Please share far and wide!

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Nuclear Radiation Is Far More Toxic to the Living Environment Than Previously Thought.

CodeShutdown
 
Jebus, it comes down to this; 'for reasons only partly understood, nuclear fallout is far more toxic to the living environment than previously thought' That's it in a nutshell

The fallout doesn't seem to disperse to a level of non toxicity, as is commonly believed. Biological response seems to linger even after an element has decayed to very low levels, for reasons science has not adequately examined. It is known that animals can re-concentrate radioactive and non radioactive elements thousands and even millions of times, but science does not apply this knowledge adequately to risk factors.

The in-use risk model is outdated and should be replaced immediately. It was invented before the discovery of DNA and is an antiquated model based on false assumptions and faulty data. The newer models show that man made radioactive elements are 10 to thousands of times more toxic than assumed. These new models will also be outdated someday and its likely that many elements will be revealed as even more toxic.
-------------------------------------------
This Yale author, Elizabeth Grossman, with some Title shown at the right, seems to be "on topic".    I sent her the "Chitin research" and will see if that gets any traction.



http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

http://ensia.com/about/people/elizabethgrossman/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The creatures that are hardest hit in the last few years either rely havily on chitin in their own life, or rely on eating creatures that use chitin. chitin bio-magnifies radiation in water/air. Radiation is one of the few things that destroys chitin. Yes, this is the smoking gun http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-scientific-basis-for-destruction-of.html



CodeShutdown
at 20:35 Buesseler puts up a bar chart of quantities released. Note its logarithmic. Iodine is nearly 10x th cesium. "but its gone" he says. Wishing I suppose, that the thyroid and constitutional damage left behind in every creature is gone with it.
Buesseler seems like a likeable guy. His expositions are obfuscation. One wonders how much even he realizes it. The ICRP dose model is the keystone to this problem -------------------------------------------------- at 20:35 Buesseler puts up a bar chart of quantities released. Note its logarithmic. Iodine is nearly 10x th cesium. "but its gone" he says. Wishing I suppose, that the thyroid and constitutional damage left behind in every creature is gone with it. Buesseler seems like a likeable guy. His expositions are obfuscation. One wonders how much even he realizes it. The ICRP dose model is the keystone to this problem -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a rebuttal to the Science Pimps of "Our Radioactive Ocean"
CodeShutdown March 20, 2016 at 1:48 pm · Reply as far as man made k-40, we have stocks position as of last year. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/09/wrap-up-on-radioactive-potassium-k40.html Dr Goodhearts article on this extrapolates from different sources but misses the actual science, the timing and physics of neutron absorption and actual yields. Some of the potassium isotopes that can be created have short half lives and thus dont contribute to the background level. Paveway was quite outspoken that man has not contributed measurably to the background. Paveway appears to be high level in physics carbon 14 is another issue and its rather shocking to realize how much carbon14 was added from the bomb test era. Man, with his relatively (compared to background) small addition of radioactive elements has made the earth a hell for the animal kingdom in just a few short generations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 comments:

  1. Nah, you stepped in a big pile of it. The current models in use in professional radiation protection practice are overly conservative if anything. Busby and antinuclear scientists can squawk all they want, at the end of the day, their theories haven't been validated. No sale. ICRP represents the best science and even amongst their ranks they don't always get unanimous consent, but always consensus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Loosen upp the safety factors! Only way to save nuclear is to poison everyone!!!!!"

      What a joke.

      Delete
  2. Pick your topic. Seems there is nothing safe on the planet. And with nothing safe, everything is dangerous. Sorry but whomever funds her wants a dissenting view. It's Yale afterall. Plenty of counter culture there.

    http://e360.yale.edu/author/Elizabeth_Grossman/111/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "its all dangerous"....therefore let nuke pollute and kill.

      Special place in hell for your ilk. You and Oppy can masturbate over your precious

      Delete
  3. Forget all the opinions, who needs to accept MORE ☢ just because some BIG Corp.'s want to sell energy and make a profit from it, especially when there are far cleaner ways to do it.

    Japan should be fined everyday that Fukushima continues to leak ☢ then the industry would start paying attention to what they are doing, as it is now they don not fear another Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster because it will not destroy their Corporation!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuremberg trials for those lying promoters of lies!

      Delete
    2. What comes out of Fukushima is a mere trickle compared to what we are bombarded naturally. Start with galactic protons that are about 90% of cosmic radiation, the alpha particle is another 9%. These particles interact at a nuclear and Colombic scale with our atmosphere at 50k ft. Elevation. High energy ga.master are produced as are neutrons. The neutrons can interact with other particles in the atmosphere. So if there is uranium and thorium from burning coal released in the atmosphere, these neutrons can interact as well. In some cases, a uranium atom released from burning fossil fuel can spontaneously fission as well in the,atmosphere, so in fact fission products would be produced from these reactions. By studying atmospheric nuclear interactiond, one can understand the relative contribution of Fukushima to the overall radiation budget in the world. It's not significant.

      Delete
  4. luckily, kelp are impervious to it (sarc) -
    http://twitter.com/JayTCullen/status/712064014436663297

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trolls Far More Toxic to the Living Environment Than Previously Thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is a troll who brings a justified and opposing view? You don't even know what the word means. I think you don't realize big coal has been the primary beneficiary of delaying nuclear in this country. In China, you can't breathe and that's one reason for their nuclear expansion. The other reason is their manufacturing economy. How many "made in China" articles do you own? The antinuclear movement didn't eliminate nuclear. In fact they made it more the reason for nuclear innovation. It's happening and the rat farm, which is a front for big coal has ironically made it possible. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, didn't derail nuclear. If anything it highlights the actual consequences are far less than what antinukes would want people to believe. Millions dead from nuclear? Where? Smoke and mirrors.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments