live near Fukushima. San Onofre is scary enough for poor, old, timid me.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-03-18 14:30|| 2011-03-18 14:30|| Front Page Top

#9 Really? Always? You know that for a fact?

Yes.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-03-18 15:06|| 2011-03-18 15:06|| Front Page Top

#10 what do you tell that miniscule number of people who will get cancer from Fukushima? Tough luck, huh? Too bad but we need our neon lights.
Tell them the same thing we tell our victims of motor vehicle accidents, construction accidents, farm accidents, those who get cancer from therapeutic xrays and medications, those who get sick from vaccinations, those killed in plane crashes, those who die from radon percolating up from their basements, those who commit suicide from PTSD contracted in combat, etc., etc.
Tough luck indeed. For every benefit there is a cost. Life itself is risky and we all wind up dead eventually.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-03-18 15:24|| 2011-03-18 15:24|| Front Page Top

#11 ...and the tens of thousands who die annually from cancers induced by sun exposure. Nature's largest continuous operational nuclear reactor in the local neighborhood (2+ light years).

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-18 16:23|| 2011-03-18 16:23|| Front Page Top

#12 Don't forget radioactive contamination by coal ash!

Posted by Vortigern Chutch2620 2011-03-18 17:44|| 2011-03-18 17:44|| Front Page Top

#13 Does sleeping on a nuke powered sub count? Oh wait, our Navy does that all the time, they seem to be okay.

Posted by Fi 2011-03-18 17:52|| 2011-03-18 17:52|| Front Page Top

#14 The US Navy is, and always has been, very careful about radiation exposure on nuclear powered ships. The reactors are well shielded.

From the stories I've heard, the Soviets were not so careful. Soviet sailors called their sub pay "childlessness pay". And the prostitutes would have nothing to do with them because they thought the sailors had an STD (VD at the time.)

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2011-03-18 18:30|| 2011-03-18 18:30|| Front Page Top

#15 Geez, that is sad.

Posted by Fi 2011-03-18 18:50|| 2011-03-18 18:50|| Front Page Top

#16 Can't we all just get along :-)EU, you seem to have the right idea to not jump to conclusions. While I can see both sides to the coin, proclaiming which side the coin lands on is anticipating the outcome. Drawing any conclusion seems wrong at this early juncture that is accurate is impossible.

Posted by Fi 2011-03-18 19:01|| 2011-03-18 19:01|| Front Page Top

23:49 OldSpook
23:05 Shieldwolf
22:56 trailing wife
22:45 lotp
22:33 gorb
22:07 mojo
21:58 linker
21:54 JosephMendiola
21:52 JosephMendiola
21:51 Frank G
21:34 phil_b
21:23 JosephMendiola
21:15 Dale
21:14 linker
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:12 Fi
21:07 Beavis
21:02 admiral allan ackbar
21:01 Swamp Blondie
21:01 JosephMendiola
20:57 CrazyFool
20:56 admiral allan ackbar
20:52 JosephMendiola
20:42 linker