Friday, August 02, 2013
Windmills Thousands of Times More Dangerous Than Nuclear
Delingpole recently covered the issue of the low frequency sound which windmills create:
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
The “Kelly paper” is just one of many studies and reports published in the period from 1980 to 1990 by acousticians and other researchers working under grants from the US Dept. of Energy (DOE), NASA, and other agencies and foundations. All of these papers are still available on web sites open to the public.... few acousticians in that period would have discounted the premise that for some people these types of sounds posed serious issues.Can anyone imagine a potential scandal of this magnitude in the fossil fuel industry going uninvestigated by the green lobby – and hitting the front pages of all the newspapers?
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
The low frequency sensitivity syndrome includes: feelings or irritation/unease/stress/undue fatigue; headache; nausea; vomiting; heart palpitations; disorientation; swooning/prostration.
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Hormesis, nuclear
Friday, July 19, 2013
Dalgety Bay - Brown Wades In
Gordon Brown recently promoted the Dalgety Bay radiation fraud once again in Parliament. Here at 9.52 Andrew Murrison, speaking for the MoD put up a fairly stout defence.
BROWN "the Ministry of Defence will have to make a decision, as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be bound to designate this area as the only radiation-contaminated area in the United Kingdom if action is not taken by the MOD as soon as possible. It is an amazing fact that we have nuclear waste sites, we have nuclear submarines and we have weapons in different parts of the United Kingdom, but this small beach in the heart of my constituency, which is on a walkway, the coastal path of Fife, is liable to be named the first ever radiation-contaminated area in the UK."
" it is only in the past few days that I have discovered the scale of the problem in the greatest detail, thanks to the risk assessment report and to the appropriate person report, of which the Minister will no doubt be aware. That makes it clear that the contamination of the beach area in Dalgety Bay arises from the fact that starting in 1946 and for 13 years, wartime fighter planes and other planes in the possession of the Royal Air Force were scrapped and incinerated before the ash, including radiated parts, was dumped in the area of Dalgety Bay. In 1946 alone, 800 planes were scrapped and their parts dumped in this area of my constituency. From 1946 to 1959, not a few planes—not tens, or twenties, or scores—but hundreds were broken up before their parts were incinerated and the ash, including radiated parts, was dumped in the area."
"because of coastal erosion the particles are being brought up to the surface"
note that coastal erosion is a geological process which would reveal particles laid down 10s of millions not merely tens of years ago.
He denounces an MOD paper suggesting an alleged radioactive object mentioned in 1990 was more than a ‘theoretical’ object—it is not clear whether an object with the properties required has been found or whether there is simply the possibility that such an object might exist.”
However, these objects were admitted in 1990" - so clearly this object, theoretical or not, cannot be produced by SEPA, or perhaps they choose not to produce it because it could be seen to be a fraud - that makes "theoretical object" look like a fairly kindly term for the MoD to use of something that, at best, doesn't exist.
"Contamination has been proven. Risks do remain" repeating a lie, well 2 lies, doesn't make them true
Murrison
"expended £825,000 to date undertaking a site investigation, as well as a monitoring and recovery programme along the foreshore. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the work we have undertaken in a number of gardens belonging to his constituents where radium was discovered, at a cost of some £500,000." Asssuming SEPA, the protagonist here, has spent about 5 times as much we can estimate the total bill to the taxpayer, for doing absolutely nothing worth doing is about £5 million
He then goes on to say that there is no factual basis to the claim of 800 aircraft being scrapped there. In this regard I note that I asked that precise question last year and SEPA could not or did not answer. If, as they claim, they knew in 1990 that there were 800 planes there then, by definition, they knew it last year and thus were deliberately lying when they claimed not to know it. However 800 planes disassembled in 1946 alone is an awful lot - 4 per working day - and such disassembly production line would hardly have gone unnoticed. While not wishing to suggest the claim represents anything other than the pinnacle of honesty to which SEPA and Brown ever aspire I think it obvious it is a total lie.
He then reverses Brown's scare about this potentially being the only "radiation contaminated area" in the country when there are so many places where real radiation work is being done.
He also mentions radiation there being "less than 2/3rds that in an Aberdeen street" though unfortunately omits the words "less than"
All in all the MoD may actually be standing more steady under fire. Of course battles were not won by only that tactic. You have to shoot back. For example the MoD could release their own Geiger counter readings of adjoining beaches, something SEPA, in a manner incompatible with ANY respect for scientific principles, have always refused to do - and for good measure do a reading of the car park in SEPA's Aberdeenshire office, which would certainly be much higher.
Labels: Dalgety Bay, Hormesis, nuclear, Scottish politics
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
2 1/ Letters - Metro on Dalgety Bay and Mail & Herald on Shale
The Metro letter was in yesterday, highlighted. It was not signed as UKIP because the party has not yet, as far as I know, made a public statement on this. The original letter shown in full was considerably edited but this is unsurprising since it was long and complicated and a sufficiently remote subject I did not really expect them to use it. I found their editing to be sensible Once again I would like to commend the Metro as a paper that transcends its free paper format, for example its centre pages on Monday contained another science article by Ben Gilland on quantum physics, with drawings of the 2 slit experiment, which would have been too intellectual for Guardian readers (they only did PPE & classics before running the civil service).
This letter went out to all and sundry but, as far as I know, was only published by the Metro. That makes the Mail and Metro only papers ever to have been willing to publish anything sceptical about the LNT radiation scare.
The second letter was in the Herald on Saturday and Mail today. This was signed as a UKIP representative and, somewhat to my surprise, both papers have kept that in. I am particularly surprised at the herald doing this since they have declined to publish UKIPers letters even in response to letters by Alex Orr (publicly funded PR man) attacking us.
Both have published largely unedited. Strangely the Herald has a letter apparently disputing what I and others wrote but, insofar as it refers to me it simply reprints what I said with no actual argument. Persuasive eh?
Once again SEPA sitting as judge and jury on their own claim to have found radium at Dalgety Bay have repeated the claim, though it is noticeable that they are highlighting the existence of clinker there (which nobody ever denied and is not quite the same as allegedly dangerous radioactivity) rather than the alleged radium.
The fact is that internal documents released under the freedom of Information Act have shown that SEPA have always known that not only is there no radiation risk whatsoever but that local radiation levels are "less than 2/3rds those of any Aberdeen street".
Moreover despite having publicly claimed to have found radium particles chemically shown to be paint in fact they have never found any proven radium at all, let alone bonded into paint.
This is hardly surprising for 2 reasons. The original paint was water soluble and thus would hardly be likely to be found bonded to anything 63 years later even had in been in the middle of the Sahara. It rains more often in Scotland. Secondly the total amount of radium there, which existed only as a small part of the paint on the numbers on a few dials simply could not have consisted, even back then, of more than 1/4 of a gram. For comparison every square mile of soil contains I gram of radium, produced as a by-product of the existence of 9 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium. 1/4 gram spread over a mile could neither be detected nor have any effect. SEPA would be better employed writing reports about the possibility of fairies at the bottom of gardens - at least this would not inflict planning blight on perfectly healthy communities.
In fact the entire scare about low levels of radiation being dangerous has always been bureaucratic empire building. It does not and never has had any scientific basis whatsoever. Indeed low levels of radiation have, since long before the atomic age, been demonstrated to improve plant and microbe growth in the laboratory. The process is well known and is called hormesis. Experimental evidence, on either side, is obviously more difficult to obtain with humans but even there is overwhelming statistical evidence that health is better in areas where radiation levels have always been naturally higher.
Of course promoting this false scare provides gainful employment to a large number of SEPA bureaucrats but unfortunately for them that does not make it true and no reputable scientist nowadays claims this scare as scientifically based."
This letter went out to all and sundry but, as far as I know, was only published by the Metro. That makes the Mail and Metro only papers ever to have been willing to publish anything sceptical about the LNT radiation scare.
The second letter was in the Herald on Saturday and Mail today. This was signed as a UKIP representative and, somewhat to my surprise, both papers have kept that in. I am particularly surprised at the herald doing this since they have declined to publish UKIPers letters even in response to letters by Alex Orr (publicly funded PR man) attacking us.
We are now told that Britain has 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, one of the biggest reserves in the world. Scotland may, since we have a far smaller population density have the same per capita share. The discovery of shale obviously threatens the peak oil scare, prophesied annually for the last 50 years, which in turn means the oil price is likely to fall substantially. With North Sea oil particularly expensive to extract a fall in the price would be ruinous. It seems probable that the rest of the UK could very shortly (most of the US gas came online in an 18month period) have a "gas boom" just as "Scotland's oil" becomes unprofitable.
Yet what is the SNP government's reaction? They are doing everything in their power to prevent development of this new energy industry in Scotland in case it interferes with their plans to become the "Saudi Arabia" of subsidy dependent windmills.
Will the SNP be sufficiently lacking in hypocrisy to say that the gas is "England's gas" and that (assuming the SNP succeed in preventing exploitation here) Scotland should have no part of the revenues?
The one thing we can be certain of is that if today's anti-technology SNP had been in charge when North Sea Oil was first discovered they would have made sure none of it had been developed.
Both have published largely unedited. Strangely the Herald has a letter apparently disputing what I and others wrote but, insofar as it refers to me it simply reprints what I said with no actual argument. Persuasive eh?
Labels: eco-fascism, Hormesis, letters
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Air Pollution - Mass Killer Or More Political Jobs for The Boys
This is the official line:
The World Health Organization states that 2.4 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 1.5 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution.[15] "Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution. . ."[16] A study by the University of Birmingham has shown a strong correlation between pneumonia related deaths and air pollution from motor vehicles.[17] Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents. A 2005 study by the European Commission calculated that air pollution reduces life expectancy by an average of almost nine months across the European Union.[19] Causes of deaths include aggravated asthma, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.[citation needed] The US EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.[citation needed]
The US EPA estimates allowing a ground-level ozone concentration of 65 parts per billion, would avert 1,700 to 5,100 premature deaths nationwide in 2020 compared with the current 75-ppb standard
But is it true. Or is it yet another case opf taking genuine results at high levels and assuming a proportionate linear reaction all the way down. That is the Linear No Threshold theory proven, after 60 years spent inducing hysteria about the nuclear industry, to be wholly false. Welll it seems to be the latter. Here is the particular research:
Exposure misclassification and threshold concentrations in time series analyses of air pollution health effects.
Brauer M, Brumm J, Vedal S, Petkau AJ.
Linear, no-threshold relationships are typically reported for time series studies of air pollution and mortality.
.... These results demonstrate that surrogate metrics that are not highly correlated with personal exposures obscure the presence of thresholds in epidemiological studies of larger populations, If 1 person stands in 8 feet of water they will drown, therefore if 10,000 people stand in 6 inches pf water 625 of them will drown - that is the LNT theory. I looked this up because Steve Milloy wrote a more general article comparing the air pollution deaths alleged, under oath, by the EPA and China's many times worse air quality:
China’s bad air puts the lie to EPA scare tactics
As a practical matter, the average level of PM2.5 in U.S. air is about 10 micrograms per cubic meter, and the EPA standards are hardly ever exceeded in the vast majority of the country. Nonetheless, the agency’s justification for such strict standards is its assertion that PM2.5 kills people — a lot of them.
Outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified about PM2.5 before Congress in September 2011: “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It is directly causal to you dying sooner than you should.” Mrs. Jackson also testified that PM2.5 kills about 570,000 Americans annually, about 25% of all U.S. deaths.
... The EPA has estimated that every 10 microgram-per-cubic-meter increase in PM2.5 increases daily death rates by about 1 percent. That rate is asserted to be higher for vulnerable subpopulations like the elderly or sick.
What should all this mean for China?
On the worst day so far of the ongoing Chinese air pollution event, Beijing’s PM2.5 levels peaked at 886 micrograms per cubic meter — an incredible 89 times greater than the U.S. daily average. Based on EPA risk estimates, we should expect the daily death toll in Beijing to have skyrocketed by 89 percent on a same-day and next-day basis. Remember that PM2.5 essentially causes “sudden death,” according to the EPA.
Beijing has a population of about 19.6 million and an annual death rate of a little more than 500 per 100,000. This means that about 100,000 people die annually in Beijing, or about 274 per day.
According to EPA risk estimates, the day the PM2.5 level spiked to 886 micrograms per cubic meter, the daily death toll should have increased to about 518 deaths — that is, if what the EPA says about PM2.5 is true.
The Chinese media have reported on four deaths related to the current air pollution crisis. Two Chinese boys were reportedly killed in a train accident caused by visibility problems. Two other people were apparently killed in a car accident, again caused by visibility problems. Yet there are no reports of a spike in deaths caused by breathing the heavily polluted air.
One Beijing hospital reportedly claims to have experienced a 20 percent to 30 percent increase in admission for respiratory ailments — but no deaths have been reported or claimed, and deaths are key to EPA’s PM2.5 regulations. Even the reported respiratory hospitalizations, to the extent any of them can actually be attributed to poor air quality, would more than likely be due to a genuinely toxic air pollutant or mixture other than mere PM2.5.
I commented
"The Chinese level was 89 times the US average. Lets assume this was particularly high and the Chinese average is 20 times thec US average. So if air pollution kills “570,000 Americans annually” (presumably EPA testimony on oath) the Chinese death toll, in a country 4 times larger, must be at least 46 millionm (far more if the assumptuion is that damage rises geometrically as would be normal) .
So no worries about China becoming the next superpower since they will all be dead in 28 years.
Assuming the EPA isn’t lying on oath."
I think that about covers it. official claims of air pollutionn deaths are total and since if I can make these comparisons the "experts" can, deliberate lies. They help provide gainful employment for pseudo-environmentalist bureaucrats by scari8ng the public but that is it. The UK Clean Air act was introduced when an inversion over London created a smog so strong people couldn't see their hands in front of their faces and hospitals registered 4,000 deaths more than expected. But that has nothing to do with modern experience thousands or even hundrerds of thousands of times less. The Clean Air act is lauded as the first environmental legislation and is almost certainly the most , or only, beneficial one, but this happened in the 1950s, long before the pseudo-environmental movement even iexisted. I suggest that the default position for anybody involved in the movement is to ask if they are publicly on record as having denounced the use of LNT in air pollution, nuclear, food standards or elsewhere. If they haven't the base assumption has to be that they are lying in any other scare they promote until good, independent, evidence proves other wise.
The World Health Organization states that 2.4 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 1.5 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution.[15] "Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution. . ."[16] A study by the University of Birmingham has shown a strong correlation between pneumonia related deaths and air pollution from motor vehicles.[17] Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents. A 2005 study by the European Commission calculated that air pollution reduces life expectancy by an average of almost nine months across the European Union.[19] Causes of deaths include aggravated asthma, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.[citation needed] The US EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.[citation needed]
The US EPA estimates allowing a ground-level ozone concentration of 65 parts per billion, would avert 1,700 to 5,100 premature deaths nationwide in 2020 compared with the current 75-ppb standard
But is it true. Or is it yet another case opf taking genuine results at high levels and assuming a proportionate linear reaction all the way down. That is the Linear No Threshold theory proven, after 60 years spent inducing hysteria about the nuclear industry, to be wholly false. Welll it seems to be the latter. Here is the particular research:
Exposure misclassification and threshold concentrations in time series analyses of air pollution health effects.
Brauer M, Brumm J, Vedal S, Petkau AJ.
Linear, no-threshold relationships are typically reported for time series studies of air pollution and mortality.
.... These results demonstrate that surrogate metrics that are not highly correlated with personal exposures obscure the presence of thresholds in epidemiological studies of larger populations, If 1 person stands in 8 feet of water they will drown, therefore if 10,000 people stand in 6 inches pf water 625 of them will drown - that is the LNT theory. I looked this up because Steve Milloy wrote a more general article comparing the air pollution deaths alleged, under oath, by the EPA and China's many times worse air quality:
China’s bad air puts the lie to EPA scare tactics
As a practical matter, the average level of PM2.5 in U.S. air is about 10 micrograms per cubic meter, and the EPA standards are hardly ever exceeded in the vast majority of the country. Nonetheless, the agency’s justification for such strict standards is its assertion that PM2.5 kills people — a lot of them.
Outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified about PM2.5 before Congress in September 2011: “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It is directly causal to you dying sooner than you should.” Mrs. Jackson also testified that PM2.5 kills about 570,000 Americans annually, about 25% of all U.S. deaths.
... The EPA has estimated that every 10 microgram-per-cubic-meter increase in PM2.5 increases daily death rates by about 1 percent. That rate is asserted to be higher for vulnerable subpopulations like the elderly or sick.
What should all this mean for China?
On the worst day so far of the ongoing Chinese air pollution event, Beijing’s PM2.5 levels peaked at 886 micrograms per cubic meter — an incredible 89 times greater than the U.S. daily average. Based on EPA risk estimates, we should expect the daily death toll in Beijing to have skyrocketed by 89 percent on a same-day and next-day basis. Remember that PM2.5 essentially causes “sudden death,” according to the EPA.
Beijing has a population of about 19.6 million and an annual death rate of a little more than 500 per 100,000. This means that about 100,000 people die annually in Beijing, or about 274 per day.
According to EPA risk estimates, the day the PM2.5 level spiked to 886 micrograms per cubic meter, the daily death toll should have increased to about 518 deaths — that is, if what the EPA says about PM2.5 is true.
The Chinese media have reported on four deaths related to the current air pollution crisis. Two Chinese boys were reportedly killed in a train accident caused by visibility problems. Two other people were apparently killed in a car accident, again caused by visibility problems. Yet there are no reports of a spike in deaths caused by breathing the heavily polluted air.
One Beijing hospital reportedly claims to have experienced a 20 percent to 30 percent increase in admission for respiratory ailments — but no deaths have been reported or claimed, and deaths are key to EPA’s PM2.5 regulations. Even the reported respiratory hospitalizations, to the extent any of them can actually be attributed to poor air quality, would more than likely be due to a genuinely toxic air pollutant or mixture other than mere PM2.5.
I commented
"The Chinese level was 89 times the US average. Lets assume this was particularly high and the Chinese average is 20 times thec US average. So if air pollution kills “570,000 Americans annually” (presumably EPA testimony on oath) the Chinese death toll, in a country 4 times larger, must be at least 46 millionm (far more if the assumptuion is that damage rises geometrically as would be normal) .
So no worries about China becoming the next superpower since they will all be dead in 28 years.
Assuming the EPA isn’t lying on oath."
I think that about covers it. official claims of air pollutionn deaths are total and since if I can make these comparisons the "experts" can, deliberate lies. They help provide gainful employment for pseudo-environmentalist bureaucrats by scari8ng the public but that is it. The UK Clean Air act was introduced when an inversion over London created a smog so strong people couldn't see their hands in front of their faces and hospitals registered 4,000 deaths more than expected. But that has nothing to do with modern experience thousands or even hundrerds of thousands of times less. The Clean Air act is lauded as the first environmental legislation and is almost certainly the most , or only, beneficial one, but this happened in the 1950s, long before the pseudo-environmental movement even iexisted. I suggest that the default position for anybody involved in the movement is to ask if they are publicly on record as having denounced the use of LNT in air pollution, nuclear, food standards or elsewhere. If they haven't the base assumption has to be that they are lying in any other scare they promote until good, independent, evidence proves other wise.
Labels: eco-fascism, Hormesis, Science/technology
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
May Beta Radiation Be More Damaging Than Alpha - Guest Discussion
I was reviewing data in my head of 2 radiation related subjects--
There is a book on line called Killing Our Own, whose basic theory is that beta radiation (esp in the lungs) is deadlier than the paper theory of dosage would indicate. Makes sense considering the cancer cluster in St. George Utah (the joke about one bomb test --and there is a book by this title--being "The Dragon That Killed St. George)
On the other hand we have the Taiwan and other incidents that totally seem to back radiation hormesis. I wonder if both could be true? Whole body dosage enormously more leeway than on paper, yet inhaling fine beta-emitting dust not being on the short list of health improvements? (One more argument for rainout being helpful in case of a massive release)
The other topic has to do with tritium release. I was doing projections of a hypothetical all-fusion future war (G-d protect!) but suppose it happened using devices that had zero fission content, say microdiode triggered D-T fusion triggering D-D (say deuterated plastic, the carbon being there to immobilize the deuterium) This is way beyond the state of the art today but trivial in 100 years.
Well peak tritium year was 1963 after the 629 megaton spree from 1945-63 http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/what-was-total-yield-of-all-known.html
read that whole thing I wrote in June, interesting statistics are that 2394 devices have been detonated so far, more than an Orion's worth etc.
In 1962, the peak year for the atmospheric testing, the Soviets lit off 201 megatons versus 24 megatons atmospheric for the USA—36 percent of all atmospheric testing---that was over 100 megatons fusion, easy to see why 1963 was the peak tritium year--
I have got to thinking, what would happen in a war with zero fisison but say 30000 megatons fusion --? If over 100 KT packages the tritium should be more isolated in the stratosphere, if small tactical devices it should hug the troposphere, (mushroom cloud height, Wiki has a nice table on this, basicallly above 50-100 KT it reaches the stratosphere)
In terms of heavy metals fallout, it should be nil (unless you count activated products from groundbursts) but in case of beta inhalation being a major issue-- could be catastrophic.
One one level not knowing introduces (theoretically) a moment of pause for any future power contemplating war-- that is good. But on the other hand, I have too much faith in human nature to believe that is a sufficient deterrent :(
As I say in the June article, the equivalent of 14976 Nagasaki sized (21 kiloton) bombs in fission and as much separate fusion happened. Theoretically if India and Pakistan or China or some combo got going and was determined to stay within past experience that is still a huge nuclear war with A-bomb sized explosions. So I don't see the deterrent effect being that formidable to future statesmen.
The sweep of future history gives us all pause. Let's hope for sweeping gains, not a brr-- clean sweep.
One thing is sure, we already live in a world where 300 megatons of fusion has been released, mostly to the atmosphere. But to what health effect?
Joseph Friedlander
I looked up the research on the St George cluster and they said that with "radioactive fallout (1951 through 1962) from atmospheric nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) were followed by smaller exposures (1962 through 1979)" they got "There were 109 more cases of cancer than expected (288[observed]/179[expected])".
Wikipedia shows St George currently has a population of 73,000,
That is certainly a significant statistical effect, from many years of exposure to quite high bursts of radiation. On the other hand by definition this case has been self selected precisely because they have a higher cancer rate then normal. - in this case 60% above normal. I don't know enough statistics to calculate what the odds of something being 60% above average in those sort of numbers for events which take place in an entirely random manner as atomic collisions, by definition, do.
However I suspect that it is not that improbable. And am certain that if some other community were found to have a comparable lack of cancers in its community (111 observed, 179 expected) we would never have heard of it. Another effect is that part of the reason we see more tumours nowadays is that more doctors are looking for them. There have always been benign tumours which disappeared of their own accord and in the days before doctors looked for them they rarely found them. I would assume that in St George they were always on the lookout. The abstract doesn't say what the death rates were compared with expectations.
Also in terms of the effects of a major nuclear war these figures would slightly increase overall death rates but not to the civilisation ending level, Compare with the 1 year increase in life expectancy for every 4 that passes. This is 1/7,000 excess cancers - if they all resulted in death this would be shortening life expectancy by about 4 days.
On the other hand there is no implicit reason to believe that Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation will all have the same dangers - this has simply benn the assumption, as mathematically simple as the LNT theory itself, which bureaicrats have found easy to use.
More genuine research on the subject would certainly be very desirable.
Neil Craig
There is a book on line called Killing Our Own, whose basic theory is that beta radiation (esp in the lungs) is deadlier than the paper theory of dosage would indicate. Makes sense considering the cancer cluster in St. George Utah (the joke about one bomb test --and there is a book by this title--being "The Dragon That Killed St. George)
On the other hand we have the Taiwan and other incidents that totally seem to back radiation hormesis. I wonder if both could be true? Whole body dosage enormously more leeway than on paper, yet inhaling fine beta-emitting dust not being on the short list of health improvements? (One more argument for rainout being helpful in case of a massive release)
The other topic has to do with tritium release. I was doing projections of a hypothetical all-fusion future war (G-d protect!) but suppose it happened using devices that had zero fission content, say microdiode triggered D-T fusion triggering D-D (say deuterated plastic, the carbon being there to immobilize the deuterium) This is way beyond the state of the art today but trivial in 100 years.
Well peak tritium year was 1963 after the 629 megaton spree from 1945-63 http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/what-was-total-yield-of-all-known.html
read that whole thing I wrote in June, interesting statistics are that 2394 devices have been detonated so far, more than an Orion's worth etc.
In 1962, the peak year for the atmospheric testing, the Soviets lit off 201 megatons versus 24 megatons atmospheric for the USA—36 percent of all atmospheric testing---that was over 100 megatons fusion, easy to see why 1963 was the peak tritium year--
I have got to thinking, what would happen in a war with zero fisison but say 30000 megatons fusion --? If over 100 KT packages the tritium should be more isolated in the stratosphere, if small tactical devices it should hug the troposphere, (mushroom cloud height, Wiki has a nice table on this, basicallly above 50-100 KT it reaches the stratosphere)
In terms of heavy metals fallout, it should be nil (unless you count activated products from groundbursts) but in case of beta inhalation being a major issue-- could be catastrophic.
One one level not knowing introduces (theoretically) a moment of pause for any future power contemplating war-- that is good. But on the other hand, I have too much faith in human nature to believe that is a sufficient deterrent :(
As I say in the June article, the equivalent of 14976 Nagasaki sized (21 kiloton) bombs in fission and as much separate fusion happened. Theoretically if India and Pakistan or China or some combo got going and was determined to stay within past experience that is still a huge nuclear war with A-bomb sized explosions. So I don't see the deterrent effect being that formidable to future statesmen.
The sweep of future history gives us all pause. Let's hope for sweeping gains, not a brr-- clean sweep.
One thing is sure, we already live in a world where 300 megatons of fusion has been released, mostly to the atmosphere. But to what health effect?
Joseph Friedlander
I looked up the research on the St George cluster and they said that with "radioactive fallout (1951 through 1962) from atmospheric nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) were followed by smaller exposures (1962 through 1979)" they got "There were 109 more cases of cancer than expected (288[observed]/179[expected])".
Wikipedia shows St George currently has a population of 73,000,
That is certainly a significant statistical effect, from many years of exposure to quite high bursts of radiation. On the other hand by definition this case has been self selected precisely because they have a higher cancer rate then normal. - in this case 60% above normal. I don't know enough statistics to calculate what the odds of something being 60% above average in those sort of numbers for events which take place in an entirely random manner as atomic collisions, by definition, do.
However I suspect that it is not that improbable. And am certain that if some other community were found to have a comparable lack of cancers in its community (111 observed, 179 expected) we would never have heard of it. Another effect is that part of the reason we see more tumours nowadays is that more doctors are looking for them. There have always been benign tumours which disappeared of their own accord and in the days before doctors looked for them they rarely found them. I would assume that in St George they were always on the lookout. The abstract doesn't say what the death rates were compared with expectations.
Also in terms of the effects of a major nuclear war these figures would slightly increase overall death rates but not to the civilisation ending level, Compare with the 1 year increase in life expectancy for every 4 that passes. This is 1/7,000 excess cancers - if they all resulted in death this would be shortening life expectancy by about 4 days.
On the other hand there is no implicit reason to believe that Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation will all have the same dangers - this has simply benn the assumption, as mathematically simple as the LNT theory itself, which bureaicrats have found easy to use.
More genuine research on the subject would certainly be very desirable.
Neil Craig
Labels: Hormesis, nuclear, Science/technology
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
ThinkScotland Article on the End Of the No Threshold Nuclear Scare
Now up on ThinkScotland. Most of it is also in my 2 previous article here and here. However here are some things I have not said previously or which were inproved by Brian's editing:
Indeed I believe that, by providing justification for hysteria against nuclear power and thus ending the fast growth in the nuclear industry of the 1960s, this scare has done more to retard human progress than even the catastrophic warming fraud. And not merely because it has lasted longer.
For some time now I have been collating news from around the world on the evidence against the Linear No Threshold theory here. I did originally intend to also list evidence for it but, despite diligent searching, neither I, nor any anti-nuclear campaigner, could find any.
AND
Nuclear costs about 30% of the average of the basket of power generating systems we use (windmills, of course, pushing the average way up). During the 1970s nuclear costs went up five-fold compared to the rate of inflation – due to regulatory costs. So all combined that brings the real cost down to 6% of current levels. Thus, even assuming there has been no more expensive ratcheting since then it is reasonable to suggest that 94% of the wholesale cost of electricity is, one way or another, government regulations.
It would take time to build such new capacity. It seems to take at least forever to shuffle the paper even to allow building new nuclear capacity here but China is currently rattling them out in three years, so it is certainly possible to do so.
Any country that chooses to get anywhere close to that cost is going to go into an unprecedented boom. That means any country run rationally of course.
Indeed I believe that, by providing justification for hysteria against nuclear power and thus ending the fast growth in the nuclear industry of the 1960s, this scare has done more to retard human progress than even the catastrophic warming fraud. And not merely because it has lasted longer.
For some time now I have been collating news from around the world on the evidence against the Linear No Threshold theory here. I did originally intend to also list evidence for it but, despite diligent searching, neither I, nor any anti-nuclear campaigner, could find any.
AND
Nuclear costs about 30% of the average of the basket of power generating systems we use (windmills, of course, pushing the average way up). During the 1970s nuclear costs went up five-fold compared to the rate of inflation – due to regulatory costs. So all combined that brings the real cost down to 6% of current levels. Thus, even assuming there has been no more expensive ratcheting since then it is reasonable to suggest that 94% of the wholesale cost of electricity is, one way or another, government regulations.
It would take time to build such new capacity. It seems to take at least forever to shuffle the paper even to allow building new nuclear capacity here but China is currently rattling them out in three years, so it is certainly possible to do so.
Any country that chooses to get anywhere close to that cost is going to go into an unprecedented boom. That means any country run rationally of course.
Labels: Hormesis, nuclear, Science/technology, ThinkScotland
Monday, January 14, 2013
Anti-Nuclear No Lower Threshold Theory Dropped - Continued
After yesterday's article on the UN regulatory authority acknowledging that there was no basis for the LNT theory I sent it out as a letter to the world's press and to some other sites.
Jerry Pournelle published it today adding this comment:
As far as I am concerned, the linear damage all the way down hypothesis was disproved years ago, and the balance of evidence strongly favors the theory of hormesis. The linear damage theory says that the dose make the poison, and even a little bit of radiation damage is too much; hormesis says that a little bit of radiation can actually be good for you. It does NOT state that if a little is good more is better.
We discussed all this years ago at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail311.html#hormesis
And more recently at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2010/Q1/mail616.html#hormesis
See also http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/radiation-hormesis-spreading-question.html
And in fact I have been writing about this since my days as science editor of Galaxy Science Fiction. There is a section on radiation hormesis in A Step Farther Out http://www.amazon.com/Step-Farther-Out-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/0441785832
But one need not accept hormesis to realize that the lowest levels of radiation don’t have much effect on large mammals.
Predictably the world's mainstream media has continued censoring.
Jerry Pournelle published it today adding this comment:
As far as I am concerned, the linear damage all the way down hypothesis was disproved years ago, and the balance of evidence strongly favors the theory of hormesis. The linear damage theory says that the dose make the poison, and even a little bit of radiation damage is too much; hormesis says that a little bit of radiation can actually be good for you. It does NOT state that if a little is good more is better.
We discussed all this years ago at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail311.html#hormesis
And more recently at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2010/Q1/mail616.html#hormesis
See also http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/radiation-hormesis-spreading-question.html
And in fact I have been writing about this since my days as science editor of Galaxy Science Fiction. There is a section on radiation hormesis in A Step Farther Out http://www.amazon.com/Step-Farther-Out-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/0441785832
But one need not accept hormesis to realize that the lowest levels of radiation don’t have much effect on large mammals.
Predictably the world's mainstream media has continued censoring.
Labels: eco-fascism, Hormesis, nuclear, Science/technology
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Linear No Threshold Theory Wrong UN Admits - Media keeps Quiet
For 60 years the Linear No Threshold theory (LNT), that low level radiation is harmful, has been the foundation of the anti-nuclear movement. It has never had any scientific justification whatsoever and this has now been publicly acknowledged by the The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
The fears engendered by this scare story have been directly responsible for the standstill in nuclear energy generation and thus in most energy generation overall in the world since 1970. Without that scare the world would be producing at least twice as much electricity and would thus be toughlt twice as well off.
Such paradigm shattering news is of massive worldwide significance and has thus been ignored by virtually all the world's conventional media with the almost sole exception of this from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/?ss=business%3Aenergy
Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Problem
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has finally admitted that we can't use the LNT hypothesis to predict cancer from low doses of radiation. Now the Japanese people can start eating their own food again and stop being as afraid. Source: United Nations
A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.
The fears engendered by this scare story have been directly responsible for the standstill in nuclear energy generation and thus in most energy generation overall in the world since 1970. Without that scare the world would be producing at least twice as much electricity and would thus be toughlt twice as well off.
Such paradigm shattering news is of massive worldwide significance and has thus been ignored by virtually all the world's conventional media with the almost sole exception of this from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/?ss=business%3Aenergy
Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Problem
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has finally admitted that we can't use the LNT hypothesis to predict cancer from low doses of radiation. Now the Japanese people can start eating their own food again and stop being as afraid. Source: United Nations
A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background
You know, like everyone’s been doing since Chernobyl. Like everyone’s still doing with Fukushima.
Finally, the world may come to its senses and not waste time on the things that aren’t hurting us and spend time on the things that are. And on the people that are in real need. Like the infrastructure and economic destruction wrought by the tsunami, like cleaning up the actual hot spots around Fukushima, like caring for the tens of thousands of Japanese living in fear of radiation levels so low that the fear itself is the only thing that is hurting them, like seriously preparing to restart their nuclear fleet and listening to the IAEA and the U.S. when we suggest improvements.
The advice on radiation in this report will clarify what can, and cannot, be said about low dose radiation health effects on individuals and large populations. Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue....
UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects.
The Japanese people can start eating their own food again, and moving back into areas only lightly contaminated with radiation levels that are similar to background in many areas of the world like Colorado and Brazil....
To recap LNT, the Linear No-Threshold Dose hypothesis is a supposition that all radiation is deadly and there is no dose below which harmful effects will not occur. Double the dose, double the cancers. First put forward after WWII by Hermann Muller, and adopted by the world body, including UNSCEAR, its primary use was as a Cold War bargaining chip to force cessation of nuclear weapons testing. The fear of radiation that took over the worldview was a side-effect (Did Muller Lie?).
Of course, doubling the dose doesn’t double the cancers below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr). It has no effect at all. The millions of nuclear workers that have been monitored closely for 50 years have no higher cancer mortality than the general population but have had several to ten times the average dose. People living in New Mexico and Wyoming have twice the annual dose as those in Los Angeles, but have lower cancer rates. These cannot occur if LNT were true, because LNT states this could not occur.
There are no observable effects in any population group around the planet that suggest LNT is true below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr) even in areas of the Middle East, Brazil and France where natural background doses exceed 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr).
UNSCEAR is an independent body of international experts that has met regularly since 1955 and helped establish radiation as the best understood, though weakest, carcinogenic agent in the world through its studies of atomic bomb survivors, the effects of the Chernobyl accident, industrial radiological accidents, and medical radiation treatment.
Many of us have been at them for years to stop procrastinating and prevaricating on something so important that the inaction itself is harmful. This report is a welcome change. The report, approved by the United Nations General Assembly, will now serve to guide all countries of the world in setting their own national radiation safety policies...
Accepted global limits on radioactivity levels in foods is 1000 Bq/kg (1,200 Bq/kg in the U.S.). Dominated by cesium-137 and Sr-90, these levels were set by organizations like the IAEA and UNSCEAR after decades of study. Because of public radiation fears broadcast in the press after the Fukushima accident, Japan cut the limit in half hoping it would have a calming influence. But the level of fear remained high, so Tokyo lowered the limits to one-tenth of the international standards.
This was supposed to induce calm? Telling the public that radiation is even more deadly than they thought? That their food is toxic? Were they nuts?
This has had the unintended (?) consequence of making people even more afraid of what they are eating, moving safe foods into the scary category and limiting food exports, causing even further economic and social damage.
Suddenly, all sorts of normally safe foods are now banned. Wild mushrooms from Aomori Prefecture are now banned because they have cesium levels of about 120 Bq/kg. This cesium has nothing to do with Fukushima, it’s the same type as is in everyone’s food around the world, and it wouldn’t have rated a second look before the accident.
The Japanese people should not be punished for nothing. But these new results and the UNSCEAR reports demonstrate that they are being punished. There was no reason to lower the rad limits on food, especially after the short-lived nuclides have long decayed away. One of the incorrect assumptions was that people in Japan would be eating only contaminated food, which is quite wrong. The international limits were set for very good reasons, lowering them makes no sense except to further hurt farmers and consumers in Japan.
UNSCEAR’s chair Wolfgang Weiss stated that no radiation health effects had been observed in Japan among the public, workers or children in the area of the damaged nuclear power plants, in keeping with studies already published by the World Health Organization and Tokyo University....
Ingestion of the short-lived isotope iodine-131, with its well-known risk of thyroid cancer when absorbed in the thyroid glands of children and young people, was the only major radiation-related health effect of the Chernobyl accident on the public. And the Soviets could have prevented that by acting quickly and openly. Of course, the Soviets didn’t much care about the public.
This will not happen in Japan. Iodine-131, with a half-life of only 8 days, decayed away in a few months following the accident and no one was found to have ingested any significant amount.
According to the reports, six Fukushima workers received total doses of over 0.25 Sv (25 rem) during their time fighting the emergency, while 170 workers received doses between 0.1 and 0.25 Sv (10 to 25 rem). None have shown ill effects and most likely never will. Radiation played no role in the coincidental deaths of six Fukushima workers in the time since the accident, who died from accidents, e.g., being crushed by debris or being swept out to sea.
Yes, there are health effects of radiation above 0.1 Sv (10 rem) that statistically increase up to 1 Sv (100 rem) but even in this higher range it’s hard to see them without a big enough population. The only radiation events on this scale, where large populations received 0.1 Sv (10 rem) to 1 Sv (100 rem) have been the atomic bomb blasts from World War II.
The effects of radiation only start to become clear at high acute absorbed doses of over 1 Sv (100 rem), and even then it is necessary to eliminate other potential causes before radiation can be unequivocally said to be the cause, advised UNSCEAR.
What this means for nuclear waste disposal is even more dramatic, but more on that later!
In the end, if we don’t reorient ourselves on what is true about radiation and not on the fear, we will fail the citizens of Japan, Belarus and the Ukraine, and we will continue to spend time and money on the wrong things. I’m sure the anti-nuke ideologues and conspiracy theorists will not accept these U.N. reports, but then…they don’t like the United Nations anyway.
Background Radiation Differences on Annual Cancer Mortality Rates/100,000 for each U.S. State over a 17-Year Period
I have reprinted almost the entire Forbes article here - it is all that important. Indeed looking at the graph it seems UNSCEAR are still understating - the graph clearly shows effect predicted by the hormesis theory (that at fairly low levels radiation actually improves health) from above 2.7 mSv.
Labels: eco-fascism, Hormesis, nuclear, Science/technology
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Nuclear Radiation Scare Links
A commenter elsewhere has given a link to my collected links on the Linear No Threshold scare story - that there is no lower limit at which radiation is safe - on which virtually the entire anti-nuclear movement depends. In my opinion this scare story for which there has never been any evidence & an increasing amount of evidence that low level radiation is beneficial, has been considerably more damaging to humanity than even the catastrophic warming fraud. He also provided a couple of other links:
This pdf from Jerry Cuttler gives a fair summary and concludes with these reccomendations:
• Scientific societies should organize events to discuss radiation and health
• Regulatory bodies and health organization should examine the scientific evidence
• Stop calculating nuclear safety cancer risk
• Stop regulating harmless radiation sources
• Develop public communication programs
• Raise radiation level for evacuation from
20 to 1000 mSv/year
The other link shows it is a politically enforced scare which the scientific community knows to be fraudulent.
“What is the general feeling among people in your line of work,” I asked, “about whether the dangers of nuclear radiation are being exaggerated?”
There was a sullen silence until one volunteer finally put up his hand. “We don’t really have any choice in the matter,” he said. “We have to do what the regulators tell us. The powers that be say there is no safe dose of radiation so we have to guard against any emissions whatever, no matter how small.”
A couple of other people gave dispirited seconds to his remarks, but one more outspoken audience member, a sales representative for the western United States, finally spoke out. “You know,” he said, “we really ought to do something about this. We know the dangers of radiation are highly exaggerated and we know that the public is being misled on this issue. There ought to be some way we could reach the public on this issue. We ought to put out a statement or something.”....
As one attendee explained to me at the cocktail hour afterwards, “Ever since the earliest days of nuclear power there’s been a general aura of fear surrounding the issue of radiation. People are just scared of it and scientists in the field really don’t like to talk about it much. That’s why we call ourselves `health physicists’ instead of `radiation specialists.’”
It’s sad to see an entire profession so badly cowed, afraid to confront the public over something they firmly believe. But of course the reaction is more than likely to be that the profession has been “bought by the nuclear industry” and that radiation specialists are callously willing to endanger the public “for profit.”
------------------------
While there are what Feynman called "cargo cult scientists" who push this scare story it is, by definition, impossible for any real scientist, who understands and respects scientific principles to. Unfortunately politicical parasites far prefer funding the former.
This pdf from Jerry Cuttler gives a fair summary and concludes with these reccomendations:
• Scientific societies should organize events to discuss radiation and health
• Regulatory bodies and health organization should examine the scientific evidence
• Stop calculating nuclear safety cancer risk
• Stop regulating harmless radiation sources
• Develop public communication programs
• Raise radiation level for evacuation from
20 to 1000 mSv/year
The other link shows it is a politically enforced scare which the scientific community knows to be fraudulent.
“What is the general feeling among people in your line of work,” I asked, “about whether the dangers of nuclear radiation are being exaggerated?”
There was a sullen silence until one volunteer finally put up his hand. “We don’t really have any choice in the matter,” he said. “We have to do what the regulators tell us. The powers that be say there is no safe dose of radiation so we have to guard against any emissions whatever, no matter how small.”
A couple of other people gave dispirited seconds to his remarks, but one more outspoken audience member, a sales representative for the western United States, finally spoke out. “You know,” he said, “we really ought to do something about this. We know the dangers of radiation are highly exaggerated and we know that the public is being misled on this issue. There ought to be some way we could reach the public on this issue. We ought to put out a statement or something.”....
As one attendee explained to me at the cocktail hour afterwards, “Ever since the earliest days of nuclear power there’s been a general aura of fear surrounding the issue of radiation. People are just scared of it and scientists in the field really don’t like to talk about it much. That’s why we call ourselves `health physicists’ instead of `radiation specialists.’”
It’s sad to see an entire profession so badly cowed, afraid to confront the public over something they firmly believe. But of course the reaction is more than likely to be that the profession has been “bought by the nuclear industry” and that radiation specialists are callously willing to endanger the public “for profit.”
------------------------
While there are what Feynman called "cargo cult scientists" who push this scare story it is, by definition, impossible for any real scientist, who understands and respects scientific principles to. Unfortunately politicical parasites far prefer funding the former.
Labels: Hormesis, nuclear, Science/technology
Monday, October 01, 2012
Low Level Radiation Scare - More Proof That It Is A Fraud
Another useful article, if any more are neded, that the theory that low level radiation is harmful, or indeed anything but beneficial, is false and has been maintained by government emopire building bureaucracies.
!green earth was created out of the radioactive waste products of the great nuclear reactions that spawned the galaxies and the planets. Life arose out of, and adapted to, a much higher level of natural radiation than exists today. Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die.
Despite all the radioactive material we create, this radioactivity is nowhere near enough to keep up with the decay of the earth’s natural radioactivity, which becomes inexorably smaller every day. Thus, most populations today are “under-dosed” and would benefit from more irradiation in the range of interest."
This may be a not entirely proven statement since it is hundreds of millions of years since we had a much higher background radiation, - from 4 to 8 times originally and twice current at 0.7-1 gigayears ago. On the one hand that means we have a long time to evolve - on the other hand the salt content of our blood is fair analogue to that of sea water when we first exited the sea & despite the fact that not needing salt would be a lot easier, we still do.
From the conclusion of the same article
"The results of the study contradict the LNT hypothesis. From the database of almost 700,000 shipyard workers, including about 107,000 nuclear workers, two closely matched study groups were selected, consisting of 28,542 nuclear workers with working lifetime doses over 5 mSv (many received doses well in excess of 50 mSv), and 33,352 non-nuclear workers. The data showed that the nuclear workers had a significantly lower death rate from “all malignant neoplasms” though this fact was omitted from the Summary of Findings and not reported in UNSCEAR 1994.
These risk decrements are inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis and do not appear to be explainable by the constantly invoked “healthy worker effect.” The nuclear and the non-nuclear workers were similarly selected for employment, were afforded the same health care thereafter, and except for exposure to shipyard radiation, performed the identical type of work, with a similar median age of entry into employment of about 34 years. This provides evidence with extremely high statistical power that low levels of ionizing radiation are associated with decreased risks.
The 10 million dollar 437 page report was not published...."
!green earth was created out of the radioactive waste products of the great nuclear reactions that spawned the galaxies and the planets. Life arose out of, and adapted to, a much higher level of natural radiation than exists today. Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die.
Despite all the radioactive material we create, this radioactivity is nowhere near enough to keep up with the decay of the earth’s natural radioactivity, which becomes inexorably smaller every day. Thus, most populations today are “under-dosed” and would benefit from more irradiation in the range of interest."
This may be a not entirely proven statement since it is hundreds of millions of years since we had a much higher background radiation, - from 4 to 8 times originally and twice current at 0.7-1 gigayears ago. On the one hand that means we have a long time to evolve - on the other hand the salt content of our blood is fair analogue to that of sea water when we first exited the sea & despite the fact that not needing salt would be a lot easier, we still do.
From the conclusion of the same article
"The results of the study contradict the LNT hypothesis. From the database of almost 700,000 shipyard workers, including about 107,000 nuclear workers, two closely matched study groups were selected, consisting of 28,542 nuclear workers with working lifetime doses over 5 mSv (many received doses well in excess of 50 mSv), and 33,352 non-nuclear workers. The data showed that the nuclear workers had a significantly lower death rate from “all malignant neoplasms” though this fact was omitted from the Summary of Findings and not reported in UNSCEAR 1994.
These risk decrements are inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis and do not appear to be explainable by the constantly invoked “healthy worker effect.” The nuclear and the non-nuclear workers were similarly selected for employment, were afforded the same health care thereafter, and except for exposure to shipyard radiation, performed the identical type of work, with a similar median age of entry into employment of about 34 years. This provides evidence with extremely high statistical power that low levels of ionizing radiation are associated with decreased risks.
The 10 million dollar 437 page report was not published...."
Labels: Government parasitism, Hormesis, nuclear
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Low Level Radiation - Definitely Not Bad For You
A round up of some recent stuff via Next Big Future.
Main article
Environmental Health Perspectives - Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation
The point about planes is valuable because records of aircrew flight times are obviously available making establishing exposure an arithmetic exercise. And we find:
Going to the abstract of the article
You can see from the way this is written that the intent was to confirm the official position. When you start pointing out that a few cancers are above average you are pointing out the obvious. With hundreds of different types it is statistically certain that some will be above average and some below. Even here, being good scientists reporting results they didn't want, they have the honesty to say that there is a reasonable explanation for one of them.
But the killer is the "generally lower than in the comparison population". That is not zero evidence for the official theory it is significant evidence for hormesis in human beings.
It is not, on its own, conclusive evidence for hormesis. However it is not on its own. Professor Cohen's study of the effects of geological background radiation across the USA showed a beneficial hormetic effect equal to half the negative effect of smoking. Also there has been a century of laboratory proof on cells, microbes and plants. There are many many others listed by me here. The aircraft result is merely the cherry topping, but nonetheless important. Even if a few are questionable the overwhelming amount of evidence is conclusive.
All the moreso since there remains zero, not very little but zero, for the politically maintained theory that low level radiation is harmful. A theory for which there is no evidence is technically called a hypothesis, one for which there is only overwhelming evidence that it is wrong is technically called bullshit.
The LNT bullshit is not science. No "scientist" promoting it can, by definition, actually be a scientist though in a world where Madonna claims to be one a number of "Cabala scientists" reducing radiation levels by prayer, such government fed leeches, like SEPA, will doubtless continue calling themselves such.
Without the LNT theory the entire anti-nuclear scare is baseless. Indeed the nuclear industry is the only one which, through its "pollution" has net saved lives. The anti-nuclear fraud has cost the world decades of serious wealth creation and 10s of millions of lives.
And fortunately an increasing number of real scientists are willing to put their heads above the parapet to say so.
Main article
Cornwall, a popular tourist destination in southwest England, has four times the level of radon as other parts of the country.
The highest level of background radiation is in the state of Kerala and city of Chennai in southern India, where people receive average doses above 30 millisieverts per year, or 3.42 microsieverts an hour,..
In Brazil and Sudan, exposure can reach 40 millisieverts a year or 4.57 microsieverts an hour.
Background radiation is 50 times higher than New York in the Sudan and parts of India.
Background radiation is 5 times higher than New York in India in general
Background radiation is almost 3 times higher than New York in the UK
Radiation levels are also far higher on planes.
Long term studies do not show increased deaths from the radiation
Environmental Health Perspectives - Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation
RESULTS: Under low dose-rate conditions, we did not observe any changes in the levels of the DNA nucleobase damage products hypoxanthine, 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine, 1,N6-ethenoadenine or 3,N4-ethenocytosine above background. The micronucleus assay revealed no evidence that low dose-rate radiation induced DNA fragmentation. Furthermore, there was no evidence of double strand break-induced homologous recombination. Finally, low dose-rate radiation did not induce Cdkn1a, Gadd45a, Mdm2, Atm, or Dbd2. Importantly, the same total dose, when delivered acutely, induced micronuclei and transcriptional responses.
CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results demonstrate in an in vivo animal model that lowering the dose-rate suppresses the potentially deleterious impact of radiationNot not sufficient evidence or questionable evidence but "no evidence" to support the LNT claims.
The point about planes is valuable because records of aircrew flight times are obviously available making establishing exposure an arithmetic exercise. And we find:
No extra deaths for air crews who can get flying long haul routes for ten years would get 30-90 milliSv (30,000 to 90,000 microsieverts) and for 20 year would get 60-180 milliSv
Going to the abstract of the article
Exposure to cosmic ionising radiation, in addition to other specific occupational risks, is of concern to aircrew members. Epidemiological studies provide an objective way to assess the health of this occupational group. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature on health of aircrew members since 1990, focusing on cancer as the endpoint of interest. Sixty-five relevant publications were identified and reviewed. Whereas overall cancer incidence and mortality was generally lower than in the comparison population, consistently elevated risks were reported for breast cancer incidence in female aircrew members and for melanoma in both male and female aircrew members. Brain cancer was increased in some studies among pilots. Occasionally trends of increasing cancer mortality or incidence with increasing estimated radiation dose were reported. Ionising radiation is considered to contribute little if at all to the elevated risks for cancers among aircrew, whereas excess ultraviolet radiation is a probable cause of the increased melanoma risk.
You can see from the way this is written that the intent was to confirm the official position. When you start pointing out that a few cancers are above average you are pointing out the obvious. With hundreds of different types it is statistically certain that some will be above average and some below. Even here, being good scientists reporting results they didn't want, they have the honesty to say that there is a reasonable explanation for one of them.
But the killer is the "generally lower than in the comparison population". That is not zero evidence for the official theory it is significant evidence for hormesis in human beings.
It is not, on its own, conclusive evidence for hormesis. However it is not on its own. Professor Cohen's study of the effects of geological background radiation across the USA showed a beneficial hormetic effect equal to half the negative effect of smoking. Also there has been a century of laboratory proof on cells, microbes and plants. There are many many others listed by me here. The aircraft result is merely the cherry topping, but nonetheless important. Even if a few are questionable the overwhelming amount of evidence is conclusive.
All the moreso since there remains zero, not very little but zero, for the politically maintained theory that low level radiation is harmful. A theory for which there is no evidence is technically called a hypothesis, one for which there is only overwhelming evidence that it is wrong is technically called bullshit.
The LNT bullshit is not science. No "scientist" promoting it can, by definition, actually be a scientist though in a world where Madonna claims to be one a number of "Cabala scientists" reducing radiation levels by prayer, such government fed leeches, like SEPA, will doubtless continue calling themselves such.
Without the LNT theory the entire anti-nuclear scare is baseless. Indeed the nuclear industry is the only one which, through its "pollution" has net saved lives. The anti-nuclear fraud has cost the world decades of serious wealth creation and 10s of millions of lives.
And fortunately an increasing number of real scientists are willing to put their heads above the parapet to say so.
Labels: eco-fascism, Hormesis, nuclear
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
£3504 - the Cost To Us Of Anti-Nuclear EcoFascism
The average household's annual energy bill of £1,252 now accounts for 11pc of a couple's basic state pension of £11,175 a year, the study by price comparison website uSwitch.com found.
The cost of energy is now the top household worry for Britons (90pc), ahead of the rising cost of food (77pc) and mortgage payments (42pc).
Almost a third of consumers (32pc) say that household energy is unaffordable in the UK, the poll found.
While the average UK household income has increased by 20pc from £32,812 in 2004 to £39,468 today, the average energy bill has risen by 140pc, according to uSwitch figures.From the Telegraph
Note also that
1- Electricity bills could be reduced by 93% (ie £84) very likely more if we had as much nuclear power as there is a market for and a level regulatory regime. Christopher Booker has also said the the cost could be halved if we had shale gas but he is clearly being very conservative in that estimate & I suspect that shale gas will end under the cost of what nuclear is now (30% of the average or £376), though still higher than what it could be.
2 - Only 1/3rd of electricity is used at home. But wherever it is used the cost is not borne by the capitalism fairy but eventually comes through, through increased prices of everything else, to us. Thus the total cost to us of anti-nuclear Luiddism is not £1252 - £84 = £1168 but 3 times that at £3504.
------------------------------------------
As an example of how the anti-nuclear Luddites control; our media lets compare coverage.
The Chernobyl disaster cannot be honestly said to have killed more than around 50 people. There have certainly been incredible claims that, under the linear no threshold theory anything up to a million would, real soon now, start dying, but this has not happened. Moreover even the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in a legally mandated freedom of information request, have publicly acknowledged that they know of no actual scientific evidence whatsoever for this "theory" - it is simply political.
If these predicted deaths had happened they would have been statistically obvious, thus Chernobyl itself is strong proof the theory is false.
Recently Russia had a 3.4 times worse disaster - the Krymsk flood that killed 171.
Shortly before Chernobyl there was the horrific Ufa Train Disaster and gas explosion in the USSR that killed 575 - 11 times as many as Chernobyl.
While 21,000 died in the Japanese earthquake and tsunami 0.00 died in the Fukushima nuclear "disaster". I have previously pointed out that the real disaster gets far less media coverage than the false one.
With the BBC's charter duty of "due balance" they are certainly legally required to report in a manner balanced to what really happened. With £389 mentions, currently, they must, if uncorrupt, have made 1,323 mentions of Krymsk (ignoring the fact that the latter is current news). Being wholly (well 99.5%) corrupt they manage 7. Ufa, even being as outdated a news story as Chernobyl should have 4,300 mentions. On this case the BBC manage to prove themselves a perfect 100% corrupt ecofascist propagandists having censored any mention of that event whatsoever.
------------------------------
I will be putting some of this as a letter across the media. We will see if questioniong of fairly obvious and indisputable media censorship is, even with editing, publishable.
Labels: Hormesis, Media, nuclear
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Dalgety Bay - A Query to the Academics
The silence of academics on this matter is interesting. Though it is not total.
Steuart Campbell (possibly Scotland's most respected science writer) contributed section 4 here. Freeman Dyson, one of the world's most eminent physicists has previously told me that he does not believe that such very low level radiation is harmful at all. In fact he says of the directly opposite theory, known as hormesis, that this radiation, if it were present at Dalgety, would actually be beneficial to health "which I find quite likely" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/freeman-dyson-guest-post.html. Professor Fred Singer, who had a prominent scientific career long before becoming dean of the warming sceptics and Jerry Pournelle, the space scientist who chaired the committee who persuaded Reagan to support SDI have been equally dismissive of the basis on which this entire scare story is based.
In the last few days I have received replies to FoI's from SEPA and & the Food Standards Agency. The former have confirmed that, with their massive resources in the field, they have been unable to find any scientific evidence whatsoever that such radiation is harmful. The latter, while relying on SEPA having proven the presence of radium there, something which SEPA have claimed but repeatedly been unable to prove, finally accepted that there is no actual evidence of danger and that they are relying entirely on the "precautionary approach" which, if they actually believed in it would require them not only to ban all food imports that could have come from higher radiation areas around the world but also "would require you to ban selling haggis on the grounds that it might attract flying saucers - a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, but then that is the point of this principle" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dalgety-bay-food-standard-agencys-reply.html
Having seen the understandable unwillingness of individual scientists to "put their heads above the parapet" over global warming and the way that those professional bodies that get government funding line up behind government policy I am sanguine about any of them being wiling to take a stand here.
However I have decided to send a copy of this article to members of the radiological departments of Scotland's Universities to see if they would care to comment to ThinkScotland or myself.
====================
Dear Sir,
My undernoted article on the alleged radiation "threat" at Dalgety Bay http://www.thinkscotland.org/change-scotland/articles.html?read_full=11466&article=www.thinkscotland.org has recently been published by the online news website ThinkScotland. It raises a whole range of questions about this scare story including, is the possible maximum theoretical amount of radium there no more than 1 part in 35 billion of the naturally occurring radioactives there? Is this an amount on which such scare stories can credibly be based? Is there any actual scientific evidence whatsoever for the scare story that low level radiation is harmful? SEPA themselves have confirmed they know of none and have to rely on evidence free assumptions by other functionaries.
A statement either way would be appreciated. I realise that saying that the scare story produced by a government department is without scientific foundation might be ticklish and if, for that reason, you feel unable to reply I will understand. In that case I hope you will be prepared to forward this to an emeritus member of staff, who could safely reply.
Labels: Dalgety Bay, Hormesis, nuclear
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Dalgety Bay - Food Standard Agency's Reply to FoI
On May 17th I sent this FoI to the Food Standards Agency in Scotland in their ban of fishingm & received this today, so at least they deserve some credit for not waiting till the last legal moment, or beyond. My questions are in normal, their answers in bold and my comments in bold italics.
1 - What evidence, from the FSA's knowledge, do you have of "radium" being found on the beach? If none write "none".
Radium contamination was first detected in 1990 as part of the routine environmental monitoring report. Subsequent surveys bring the total number of radioactive particles and items recovered to date to over 2,000. ... results are available on SEPA's website.
This is false. Radium has not provably been detected. All that has been detected is radiation, some clumped in what are described as "particles". SEPA have repeatedly refused to produce any actual evidence of radium in response to FoIs asking that precise question, indeed this refusal to do so or admit the lack is now subject to an appeal..
2 - What background readings of radiation has the FSA made at this beach and at others nearby, as a control, and have you found the radiation level higher at Dalgety Bay? Of none and no write "none and no".
None. The FSA does not directly undertake monitoring...
SEPA does not undertake such monitoring either. So it is accepted that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Dalgety Bay radiation exceeds that of neighbouring beaches in intensity or particularity/clumpiness.
3 - Does the FSA accept SEPA's evidence that the radiation at Dalgety Bay is "less than 2/3rds background in Aberdeen" and that this also makes it as low as 1% of the radiation level in various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports? If yes answer "Yes".
The issue of concern does not apply to the levels of background radiation but to the possibility that highly radioactive particles could enter the food chain. Although the answer to the question is Yes
Since he has admitted is no evidence that the "particles" are more common than on neighbouring beaches let alone as common as across Aberdeen. On the question of whether being in particles is more "dangerous" than normal background radiation see answer to #5.
4 - Does the FSA dispute evidence that the maximum theoretical level of radium from these dials, had all of it been deposited on the beach and none of it washed or blown away over the last 60 years, would not exceed 25% of naturally occurring radium there or 1/35,000,000,000th of the total naturally occurring background radioactives there? If you do not dispute it answer "no".
Yes. A "theoretical level" is simply a theory not evidence. It is evident from the heterogeneity, of the items discovered, the uneven distribution of deposits and historical accounts that the contamination derives not just from luminised dials, but as a result of debris from repair, reluminising work, and disposal of luminised items carried out on-site.
The maximum amount is based on the historical accounts and unlike by the FSA, has not been disputed by SEPA in any way, even under the legal pressure of FoIs. He is misusing the English language here using "theoretical" as if it meant "drawn from theory" when in fact it clearly means "an absolute maximum, from the known facts above which the radium level could not go, though in non-theoretical conditions it is likely much of it will have been lost over the last 60 years". The distribution cannot be said to be uneven since, as acknowledged, there has not been a search elsewhere. I am not sure in what way the particles/clumps discovered can be said to be particularly heterogeneous. While one would expect any painting to be purely of the aircraft dials in question claims that the radiation comes from other "luminised items" rather than just dials have not been made in previous FOIs. It would seem to require some evidence that Dalgety Bay airfield was also a radium watch factory or laboratory for refining pitchblende to obtain natural radium. This is an extraordinary new claim for which no evidence has been produced and goes against all common sense.
5 - If the answers are as I suggest then it is obviously impossible to honestly claim there is a real radiation threat to food there, let alone one which, if the rules are applied honestly, would not Is there another credible option? If no answer "no". If there is please give it.
Yes, the contamination has arisen from local historical activities and is confined to the Dalgety Bay area. Additionally the contaminate is particulate and some particles are small enough to be ingested by seafood such as winkles and mussels. If these were subsequently consumed they could cause direct damage to the human gut and an increased risk of cancer. Laboratory studies have shown that some particles would be soluble in the human gut which would increase the potential dose.
Again this is untrue. No evidence has been produced of "contamination" as opposed to natural radiation, indeed it is accepted that Dalgety is less "contaminated" by radiation than other places. There is no evidence of the claimed "historical activities" that, alone, could have increased any theoretical radioactives by more
than a 35 billionth. Nor has any evidence been produced that it is "confined to the Dalgety Bay area" since neither SEPA nor the FSA have looked.
That being the case and they have not been" closing down all fishing from Aberdeenshire and points north let alone prohibiting any food imports from much of the world" then it is proven that "only possible reason for doing this is to deliberately promote a fraudulent scare story" by a wholly corrupt and parasitic organisation..
"Laboratory studies have shown that some particles would be soluble in the human gut which would increase the potential dose" is a particularly interesting remark for 2 reasons. Firstly, since the paint was water soluble virtually all, not merely "some" of the "particles" should be water soluble - if they aren't natural particles. Even more importantly it is an acknowledgement that they know all the stuff said in answer to #3 about this radiation being dangerous in a way background radiation isn't is because it is "particles". This is the "hot particle theory and is accepted by wikipedia and apparently even by the FSA when it suits them, as false.
Calling things "particles" is clearly disingenuous if you don't mention size. Everything is a particle but, by the laws of geometry, the larger a particle proportionately the less surface area it has, to contact anything outside so for equal amounts of radioactives and background radiation, it would be better for it to be in particles and anybody using particularlity rather than background radiation as the measure of danger is lying. The FSA has done so but has also achieved the remarkable feat of claiming the precise opposite as well in the same letter.
6 - If the answer to 5 is no is there any specific ruling applying to Dalgety Bay but not the rest of the country that prevents this action from representing the very highest standard of honesty the FSA Scotland aspire to or that would make any ruling on any food matter by you infinitely more trustworthy than this. If none and no answer "none and no".
The FSA has a statutory responsibility to protect consumers through ensuring food safety and has taken a precautionary approach, based on the best available evidence, in order to discharge the responsibility.
That appears to be "none" and "no" then. Note the use of the term "precautionary approach". This is basically a way of saying "we don't need no stinkin evidence" & relegates the entire organisation into the realm of unscientific quackery. Of course if they were honest non-scientific quacks, who actually believed a word of their own scare story they would also be banning imports of food from the "various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports" but are up to 100 times more radioactive.
My Reply
Dear Dr Will Munro,
Thank you for the FSA's reply. I am including my blog comments for you to comment on should you feel you can enhance the FSA's credibility in any way by doing so.
Your answers bring up obvious further questions which I would be obliged for a reply to under the Act..
1 - What evidence do you have for your claim that some of the 0.25g which might have been spread over the area 60 years ago, has been detected by chemical or other means? If you have none your first answer is untrue and must be corrected.
3 - What is your evidence that the hot particle theory, on which your claim that only the particularity of the materials, not the overall level is important depends, is correct?
4 - What is your evidence for the claimed, but previously unknown, other radium contamination not linked to dial paint? What is your evidence that the distribution of "particles" is different from that at Dalgety in neighbouring beaches which both SEPA and yourselves admit you have not similarly examined? In both cases, if none answer none and provide a new answer.
5 - See 4 above. If no control sample has been attempted on neighbouring beaches how can it be possible to say that the radiation is only at Dalgety? The alternative being that it is natural and occurs elsewhere.
Also what is your evidence that the opposite ofv the hot particle theory is true and that radiation reduced to undetectable particles in solution, comparable to background radiation, is the more dangerous?
6 -The evidence free, anti-scientific "precautionary approach" would require the banning of any imported food that might come from an area of up to 100 times more radiation than Dalgety, or even from Aberdeen. Indeed technically it would require you to ban selling haggis on the grounds that it might attract flying saucers - a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, but then that is the point of this principle. Will this principle be applied without prejudice?
I accept your agreement on #2.
Labels: Dalgety Bay, Hormesis, Scottish politics
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Dalgety Bay - FoI Response - Dounraey Radiation Scare Equally Fraudulent - SEPA Know of No Slightest Shred Of Evidence For ANY Low Level Radiation Scare
SEPA have "answered" my last FoI. As I said in that FoI posted here "I have now been asked to appeal this refusal and once again ask you to provide the specific information requested. Not merely to say it is somewhere on our website, particularly when this is not true."
A couple of days before the reply was legally due i got a phone call saying that since they were doing their very p best to provide a full and definitive set of answers would it be OK of they were a few days beyond the legal time limit. Being the moderate and placatory person revealed on this site I said yes.
So the reply is certainly extensive.
In answer to the first 3 questions (whether paint particles have been found, whether radium has been found, whether claims to have done so have been retracted and whether SEPA are more honest in any of their dealings than to falsely claim to have found them), SEPA sent a detailed 10 page reply. It said absolutely nothing beyond that it is all on our website - something which, incidentally is a lie.
The next file sent was slightly more responsive.
In answer to (4) - what scientific breakthrough proved, after they had made their promise to designate the place as radioactive waste that so completely changed all the evidence as to make them stop - the answer was - this is on the website.Iit isn't.
For (5) -what makes Dounraey different and what other local beach has been used as a control, sample the answer was
The nature of the radioactive "particles" at Dounraey is different from the nature of radioactive "particles" at Dalgety Beach. Particles at Dounraey are fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel which arose from reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods. Particles at Dalgety Bay result from burning and dumping luminised instruments..."So, while they don't actually answer the question the clear implication is that no scientific control sample has ever been taken at Dounraey to find out if it is more radioactive than background either and certainly that there is no stronger evidence for any threat at Dounraey than for the fraudulent scare story at Dalgety.
Reports on the particles at Dounraey is available on our website http://www.sepa.org/radioactive%20substances/publications/dounraey%20reports.aspx..
Since so many billions are being spent by the bureaucracy on Dounraey the fact that they cannot claim to have done even the most basic scientific examination of the alleged danger of these alleged particles is very revealing.
On (6) what actual scientific evidence do they claim to have that there is any truth in the Linear Non-Threshold assertion that such low level radiation is in any way harmful the answer is
Statutory dose limits and constraints for the radiological protection of the public are derived from international agreements derived from bodies such as the EC, IEA and the ICRP.
That's it. No actual scientific evidence whatsoever - it is simply an assertion that has been decreed by those in charge. When I, as a private individual, say I have been unable to find any actual evidence against hormesis and for the LNT scare that is one thing. When the radiological department of a government "Environment Protection Agency" whose entire careers absolutely depend on the truth of this scare, under a legal obligation to produce it if it exists, says they know of no slightest scrap of actual evidence whatsoever that Linear Non-Threshold story us in any way truthful you can take that to the bank.
And that part of their "answer" took a mere 5 pages.
So now an appeal goes to the Scottish Information Commissioner that, having repeatedly refused to answer FoI's and in response to an appeal they asked me to put in, phrased in the simplest terms, asking for actual information, SEPA have gone to the greatest possible lengths to make no answer beyond "its on the website" (which is untrue) . Granted they accidentally revealed rather than deliberately told, the truth on the last 2 points.
Labels: Dalgety Bay, Hormesis, nuclear
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Dalgety Bay - A Flank Attack From Another Part of the Burreaucracy
Restrictions have been placed on gathering seafood and bait from a beach affected by radioactive particles.If one part of the bureaucracy cannot get its way bring in another. This woll doubtless then be used as "evidence" that there must be a problem because the Food Standards Agency, Scotland also say there is. An ionfinite circle of mutual support held in mid air by itself. The phrase "
Warning signs are already in place at Dalgety Bay in Fife saying seafood should not be collected but new restrictions have been issued making it an offence, the Food Standards Agency in Scotland said.
The is "a precautionary measure" following recent surveys detecting radioactive items on the beach, the food watchdog said.
It added that the restrictions will be reviewed in light of further evidence or any action taken "to remediate the contamination".
Although there is no commercial fishing or shellfish industry in the area, individuals are known to collect shellfish, it said.
a precautionary measure" rather suggests no evidence but we will see.
This prompts another FoI
Dear Food Standards Agency in Scotland,
I note that you have decided to ban fishing in Dalgety Bay, purely on the basis of the alleged finding of radioactive "radium" there. This raises a number of questions of fact and of principle which I must ask you, under the FoI Act, or any other pertinent regulation, to answer.
1 - What evidence, from the FSA's knowledge, do you have of "radium" being found on the beach? If none write "none".
2 - What background readings of radiation has the FSA made at this beach and at others nearby, as a control, and have you found the radiation level higher at Dalgety Bay? Of none and no write "none and no".
3 - Does the FSA accepts SEPA's evidence that the radiation at Dalgety Bay is "less than 2/3rds background in Aberdeen" and that this also makes it as low as 1% of the radiation level in various places around the world from which the FSA does not ban imports? If yes answer "yes".
4 - Does the FSA dispute evidence that the maximum theoretical level of radium from these dials, had all of it been deposited on the beach and none of it washed or blown away over the last 60 years, would not exceed 25% of naturally occurring radium there or 1/35,000,000,000th of the total naturally occuring background radioactives there? If you do not dispute it answer "no".
5 - If the answers are as I suggest then it is obviously impossible to honestly claim there is a real radiation threat to food there, let alone one which, if the rules are applied honestly, would not involve closing down all fishing from Aberdeenshire and points north let alone prohibiting any food imports from much of the world. If that is not currently being done the only possible reason for doing this is to deliberately promote a fraudulent scare story. Is there another credible option? If no answer "no". If there is please give it.
6 - If the answer to 5 is no is there any specific ruling applying to Dalgety Bay but not the rest of the country that prevents this action from representing the very highest standard of honesty the FSA Scotland aspire to or that would make any ruling on any food matter by you infinitely more trustworthy than this. If none and no answer "none and no".
As you will see I have gone to some pains to make it possible for you to answer this easily and clearly, rather than saying , falsely, that its all on our website, as SEPA have repeatedly donethough if any of the answers are different from those suggested please give reasons. Perhaps this will make it easier to provide an answer before the absolute legal limit of 20 working days.
Labels: Dalgety Bay, Hormesis, Scottish politics
