Please share far and wide!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Comment on NRC hormesis

I have a Master Degree from U of Michigan in Material Science and am very well versed in nuclear and radiation.

It is beyond reckoning that the "medical industry" supposedly based at the most basic "Hippocratic Oath" level of "Do No Harm".   

Radiologist "Doctors" are some of the highest paid in the industry.    They probably think it is cool to treat cancer with radiation.   For the most part that is just short of insane.

Carol Marcus should be ashamed, especially as a woman" to insist that women, girls, and even fetuses be allowed to be blasted with up to 100mSV per year.     "remove any differential treatment" is the nice way of saying "blast them just the same as a nuclear plant worker during an accident.

Although LNT itself is rather "silly" to use as a standard, if you are looking for something that is correct per science.    I mean, LNT is based upon nuclear bomb exposure in Japan, extrapolated down to zero.    Although it sets a somewhat conservative safety level, It just doesn't make sense out of the gate compared to the numerous different isotopes and radiation related heavy metals humans and animals are now exposed to.   

That said, tossing out LNT because it is not perfect, and replacing it with "hormesis, radiation is good for you, is absurd, i am kind of shocked that the NRC would even consider this. 

Now we know the nuclear industry is shutting plants left and right, and Vogtle, if it ever goes critical will double or triple the electric cost.    And we know the NRC, if not captured, surely promotes and tries to protect the nuclear industry.   After all...no nuclear industry, no need for the highly paid salaries at the NRC.  

Miller, Doss, and Marcus are in cahoots in writing their letters all about the same time...strategically staggered.   To create the appearance that "a lot of people are supporting hormesis".     In fact, Miller and Marcus used almost exactly the same letter....with the exception that the woman Dr Marcus added "Why deprive them of the benefits of radiation"  without presenting a bit of evidence of the "benefits"

These letters are quite sloppy in fact, like the sloppy thinking that radiation is good for you.    Per Miller and marcus "Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance up to 100mSV effective dose per year if the doses are chronic".   2 points here:
1)  The ploy of "remain at present levels" while at the same time suggesting an increase of 100 fold is almost sociopathic in the nature of saying things that are completely contradictory as a way to through people off their game.  
2) and then saying "allow up to 100mSV if doses are chronic".    Were they in their right mind while writing this?    Chronic means recurring, so they are saying 100mSV is OK is it keep occuring year after year.   

Even the staunchest of hormesis supporting papers (submitted with effecitvely no proof of test results), neverthless states that any hormesis benefit goes away about 200 mSV cumulative.   

I am insulted the NRC published these papers, and am ashamed of being part of the USA scientific community when I see this obvious support for radiation in medicine and less controls on radiation releases at nuclear plant.

Once again, I am appalled that the apparently low empathy Dr Carol Marcus insists that women, children, and fetuses be cut no slack in terms of immensely high doses of 100 mSV per year.     I am disgusted, and concerned that a medical doctor could feel this way or make this statement.   It appears to be sadistic.

29 comments:

  1. I fully agree with everything you said Stock. Criminal is this effort to allow more radiation exposure and hence more disease and suffering. Nukers will burn in Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who know better and yet poison their fellow man shall have a special place in hell. Fried by neutrons, continuously, yet not allowed to die.

      Delete
  2. You have a masters in materials science but are not as versed as those with even a bachelors in health physics or nuclear engineering. Your degrees do not qualify you to speak as an authority in this matter. You may think you do but in reality to those of us who actually took the tine to educate, train, and work in this discipline we know it as well. The NRC knows it as well. Because you have no real training you approach radiation from a non nuclear perspective. You miss the mark. No one is sadistic as you state and that is pretty mean spirited on your ebd. Why all the anger and hostility towards nuclear? It may save your life one day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why deprive those fetuses of the benefits of radiation...."

      That is sadistic, perhaps the definition of sadistic. And by supported that evil doctor, you yourself are also sadistic.

      Delete
  3. 100 mSv chronic over an extended period is no way near the same effect as 100 mSv acute. Dose effects are noy cumulative. You will have a lifetime dose of 1 Sv just from background. 1 Sv acute wont kill you but you will probably be nauseous. You just dont undetstand radiation effects. Epidemeology ala Mangano Sherman is pure bogus. You know that as well. So do the right thing and stop the shitshow by rat farmers. They only come off as desperate and we know tge NRC will go with status quo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1Sv external lifetime radiation dose kills about 1 out of 7 people. Looking up Swiss statistics of average exposure in 2014, I find population averages of:

      ~ 1.2mSv/year terrestrial, cosmic and natural radioisotopes
      + 0.1mSv/year artificial radioisotopes
      + 1.3mSv/year medical diagnosis & treatment (mainly elderly)
      + 3.2mSv/year radon incorporation
      = 5.8mSv/year for an average Swiss citizen

      Rounding up to 6mSv a year during 80 years yields less than 500mSv external and internal lifetime dose. That corresponds to about one fatality out of 15 people due to ionizing radiation based on studies of acute and chronic exposures. Yet, about every third fatality in Switzerland is due to cancer and another third is due to cardiac failures. Together, hearth attacks and cancer kill about 6 of 10 people in Switzerland.

      It is worth noting that the risk factor for radon was recently doubled according to international recommendations. This is probably ok, but it could also hide an extra 1-2mSv/year exposure.

      Allowing for up to 100mSv/year chronic exposure would allow industry to ramp up the artificial annual exposure easily to 20...50mSv. At 20mSv/year, about every fourth person will die due to radiation, at 100mSv/year chronic exposure nearly everyone will.

      100mSv annually would be mass murder; premeditated global suicide.

      Delete
    2. Ya anon, what should the penalty be for mass murder? Should it be higher than that of "stalking"?

      Delete
    3. Have a look at Malaysia. Their courts did the right thing and will hang G. W. Bush and Co. by their balls up a lamppole if they ever set foot into that country. These war criminals were convicted by the Malaysian High Court for what they did to Iraq after 9/11. Malaysia - what a brave country in comparison to the rest of the world.

      Delete
    4. No sale. The US gives a lot of foreign aid to Malaysia and operates an embassy there.

      Delete
    5. Stock you have any evidence to your claim other than some virtual nunbers not associated to a real person? Or we just talking statistical spin?

      Delete
    6. Chronic low dose is not cumulative. 1 Sv lifetime is average background. Anon your numbers are flawed from flawed epidemiology.

      Delete
    7. We talk this:

      http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/12128/12242/index.html?lang=de

      Year 2014, chapter 2, page 32f.

      In Switzerland, 1Sv lifetime is not even approached by airline pilots flying 100 intercontinental connections a year for 30 years. You must live in quite radioactive regions, if your exposure is that high.

      If you are at it, enjoy the cancer statistics in Switzerland:

      http://www.nicer.org/de/statistiken-atlas/

      Marcel Leutenegger

      Delete
  4. So when the NRC upholds LNT as a point of regulatory practice they will stop short of endorsing any notion of "no safe dose". Ironically LNT prevents the medical community from fully utilizing nuclear medicine as a benefit. The number of non-reactor licensees the NRC oversees is far more than the number of reactor sites.

    We both know LNT is "silly" from a pure science pov. The point of extrapolation from 0.1 Sv is actually quite a ways from zero dose. Remember from your math classes, a Taylor series expansion in the first derivative is only accurate to a small delta from the actual point. There is also no basis to believe in a supra linear relationship for the mere fact that the human population is actually increasing on tge average independent of any background dose.

    The take away from this exercise shows that people will try to skin the cat sort of speak to draw their own bar. Yet at the end of the day the regulatory authorities may relax some overlyconservative limits where the science doesnt support it. Science and public health should never be lumped in the "silly" category as you admit for LNT. Thus LNT is really separate from scientific understaning.

    I do agree from my vantage point that a large portion of regulatory compliance is "silly" or absurd to the point that increased costs in upholding draconian limits that are drawn from outdated models goes counter to good public stewardship and is more often a point of dimimishing returns on safety and risk acceptance.

    There are probably 10,000 people in this busy airport hub and we all want to get to our destinations safely. I havent seen any pilots in the lounge so I guess thats a good thing. Still there is more risk in this activity than fron nuclear ob a deaths/person-year.

    Given all the ISIS trouble in the world today, I would surmise in the top 10 threats to humanity, nuclear isnt even on the radar

    So why expend so much for so little?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science has gathered enough epidemiology data on chronic low dose exposure effects to know that there is no safe dose even in the 10mSv lifetime dose region. Airline crews, radiologists and nuclear workers turn up to show all an increased cancer risk - pretty much in line or even exceeding the LNT extrapolation.

      By the way, the mindset behind nuclear technology and ISIS is the same: facist striving for unlimited dominance, where short-time personal benefit outweighs everyone else’s destiny.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Epidemiology data can be grossly misaplied. Case in point, Sternglass and TMI, Mangano and Fukushima, the list of improper conclusions is an epic fail on the part of antinuke scientists who profess no bias yet manipulate the data for the benefit of their sponsors.

      There is no actual death vs dose correlation for very low low doses. This is a fact as there literally an infinite number of confoundets.

      Extrapolation is not science. Its matter of mathematical convienience. Fact of the matter no scientist has ever isolated a single radioactive particle that represents the smallest delta from zero that has lead to a definitive causal relationship. Not Gofman, not Petkau, no one.

      Antinuclear junk science that lead to Yablokovs irresponsible abn patently false shows the lengths some will go to push a failed agenda.

      China and Russia export of their nuclear technology to new markets post Fukushima shows that the only thing antinukes have been able to accomplish is to weaken the US position.

      As for comparing nuclear to ISIS, no sale. Those of us working to keep these orgs from getting nuclear material dont need your idiotic comparison. Anyone even remotely comparing those cowards to nuclear is a traitor to humanity.

      Delete
    4. Yes, data can be misaplied. But Sternglass did at TMI the right thing and correlated cancer rates with exposure instead of distance from the reactor.

      Whose sponsors? How comes that most scientists struggle for a living when they are investigating the consequences of nuclear fallout? And how comes that scientist succeeding in that struggle are kicked butt if they dare publishing their findings?

      "There is no actual death vs dose correlation for very low low doses. This is a fact as there literally an infinite number of confoundets."

      Yes for the manyfold of causes. Life is complex as you argue yourself. Why are you requesting scientists to oversimplify in case of radiation damage?

      "No scientist has ever isolated a single radioactive particle that represents the smallest delta from zero that has lead to a definitive causal relationship."

      Studies incited by the fate of Fallujah's people showed that small particles conveniently dissolve in the body. Good luck in finding one twenty years later after the tumor killed the host.

      "The only thing antinukes have been able to accomplish is to weaken the US position."

      Yes, unfortunately. Well, at least some European reactors went off grid and some more will be shut down.

      You could join working against this unnecessary proliferation of doomsday machines. That is what they are because we seem incapable of keeping the waste locked up for the time it should stay off the biosphere.

      "As for comparing nuclear to ISIS, no sale."

      I compared the mindset. Both are considered a valuable tool for the achievement of a particular target. Civil nuclear power was the cover for an unlimited production of nukes. ISIS is the cover for messing up the middle east. Both tools were initiated by governments in an attempt to overpower countries.

      Delete
    5. Europe (Germany)"is small potatoes. The UK and France will continue with nuclear as will eastern Europe and Turkey. Russia, China, India, the Middle East, Asia; Africa, South America, North America, Australia will expand nuclear to curb CO2 and global warming. Its pretty much game over for antinukes world wide. You overplayed Fukushima to the point no sane person believes one iota from Enenews. Its now cemented itself with all the other fribge coubter cukture antiestablishment sites.

      History will not be kind to the group, casting them as the nain reason fossil (and ironically more radionuclides were pumped into the atmosphere). They will be castigated as modern day Luddites the further away the 1960s become. As the hippie generation further ages and passes away, there will be a new youthful invigoration of a new geberation of nuclear. Your ilk never stood a chance.Actual facts and real science was not your undoing. It was your own blind ambition to return mankind to an agrarian utopia and socialism the majority rejects.

      Delete
    6. "Europe (Germany)"is small potatoes."

      Yes. Good for Germany as nuclear becomes an economic fiasco.

      "The UK and France will continue with nuclear ... to curb CO2 and global warming."

      Shall I care if a country wants to ruin itself? In order to mildly curb global warming, the world-wide nuclear power generation is to be multiplied five- to ten-fold. Happy times ahead for disaster tourists: about one reactor blow a year can be expected.

      "You overplayed Fukushima to the point no sane person believes one iota from Enenews."

      Too bad I never commented there. :-)

      If you know German, look for my blog instead.

      Marcel Leutenegger

      Delete
    7. TMI fallout was less than the Kingston fly ash spill says a Duke Univ study. Sternglass was wrong.

      Delete
    8. Since ever, I wonder about the behaviour of nuclear operators. It has been their systematic scheme from the get-go to downplay risks, leaks and accidents. Whenever possible, the responsible party keeps quiet about these things. "Never admit anything until it was proven beyond doubt!" seems to be a law set in stone in the nuclear business. Besides the environmental consequences, the fallout of this behaviour is two-fold:

      1. Any public trust was shredded and sent up the smoke-stack decades ago. Nuclear operators did nothing to earn that trust back.

      2. Because of the downplay of radioactive spills, any study based on the admitted emissions must overestimate the health risk of ionizing radiation because the true exposure is grossly underestimated.

      In my opinion, nuclear operators are in no way entitled of whining around for these self-inflicted results.

      Now, is there any sign that the handling of nuclear risks improves?

      No. To give but one example:

      About 40’000 tons of nuclear waste of the Manhattan project were dumped in the so called West Lake landfill in North Saint-Louis. Since five years, the neighboring chemical and household waste landfill smolders in an underground fire that steadily approaches the nuclear dump. Authorities do nothing to prevent a transition of the fire into the nuclear material. In addition, officials do not even want to investigate what was buried there exactly. It may turn out that the illegally dumped nuclear waste is orders of magnitude more toxic than put on record (as usual). Instead of preventing a nuclear disaster in the making, authorities are planning to evacuate people if the “unthinkable event” of burning and aerosolizing radioactive waste materializes. The result might be another 4'000 square miles of nuclear wasteland.

      This is just criminally insane. Even more so because it would be quite simple and inexpensive to stop the fire by digging a trench in between the two dumps. In fact, construction could have started four years ago.

      Delete
    9. How much of that 40k tons of waste was actually HLW? Or even fissile at that? If a piece of paper were left on a desk in a rad area, it was treated as waste. That way they just dumped it assuming it was without actually taking the time to frisk every article and every stitch of clothibg.

      Even today almost 5 years after Fukushima, no one antinuke will quantify the concentration of radioactivity that is being released. To them, its as if decay heat and subcritical reactivity do not exist. But they do exist, and is the very reason Fukushima can release low low concentrated solution to an infinitely vast ocean.

      No one not involved in direct operations understands what constitutes specific allowable releases. You realize there are many industries that release higher concentrations of radionuclides and fissile materials as contaminants. Just because they are not nuckear industry do you think they deserve a free pass? Do your due dilligence on fracking then get back to me.

      Delete
    10. Most of the waste there should be tailings and enrichment residues. However, experience lived, whenever a nuclear dump is open, the opportunity is grasped to bury hush-hush just about anything.

      "Do your due dilligence on fracking then get back to me."

      Done long ago - same mess a tar sands - I won't give a shit. Perfect technology to wrack already burdended agricultural land, living space and investors. Gives freaking little return on energy invested. Leaves an instable underground full of dubious chemicals. Requires thousands of drill holes. Some will leak and there we go - polluted groundwater and the whole mess that comes along with it. In addition, as with coal mining an burning, a lot of the heavy metals and natural radioactive isotopes are escaping in the wild.

      We need to get off big energy altogether. Nuclear, coal, oil, gas and excessive mining have to come to an end. Primary requirement to achieve this target: reduce our appetite to globally sustainable levels. This is possible by a soft landing now. Otherwise, nature will force on us a violent smack against a steel wall in a few decades.

      Marcel Leutenegger

      Delete
  5. You're beyond reasoning. Nuclear will continue to serve mankind for a millenia and beyond. Long after you and I are gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuke is toast, put a fork in it already. See new article on killing Ginna plant.

      Delete
    2. In reality, its like whack a mole. An old plant in Rochester NY retires, a new reactor somewhere in the world pops up. The US will continue with nuclear. Do you think it was antinukes that brought Iran to negotiate? No. It was a strong nuclear technology presence in the US. At the end of the day we wont let a foreign country beat us at our own game. We learned that lesson after the"72 Olympics with the Soviet mens basketball. Nuclear tech is a uniquely American invention. It will prosper for many years beyond because it gives our country a stratrgic advantage.

      Delete
  6. Ginna has served faithfully for forty years. New generation nuclear technolohy awaits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ginna was convicted of defrauding the ratepayers, $250M

      That is not faithful, that is predatory, please respond.

      Delete
  7. When you say "Ginna" you nean a real human, like Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Charles Keating right? So which specific human being are you talking about? 250M over 5 million ratepayers us what, 50 bucks? Spread over how many mobths? Who exactly was convicted and went to jail? Because worse people have done much worse to more vulerable people causing much pain and suffering. So please tell me who specifically was charged with a crime and what jail time did they serve. Apples and oranges.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments