Archives for posts with tag: Chernobyl children

englandEnglish
translation

______________________________________________________________________
Undersøgelser har vist at stoffet, som har CAS nummer 7647-14-5, fremkalder kræft i rotter og grise. 160g dræber et menneske og der er eksempler på dødsfald efter at have indtaget en lille dose på kun ca 50g.
Værst af alt findes dette stof i mange madvarer, i naturen og det kan ofte spores i grundvandet!
Politikerne ignorerer som sædvanligt problemet og man overvejer endda at bruge stoffet som kølemiddel i de nye Gen-IV reaktorer!

Symptomerne er frygtelige:
Alvorlig toksicitet: Rastløshed, kramper, mental tilstand:
depression, koma, hypotension, og respirationsstop.
Akut colitis gastritis er blevet rapporteret.
Hypernatriæmi og hyperchloræmi kan udvikle sig, med
associeret væskeophobning, og potentialet for
pulmonal og cerebral ødem kan forekomme.
Hyperosmolaritet af cerebrale væsker kan føre til
cellulære crenation og irreversible neurologiske skader.

Forsøg på grise viser en frygtelig død:
Hos svin, kan tidlige tegn på toksicitet øges tørst, kløe og forstoppelse. Berørte svin kan blive blinde, døve, og uvidende om deres omgivelser.
De vil ikke spise, drikke, eller reagere på ydre stimuli.
De kan vandre formålsløst, støde ind i genstande, cirkele omkring et enkelt lem. Efter 1-5 dage, intermitterende anfald forekommer med grisen siddende på sine bug, rykkende hovedet bagud og opad, og endelig falder på sin side i klonisk-toniske anfald og opisthotonos. Terminalt, kan grisene ligge på deres sider, padle i koma og dør inden for et par til 48 timer.
CAS 7647-14-5 er også skadeligt for vandmiljøet og er kendt for at dræbe fisk og insekter.

Desværre har jeg ingen links fra Youtube eller andre tvivlsomme kilder. Men det amerikanske National Institute of Health beskriver giftigheden af kemikaliet her:

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@rn+7647-14-5

Spørgsmålet er om man burde regulere den slags farlige kemikalier ligesom vi gør med radioaktiv stråling?
Her hentyder jeg til linear no-threshold (LNT) modellen.
Som du sikkert ved går LNT modellen ud på at vi ved noget om hvor meget der skal til for at dræbe et menneske, men vi ved ikke hvor farlige små doser er og det ville være uetisk at lave forsøg med mennesker for opnå denne viden.
Derfor antager vi at alle doser er proportionalt skadelige og trækker en lige linie fra 0 op til den dødelige dosis for at estimere hvor mange mennesker som dør ved mindre mængder.

For CAS 7647-14-5 ved vi at der normalt skal 160g til at dræbe et menneske, MEN vi kender tilfælde hvor kun ca 50g kan dræbe.
Så af forsigtighedsmæssige årsager antager vi her at 50g dræber een person.
Ved at anvende LNT modellen kommer vi frem til følgende interessante statistik:

1) Hvis en person spiser 25g er der 50% chance for at dø.
2) Hvis en person spiser 1g er der 2% chance for at dø.
3) Hvis 1000 personer spiser 50g tilsammen, dvs. 0.050g per person, vil een person dø.
4) Hvis 1000 personer spiser 50kg over 10 år forventer vi at 1000 personer dør.
5) Hvis 1000 personer spiser 50kg i løbet af 1 time forventer vi at 1000 personer dør.

Hvis du vil vide mere om LNT modellen kan du læse det her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
og
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/radiation_and_cancer_risk.htm

Spørgsmålet er hvad vi skal gøre ved dette problem?
F.eks. ved jeg at der findes flere tons af dette stof i Københavns havn!!
Hvis vi bruger LNT modellen kan vi se at eet ton dræber 20.000 mennesker og at selv et par milligram er skadelige (ingen dose er sikker!)
Synes du vi skal bruge at par milliarder på at rydde op i Københavns havn?

PS.
Humor kan forekomme i dette indslag som dog kun indeholder facts.
Mere alvorligt se: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1jG

saltClick på det lille billede.

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og kl ik på Og klik på billeder for at få flere detaljer.
_________________________________________________________________

Tjernobyl Katastrofen (1986)

Katastrofen ved Tjernobyl i Ukraine chokerede verden og fik megen omtale i medierne.

MEN

  • Der var tale om en uansvarlig design.
  • Reaktoren blev brugt / testet på en uansvarlig måde.
  • Mediernes behandling af ulykken var også uansvarlig.
  • Strengt taget er det også uansvarligt når denne ulykke, igen og igen, bruges som bevis for at kernekraft er farlig.

Design

Allerede otte år tidligere advarede vestens eksperter mod brugen
af denne reaktortype.
Således kom ulykken ikke som en egentlig overraskelse for professionelle udenfor Sovjet Unionen.

  • Denne reaktor-type (RBMK) er fysisk ustabil og, i modsætning til andre reaktorer, vil den ikke automatisk regulere hvis belastningen er for høj eller for lav.
  • På trods af ihærdige påstande, var denne reaktor ikke beskyttet af en egentlig (vestlig) reaktor indeslutning.
    bla Sådan en indeslutning er en ca. 1,4 meter tyk
    bla jernbetonkonstruktion og er det sidste værn mod
    bla udslip af radioaktivt materiale.

Ulykken

Hvis man går lidt i detaljer vil man se følgende:

  • Det var muligt for operatørerne at forbigå automatiske sikkerhedssystemer og således “lege lidt med reaktoren”.
  • Flere vitale sikkerhedssystemer blev bevidst frakoblet under
    et eksperiment,
    der angiveligt blev gennemtrumfet af den
    “politisk ansvarlige”.
  • Meget tyder på at Xenon-forgiftning (Xe135) af systemet var negligeret eller ikke forstået og at det var en væsentlig årsag til at det kunne gå så galt.

Katastrofen ville formodentlig været undgået hvis bare en af disse,
helt elementære sikkerhedsforanstaltninger havde været på plads.

Selv om Xenon-forgiftning stadigvæk er en udfordring, kan noderne reaktorer arbejde med en variation i udbyttet på omtrent 3 % per minut.
Dette vil være mere end tilstrækkeligt til at følge ændringer i forbrugsmønsteret.

Medierne

Som det kunne forventes havde alt dette ingen interesse for hovedparten
af medierne.

Kort efter uheldet kunne man høre i det danske fjernsyn at der var
1.000 døde og at satellitbilleder viste døde på gaderne og døde dyr på markerne.
Det blev tilføjet at disse tal kunne blive højere.
Et kik i Politikens Lægebog ville have vist at selv om man får dødelig
dosis af ioniserende stråling, så vil det tage nogen tid før man får
symptomer og således ikke ‘sådan bare’ bliver liggende for at dø på gaden.
På trods af opfordringer viste det sig umuligt at overtale Danmarks Radio til at tilbagekalde.
Man nøjedes med at slette den famøse udsendelse i radioens arkiv.

Ved selve ulykken var der kun 5 der døde.
Senere døde 26 flere, mest rednings-arbejdere, af brandsår og stråling.
Der var 9 andre, der døde af kræft i skjoldbruskkirtlen.
Men der var over tusind, der døde af stress og selvmord på grund af de store og overvejnende overflødige evakueringer.
For mere se http://wp.me/s1RKWc-89

Naturligvis må det huskes – – –

På grund af manglende reaktorindeslutning brændte den megen grafit
i to uger og spredte megen radioaktivitet ud i atmosfæren.
bla For at øge forvirringen nævnes at “reaktor-grade” grafit
bla ikke sådan bare kan brænde.

Men lige meget hvad, så var denne ulykke langt fra så alvorlig som ulykken ved Bhopal, hvor flere tusind mennesker døde og endnu flere andre led alvorlige skader.
Men det var fattige Indere og det var ikke noget med radioaktivitet.
Nu er det næsten glemt.

Plutonium

Denne reaktortype har aldrig været overvejet udenfor det gamle Sovjet.
Naturligvis vil du spørge:
“Hvorfor byggede man sådan en farlig reaktor?”
Svaret må ses som en kombination af følgende:

  • Da den kolde krig var på sit højeste, var der et stort ønske om at producere plutonium till brug for atombomber.
    Jo mere jo bedre.
  • I den periode havde militære ønsker ofte prioritet over sikkerhed.
    Nok mest i Sovjetunionen.

isar2_reaktor

  • En egentlig reaktorindeslutning (1 og 2) er dyr og for denne reaktortype ville det have mere end fordoblet udgifterne.
  • Selv om en almindelig reaktor har plutonium som et biprodukt, så er dette plutonium forurenet med en anden isotop, der gør det uanvendeligt for atombomber.
  • For at producere plutonium af
    ‘våben-kvalitet’, er Tjernobyl-typen formentlig den eneste type der samtidigt kan producere elektricitet.
    – – – I “Vesten” bliver plutonium af ‘våben-kvalitet’ produceret på
    – – – specielle reaktorer uden samtidig produkton af elektricitet.

Jeg husker stadigvæk at man sagde:
– – – “Disse reaktorer er lavet af folket, for folket og ikke for profit.”
– – – “I modsætning til Amerikanske reaktorer er de sikre.”

Igen og igen hører man at plutonium er et af de farligste stoffer der kendes.
Her vil jeg benytte lejligheden til at aflive også denne gamle
myte.

Senere

Efter ulykken blev der ikke uddelt jod-tabletter.
Måske fordi man troede
at ulykken kunne holdes skjult.
Imidlertid varede det ikke længe inden man i Vesten ved hjælp at presise målinger fik klarhed over ulykkens omfang.
Dette blev naturligvis udbasuneret af anti-atomkraft aktivister.

  • Det varede længe inden man glemte “oplysningerne” om de 1000 døde på gaderne.
    Naturligvis blev det aldrig dementeret og det er stadigvæk uklart hvorledes denne, desværre ikke enestående, “oplysning” blev plantet i medierne.
    Chernobyl
  • Til gengæld blev det hurtigt en ubestridelig kendsgerning at denne reaktor, som den eneste i Sovjet, var beskyttet af en sædvanlig reaktorindeslutning.
    Satellit billeder blev affærdiget som falskneri.
  • Efterhånden ændrede medierne til at berette om forfærdelige følger af ioniserende stråling.
    Således “fandt” man hurtigt et stærkt forøget antal tilfælde af forskellige kræftformer.
    Dette skal ses i forbindelse med at kræft fra stråling, så vel som
    fra rygning eller asbest, ikke kan konstateres før en “vente-periode” (latens periode) på mellem 5 og 20 år.
    Mindre for leukemi eller kræft i skjoldbruskkirtlen.

Naturligvis forbigik man at der, trods utallige rædselsberetninger, er
meget lille sammenhæng mellem kræft og stråling.

  • Man introducerede urealistisk lave grænser for tilladt forurening. Således blev det nødvendigt at ødelægge store mængder af
    godt kød.

    Både rensdyr i Lapland og vildsvin i Tyskland.
  • I modsætning til alle forventninger og utallige konspirations-teorier, er der ikke forekommet øget antal tilfælde af arveligt betingede skader blandt børn, født af forældre der havde været udsat for alvorlig – til tider næsten dødelig – stråling.
    Dette gælder også for overlevende efter atombomberne i Japan.

Alligevel kan man stadigvæk se hvordan medierne fortæller om vandskabte børn og indsamler penge til de “stakkels børn fra Tjernobyl”.

  • Imidlertid ved man at for børn, der bliver bestrålet under svangerskabet, kan det resultere i døds-fødsler og forfærdelige defekter.
    Dette blev set efter atombombeangrebene i Japan, men ikke ved Tjernobyl.
  • Undtagen for nødhjælpsarbejdere, hvoraf 26 døde, har der ikke været tilfælde af strålesyge.
    – – – Selv efter at være udsat for omkring 500 mSv og få svage
    – – – symptomer på strålesyge, behøver man ikke at frygte
    – – – reduceret livslængde.

OG NU Dyr ved Tjernobyo
I årevis har både dyr og planter trivedes i den forbudte zone, der er lukket for mennesker.
Måske er det ikke så forfærdeligt farligt.

Hvis man søger lidt på nettet finder man let en grundig oversigt over hændelsesforløbet.
Halvvejs nede finder men en tabel med frygtindgydende tal for forurening.
OK
Der var megen radioaktiv forurening forbundet med katastrofen.
MEN
Hvis man derefter ser hvorledes ”tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever gladeligt i områder, der er forurenet med over 500 kBq/m^2
Ja så – Så bliver tallene pludseligt ikke helt så frygtindgydende.

Samme sted finder man også en forfærdende oversigt over radioaktivitet.
Tjernobyl radiation

MEN
Ved nærmere eftersyn ser man at det stigende niveau af
Cs 137 er procent af det der tilbage og at det der oprindeligt var ca 1 % af det totale efterhånden vises son næsten det hele. FORDI “de andre” har opbrugt deres radioaktivitet og ikke kan blive ved med at være farlige.
– – –Det meste af denne lange side er vinklet med frygt for radioaktivitet.
– – –Man fristes til at beskylde artiklens forfattere for at have valgt denne
– – –meget specielle afbildning i forbindelse med en ihærdig
– – –manipulation med data.
For øvrigt har Cs 137 en halveringstid på 30 år (10.000 dage)

Her ville det være på sin plads at se på WHO’s vurdering af stråleskader.

Og så, pludseligt (1988) og lægne efter at den værste radioaktivitet er “fordampet”, ser man at befolkningsgrupper skal evakueres til et rent område hvis de vil blive udsat for en ekstra livstids dosis på over 350 mSv
Hvis dette skulle implementeres, også andre steder, fx i Norge.
Ja så skulle store befolkningsgrupper evakueres.
Ikke på grund af radioaktivitet fra Tjernobyl, men fra “naturlig” radon.

Endnu engang efterlades man med en grim følelse af at man er meget mere død hvis man måske dør på grund af stråling end hvis man ‘sådan bare’ hoster sig ihjel på grund af forureningen.

Men

– – – Lige meget hvordan det bliver forvrænget og overdrevet.
– – – Lige meget hvor mange fremtidige dødsfald, man forudser.
– – – Lige meget hvor mange mulige og umulige konspirations-teorier.

Denne alvorlige ulykke er intet i sammenlignet med den forurening vi ‘sådan bare’ accepterer:
– – – Mere end 2.000 dødsfald i kulminerne – hvert år.
– – – Over to millioner døde på grund af luftforurening.
– – – En truende klimakatastrofe.

En væsentlig del af dette kunne være undgået hvis vi på et tidligt tidspunkt havde udvidet brugen af atomkraft, i stedet for at være imod.

Endeligt og Unødvendigt

2016 berettes med stolthed at nu har man færdiggjort en sarkofag der er
et mesterværk af ingeniørarbejde og spild af penge.
Længe efter at radioaktiviteten er klinget af, skal man vise hvordan man beskytter sig mod en ikke eksisterende fare.

Omtrent samtidigt læser man at UNSCR har nedjusteret antallet af “sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl fra omkring 4000 til “omkring nul.”
For at afrunde billedet nævnes at
75 % af evakueringerne
var uberettigede og derigennem kun skadelige.
Drag selv konsekvenserne.

Fantastiske Påstande

  • Greenpeace har været fremme og forklaret at den stråling der fremkom ved Tjernobyl katastrofen var 100 gange mere end fra atombomberne ved Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Denne uhyrlige påstand er meget langt fra realiteterne.
    See lidt nede på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-IE
  • Måske nås rekorden med “information” om 7.000.000 fremtidige dødsfald og 1.000.000 allerede.
    Man fristes til at sige at hvis man venter tilstrækkeligt længe, så vil vi være døde – Alle sammen.
  • Samme sted berettes at 70.000 oprydningsarbejdere er blevet invaliderede (disabled) på grund af strålesyge.
    Dette er i klar modstrid med al medicinsk viden og erfaringer fra atombombeangrebene i Japan hvor man erfarede at enten vil man dø eller komme sig efter nogen (lang?) tid.
  • På trods af erfaringer fra Hiroshima, men måske for at finde penge til ikke eksisterende børnehjem, vises utallige billeder af
    vandskabte børn.
  • Sådan kan man blive ved.
  • Naturligvis er der de sædvanlige konspirations-teorier:
    “Den skjulte sandhed er – – – “

Årtiers misinformation og frygt for alt der indeholder ordet “atom” har et stærkt greb i medierne.
Således blev en sober vurdering fra BBC Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’ (2006) hurtigt overdøvet af de sædvanlige vandrehistorier.

Hvad lærte vi fra ulykken?

Først og fremmest kom der mere åbenhed om sikkerhed og der blev iværksat gennemgribende forbedringer på andre tilsvarende reaktorer.
Som det fremgår af ovenstående viser dyrenes trivsel, at selv ret høje doser af stråling ikke er skadelig.

Alt for sent (2016) beretter det tyske magasin Der Spiegel, at
Strålingsfaren var overdrevet og at de fleste af evakueringerne var unødvendige.
Måske kan “tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) og andre få lov til at leve et ordentligt liv.

Men strengt taget lærte man også at denne meget alvorlige ulykke på en håbløst uansvarlig reaktor ikke medførte bare en brøkdel af de skader,
der har været udbasuneret i medierne.

Desværre lykkedes det ikke for medierne at forstå
hvorledes Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte når man ser følgende:
”Det er nu mere end 20 år siden atomkraftulykken i Tjernobyl, der ramte millioner af mennesker i det vestlige Rusland, Ukraine og Hviderusland. Katastrofen var skyld i hundrede gange mere radioaktiv stråling end atombomberne over Hiroshima og Nagasaki.
I dag, over tyve år senere, fortsætter mareridtet for tusindvis af mennesker.”
Se min vurdering her

Dette oplagte falskneri gentages, mange andre steder fx her, hvor man læser at
“I mellemtiden estimerer det hviderussiske nationale videnskabsakademi 93.000 dødsfald og 270.000 kræftformer.
Den ukrainske nationale kommission for strålingsbeskyttelse beregner 500.000 dødsfald indtil videre. ”

Ovenstående beregninger er tydeligvis baseret på LNT-hypotesen.

Men denne hypotese har for længst måttet give plads for realiteterne.
En vurdering kan findes lidt nede på denne side.

UNSCEAR og WHO

Som for at afmontere de sædvanlige rædselsberetninger læser man
2018 Jan 25 hos Forbes.com at UNSCEAR har revideret dødstallene i relation til katastrofen ved Tjernobyl.
Den undrende læser ser følgende:
bla “Faktisk ændrede FN’s (UNSCEAR) sit skøn over yderligere
bla dødsfald fra tjernobylkatastrofen fra stråling til offentligheden,
bla fra omkring 4.000 til omkring nul.

Denne nedjustering falder i tråd med følgende fra videnskab.dk hvor det skrives at 1000 mSv/år ikke er skadeligt hvis det gives jævnt fordelt og organismen således vil være i stand til at reparere skader løbende.

Måske kan man prøve at finde en både realistisk og accepteret vurdering her.

Strålesyge

I medierne findes så mange, klart forfalskede, oplysninger om strålesyge.
Hvis du ikke er træt kan du se lidt mere på en anden post: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-Du

Lidt løse bemærkninger

Jeg var i Tanzania, da ulykken skete.
En af mine venner – en god engelsk dame – fulgte ulykken, transmitteret fra BBC.
Da hun så hvorledes den radioaktive sky omslutte hele jorden, gik hun
ind og sagde farvel til sine sovende børn.
“For nu skal vi snart dø alle sammen.”

Hilsner og god tænkepause fra
Thorkil Søe

Fra Norge

hvor man ikke er bange for realiter, får man troværdige oplysninger.
Fra en lang og grundig (norsk) e-bog
“Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model” (52 sider) refereres:

“I Tjernobyl blev en del personer indlagt med akut strålingssyndrom, og 28 døde inden for 3 måneder.
Der er også registreret 11 dødsfald på grund af skjoldbruskkræft blandt børn, der havde drukket forurenet mælk (I-131).
Hvorvidt disse kræfttilfælde er forårsaget af Tjernobyl-ulykken, er ret usikkert, da lignende ændringer i skjoldbruskkirtlen er blevet observeret uden stråling.”

April 2006 giver WHO en vurdering.
En meget lang artikel fra The Ecologist (2016 april.) giver til gengæld alarmerende oplysninger.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
______________________________________________________________________

Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth

This is a tough accusation.
But if you read below you will understand.

Crew of PHYLLIS CORMACK. 1st Greenpeace trip to Amchitka Isl. to protest USA nuc. testing From the start Greenpeace was an anti nuclear-energy movement that demonstrated against US nuclear testing.
Already at that time (1971), one could easily see that nuclear bombs nowhere in the world had been a result of, or a further development of nuclear power.

Yet this confusion of concepts is maintained uncompromisingly by Greenpeace and has been the cornerstone of what has gradually developed into an overwrought campaign where everything associated with radioactivity is distorted so that it is perceived as a high risk.

The motives for this confusion are lost in the Cold War.
But in the following you will see some of the methods used by Greenpeace and followers.
The result can not be discussed:
More greenhouse gases and higher costs – both human and financial.

On the Danish language website “Safe nuclear power is a myth” the attentive reader will get a good insight into the methods used to spread incorrect “information” by writing something, quite naturally seen in the intended way.
Vindkraft i DK Fløjtespilleren2
But by clever use of the language it is prevented to write something that is factually wrong, if taken strictly, using an almost legal interpretation.
Thereafter the debate will quickly be taken over by numerous followers who will soon transfer a clever hint into an undisputed fact.

I will settle for a few typical details:

One reads:
Nuclear facilities and terrorism is a dangerous cocktail

Although it has never been explained how this cocktail might be composed, ‘ordinary people’ will automatically think of a “Dirty Bomb”. Something like the following:

A terrorist breaks in and take possession of radioactive material and use ordinary explosives to spread it out in an area that will be uninhabitable for a long time.
BUT

  • You may need more than a standard wheel loader, or even a hijacked airplane, to penetrate into the critical place behind the
    about 1.4 meter thick reactor containment.
  • If it should have any effect beyond the psychological, you will need a fairly large amount of radioactive material.
  • Long before this terrorist will have collected just one percent of the required, he will die a miserable, but not that glorious death from acute radiation sickness.

A Dirty Bomb, which to available knowledge only is known in connection with horror stories, is something quite different:

An “ordinary” nuclear bomb, surrounded by a substance, eg Cobalt.
It will then be radioactive by absorbing some of the neutrons left over from the bursting of the real nuclear bomb.

Same place we read the following:
Highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons
Factually this is true.
But when it is presented in an article entitled “Safe nuclear power is a myth”, it will, at the best, be nonsense if you look at the context:

  • Highly enriched uranium is not used in connection with nuclear power. Here uranium is enriched to less than five percent.
    More in submarines but not highly enriched.
  • The plutonium generated in the nuclear reactors is contaminated with another isotope, making it unusable for nuclear bombs.
    However, with the exception of the dangerous reactor type at Chernobyl.
  • But even if a terrorist mysteriously obtains some plutonium of ‘weapons-grade’, he will hardly be able to develop the very special initiator required.

The Waste Ghost
Of course you will not avoid the following:

Until now there has not been found any viable solution to the final disposal of highly radioactive waste despite 50 years of trying.
These are high-level radioactive waste, which must be kept totally separate from all living in up to ¼ million years – a totally unacceptable problem.

Although this has been repeated countless of times, it will not be true.
Everything indicates inability or unwillingness to communicate the realities.

Therefore, the following:

  • Apart from countries where Greenpeace has succeeded in putting a spoke in the wheel, there are good and longtime approved depots for the final disposal of what is still called waste.
  • Thus, the Swedish waste scheme was approved in 1979 as a condition for start of the last six reactors.

Of course it is ignored that actually it is not that urgent:
The spent fuel rods from the reactors are stored under water.
First three years on the power plant and thereafter at an intermediate storage for up to 30 years.
This is because one will wait for final disposal, or reprocessing to reuse, until it has “cooled down”.
(Atoms with relatively short half-life will decay into harmless atoms.)

However, this material, still classified as waste, is a valuable future resource that contains huge amounts of useful energy to be used in the future.
Thus the former “final depots” are now rebuilt to be “safe but accessible depots”.

At the same time it is bypassed that:Kulokraft
The coal, which is a result of the persistent resistance to nuclear, will, in addition to the discharge of radioactive substances in the smoke, result in over two thousand annual deaths in coal mines and well over two million due to air pollution.

Contrary to an imaginary fear of something, thousands of years into the future, it would be wise to concentrate on the imminent danger from the real waste problem:
The greenhouse gases, leading to an imminent danger of catastrophic climate change.

You read about
High-level waste
to be kept totally separate from all living for up to ¼ million years

BUT

  • If a radioactive substance is highly radioactive, then of course, it means that the material will exploit its resources in a short period of time.
    Thereafter it will not highly radioactive.
    In reality not radioaktive.
  • However, if a material is radioactive for a very long time, as for instance Thorium, the radioactivity will be so weak that it only has academic interest and may be difficult to measure.
  • In between you find the very much talked about substance Plutonium.
    Here we have a half-life of 24,100 years.
    This means that 90% of what may be absorbed, it will, quite naturally, be deposited in the cemetery long before it will do any harm.
  • By the way
    All writing about plutonium being The world’s most dangerous substance is nothing but falsehood.

The much-discussed waste from nuclear plants

  • will have lost much of its radioactivity after 50 years.
    After 400 years, the waste will have the same radioactive level as uranium ore.
    After 600 years, it will be as radioactive as garden soil.
    However
    If one decides not to recycle the spent fuel from nuclear power plants, it will be radioactive for a longer time.
  • Although 600 years is a long time, it is not even half of one procent of what Greenpeace imagined about.

By ‘scrolling down’ to the third page, you will find what might be called
‘The Usual’:
No more Chernobyl
“It is now more than 20 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which affected millions of people in western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The disaster was the fault of a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Today, more than twenty years later, the nightmare continues for thousands of people. “

However

With a minimum of investigative journalism you will know the following:

  • Although the Danish Broadcasting Corporation reported on 1,000 dead.
    There were only five who died in the disaster.
    Later 26 more died, most rescue workers who died from burns and radiation.
  • There have been numerous reports of radiation sickness, but the few other deaths were not from radiation sickness.
    There was no permanent damage – apart from suicide and psychological damage.
  • There were not distributed iodine tablets – Perhaps because it was believed that the disaster could be kept hidden.
    Therefore, there were many cases of thyroid cancer, something that can be easily treated.
    Thus, there were only nine who died of thyroid cancer.
  • There has been many horror stories about countless future cases of cancer.
    However, the experiences from survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan show that there will be very few extra deaths due to cancer, if any.

All this is nothing compared to the damage due to radiation at the nuclear bomb attacks where radiation sickness killed 60,000 alone in Hiroshima.

Thus, it is difficult to understand how there could be a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs.

Even the title “No more Chernobyl” is misleading:

  • This design, which is unstable and without a usual reactor containment, has been abandoned and has never been considered in the context of nuclear energy outside the old Soviet.

The motives?

After looking at all this obvious falsehood, you ask yourself why?

  • Can it be explained by assuming that Greenpeace is so incompetent that they have not seen the realities?
    The answer must be no.
    A worldwide organization, such as Greenpeace, does not consist of only of incompetent followers.
  • Has Greenpeace reached the stage where the intention justifies the means?
    Is the intention to stop development (in the West)?
    Although many from Greenpeace are “Politically Red”.
    The answer will be no.
  • Or is it money and craving for money?
    Greenpeace, whose annual budget is more than $ 350 million will of course try to keep the generous contributors.
  • I guess:
    It’s difficult to “Lose your Faith” – Just ask apostate priests.

An apostate:
Patric Moore
was one of the founders of Greenpeace and was elected president of Greenpeace Foundation in early 1977.
Later he left the organization to criticize its anti-human agenda and development with the statement:
Patric More – – “In the mid 1980s, the environmental
– – movement has left science and logic for
– – the benefit of emotions and sensational
– – journalism.”

Moore was active against nuclear power in the 1970s when he thought that
– – “Atomic power was similar to nuclear
– – bombs and holocaust”

and
– – “Everything with atom was of evil” .
Later, he came to support nuclear power.

The result

of this confused opposition to everything that begins with Nuclear, has left its deep marks:

Oversvømmelse– Expensive and unstable
energy.
– A looming climate
catastrophe.
– Many unnecessary deaths in
coal mines.
– Injuries and countless
deaths as a result of air
-polutimmm.mmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmm pollution.
– Sleep disorders and other ailments among neighbors of wind turbines.Vindmøller skygger for freden
.
.
A heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other
no-sayers.

.
.
.
Greetings and good reflection from Thorkil Søe

I ask – – Can you give an answer ?

Why is it necessary for Greenpeace to give falsified “Information”?
Write to me on thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Postscript
You ask – – Try to find answers

In connection with the sometimes hot debate about nuclear power, I am often met with what I, a bit churlish, call “the usual misunderstandings.”
Instead of asking me the usual “But what about – – – – ”
So I ask you to consider if you do not get a response by one of the following posts:

About nuclear power and the many falsified pieces of “information”:
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-cM

Thorium has been touted as a future energy source.
Sure, it is.
But perhaps it will be an excuse to delay the expansion of traditional nuclear power and ‘just wait’ until it’s too late and the climate change is rampant. http://wp.me/p1RKWc-DC

About Chernobyl.
An irresponsible reactor was tested in an irresponsible way.
Even the media coverage was irresponsible:
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-Dg

About the accident at Fukushima and the exaggerated / false “information”.
Also about the unnecessary evacuations: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-yI

Despite repeated “Mis-information” / horror stories, you can see that there is very little correlation between radiation and cancer.
Instead of just brushing this off as being nonsnese, have a look at http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1iq

The assumption “no matter how little, then all radiation will always be harmful” (LNT) is frequently used.
But this initial assumption has long since been overtaken by realities.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1lF

Sometimes one hears how terrorists will acquire radioactive material and make large areas uninhabitable.
Although a “Dirty Bomb” sounds terrifying, the first and probably only victim will be this aspiring terrorist.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1uK

Children born to parents who have been exposed to even very strong ionizing (radioactive) radiation, have shown no more cases of birth defects / deformities: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ea

Despite decades of misleading propaganda, it can be seen that
The Waste Problem
is not a problem: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-LC

In Europe, new nuclear power plants tend to be prohibitively expensive.
But not in Russia, China and Korea.
See why: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11D

Greetings from Thorkil Søe,
who can not resist the temptation to go a little back in history.

Down-with-fire-300x225

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________
It came as a surprise to me and it will probably come as a surprise to many that there has not been seen any kind of genetic damage to the descendants of persons who have been exposed to even very strong ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
This applies for survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan, for cancer patients who have been exposed to even strong dozes of radiotherapy.
Of course also to residents in the area near Chernobyl.

Background for the following

The damage from the nuclear bomb attacks was terrible, but still less than the damage from the firestorm in Tokyo.
Later, these injuries were highlighted, probably in the desire to prevent the future use of nuclear weapons.
But apparently also used by the old Soviet Union in a political desire to discredit the United States and its allies.
Thus, it gradually it became “an irrefutable fact” that exposure to radiation causes serious genetic damage to later generations.
For example, the nurses who worked with X-ray examinations were of such an age that they could not have more children.

As time has passed, and new material has come to light, we can now seriously question this old dogma.
But apparently, it is still found that people – at least in Denmark – are still being duped.
Now mostly because various self-styled experts and naïve peace activists, quite uncritically, have taken over from the old claims from the former Soviet propaganda.

The following is an attempt to collect and evaluate some of the material that gradually has came to light.

Attempting a critical assessment

From Wikipedia and from many other writings, it can be seen that there has not been any increased number of birth defects as a result of the parents have been exposed to even strong influence of ionizing radiation.
The following are excerpts from the link above:

  • No increase is expected in the incidence of congenital or developmental abnormalities, including cognitive impairment, attributable to children within the womb radiation exposure.[47] 
    As no radiation induced inherited effects / heritable effects, nor teratogenic effects, have ever been definitely demonstrated in humans, with studies on the health of children conceived by cancer survivors who received radiotherapy, and the children of the Hibakusha, not finding a definitive increase in inherited disease or congenital abnormalities.[48] 
    No increase in these effects are therefore expected in or around the Fukushima power plants.
  • For the survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who are known as the Hibakusha, no statistically demonstrable increase of birth defects / congenital malformations was found among their later conceived children, or found in the later conceived children of cancer survivors who had previously received radiotherapy.[14][15][16][17]
    The surviving women from Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were able to conceive, though exposed to substantial amounts of radiation, went on and had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities/birth defects than in the Japanese population as a whole.[18][19]

However slightly different information is given by World Nuclear.

  • Teratogenic effects on fetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months.
    Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors’ children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation.

There are of course many estimates of the number of birth defects, obviously depending on how it is defined.
The following is a guideline.

  • About 3 % of new-borns have a “major physical anomaly”, meaning a physical anomaly that has cosmetic or functional significance.[7]

Thus it will be easy to “find” children born, for instance after the accident at Chernobyl, to show images of sometimes serious malformations, thus appealing to human compassion or sensationalism.
And possibly collecting gifts for so called green organizations.

Some, seemingly credible information, see Annex C: Overview of radiation epidemiology, which is a part of a longer article from WHO:
Here you can find an overview of damage from radiation but find no mention of congenital malformations.

From Wikipedia I quote the following:

  • Radiation sickness struck 60,000 Hiroshima citizens to death before the end of the year, but in contrast to popular belief, none of the children who were born of survivors after the attack, showed signs of malformation [24]

Based on the above and much more, I dare to say that everything about congenital malformations and chronic radiation sickness is based upon rumors or falsification.
Even clever use of Photoshop.

In addition, it can be stated that:

After the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan it came as a surprise to the scientific world that there was not identified hereditary damage.

  • From World Nuclear I quote that there have been found genetic mutations in flies, plants and animals that have been exposed to ionizing radiation.
  • At the same post, it will be seen that:
    Some 75,000 children born to parents who survived high radiation doses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, have been the subject of intensive examination.
    This study confirms that no increase in genetic abnormalities in human populations is likely as a result of even quite high doses of radiation.
    Similarly, no genetic effects are evident as a result of the Chernobyl accident.
  • Apart from conspiracy theories and the like, there is not found anything that questions the above.
  • The old Soviet Union, and for that matter others, have often been skilful at spreading false information that could support their ideological theories.

I might have excluded this last link, if it was not because I was in Tanzania at the time when “everyone knew” that AIDS was developed by the CIA, who had engineered in order to destroy Africa.
This was supported by numerous articles in the media, where “independent experts” presented “scientific evidence”.
Later, but with limited success, some rabid Catholics and Muslims tried to explain that you got AIDS by using condoms.

Postscript

Earlier I tried to make sense out of conflicting information on related topics and have written the following:

Nuclear power – What is wrong ?
Gives a little of how the media, and especially Denmark’s Radio, uncritically passed on false information about the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Unfortunately, without withdrawing.

Radiation Hormesis 
Deals with one, if possible, even more taboo topic:
Apparently beneficial effect of moderate radioactive irradiation.
Here you will find references to other material that can be said to be relevant in this context.

Radon and More 
Here I have tried to shed some light on the many hopelessly conflicting informations about Radon.
You will also find an assessment of the obvious false information on the radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean following the disaster at Fukushima.

Of course, I will be grateful to receive comments on factual errors, which will be corrected. Proposed amendments will also be received with pleasure.

Thorkil Søe
I am a civil engineer, retired
Address: Brogårdsvej 60-307, 2820 Gentofte, Denmark
E-mail: thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

The following is a slightly modified GOOGLE translation of the original
text in the Danish language.
Unforuthately most of the links will refer to sites in the Danish language.
__________________________________________________________________________

Greenwash ?

Skønmaleri af KK This contribution to the debate will naturally be perceived as an attempt to “greenwash” of nuclear power.
In reality it is an attempt to wash away some of the mud that has been thrown on this energy source.
Perhaps my frustration comes from realizing that it is teeming with more or less self-proclaimed experts who write about nuclear power, often without much regard to recognized and easily available facts.

In the following, I have tried to support my information from what is available on the Internet and from reliable sources.

The topic Nuclear power turns out to be very extensive and surrounded
by many misconceptions, often caused by lack of information or directly wrong “information”.
Often well hidden behind vage use of the language.
Therefore I have incorporated some references that can be read by following what has been in yellow.

As it can be seen, I have largely used information from the Danish organization REO (Pure Energy Information).
Unlike many others, they have the knowledge, if not the attention from the media.

Unfortunately, it is easy to find many other sources where lack of factual information is replaced by skillful manipulation with quarter-truths.
Such sources have not been attributed much value.

What about the safety?
There has been three core meltdowns.

Let’s look at these three cases and assess the impact of each.

The reactor at Three Mile Island (1979)

The reactor was a so-called light water reactor of a relatively early design. As all reactors in “The West” it was protected by a containment building.
Such a reactor containment, which usually is an approximate 1.4 metre thick reinforced concrete shell, is the last defense against release of radioactive waste.

Here it proved to be able to stand up to the expectations.
People within a radius of 15 km from the reactor were exposed to an average dose of 8 millirem (0.08 mSv).
Highest measured dose was 100 millirem (1 mSv).
This should be seen in the context of the natural background radiation,
we all are exposed to: About 200 millirem (2-3 mSv) per year.
At some places, considerably more.

Such a core meltdown can under no circumstances evolve into just something like a “nuclear explosion”.
This will require both highly enriched uranium and a very special “detonator”.
Yet it was not long before half of the American population had become convinced that such a danger had been imminent.Landscap
A small crowd of journalists, who perhaps had waited for some horror stories, had to go home, disappointed.

The catastrophe became expensive for the company behind the reactor.
But this was nothing in comparison to reversal for the nuclear power.

blaA supporter of nuclear power will of course claim that, perhaps
blaa significant part, of the lingering climate disaster can be attributed
blato this global hysteria.
I quote from Alternative Energy / Nuclear Power
“The psychological effect on the people in the neighborhood and finally throughout the Western world was huge.
It was also the damage to the plant itself and the nuclear power industry’s reputation.”

For a detailed review, I refer to another post Tree Mile Island.

Chernobyl disaster (1986)

The accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine shook the world, and received
much publicity in the media.

Shortly after the accident, it could be heard on the Danish television that there were 1,000 killed and that, on satellite photographs, you could see dead bodies on the streets and dead animals on the fields.
It was added that it could not be ruled out that these figures would be higher.
However
A look at any ordinary medical manual, or now Wikipedia, would have shown that even if you get a lethal dose of radiation, it will take some time before you get symptoms and don’t just keep lying to die on the street.
Apparently, there was no need to retract and it is still unclear how this, unfortunately not unique, “information” was planted in the media.

When the disaster stuck, there was only 5 who died.
They did not lay dead on the streets.
Later 26 more, most rescue workers, died from burns and radiation
as well as 9 from thyroid cancer.

Of course there was very little information about why it could go so wrong and there were many reasons.

  • The Reactor Type (RBMK) is physically unstable and, as opposed to “Western Reactors”, it will not automatically regulate the operation if the load is too high or too low.
    (Almost as if a car, without brakes, is parked on top of a hill.)

This reactor type is only found in the former Soviet Union.
It is especially suitable for production of the plutonium isotope that
can be used for nuclear bombs.
At a very early stage this design was disregarded when considering nuclear power in other countries.
Chernobyl

  • Despite persistent claims, this reactor was not protected by a true (western) reactor containment.
  • It was possible for operators to bypass the automatic safety systems and thus “play with the reactor”.
  • The accident happened in connection with a test, alleged demanded by the “politically responsible”

The disaster would probably have been avoided if only one of these three, elementary precautions had been in place.

Rather than refute the information about the 1000 dead, the public debate was shifted to other horror stories, mostly about the effects of radiation. Thus, shortly after the accident, there was “found” highly elevated levels
of various forms of cancer.
This should be seen in conjunction with that cancer from radiation,
as well as from smoking and asbestos, cannot be detected until after a “waiting period” (latency) between 5 and 20 years.
Less for leukemia or thyroid cancer.

Also this can be seen in any ordinary Medical Manual.

The credibility of the sources can thus be questioned.

It has since been argued that both humans and animals are born with horrible defects.
This, like so much else, is based on pure imagination.

Naturally you can find outrageous claims.
The record is probably reached with “information” about a million deaths already and seven million future.
You are tempted to say that if we wait long enough, we will be dead
All of us.
Anyhow; 2018 Forbes.com writes that UNSCEAR has revised the future death toll in relation to the Chernobyl disaster from about 4,000 to about zero.
A little more can be found on another blog.

There has been other, but not quite as serious, accidents at research and at military installations for nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union.
These accidents, the government tried to calm down.

BUT Kulokraft
No matter how it is twisted and turned, even this very serious accident was nothing
in comparison to the pollution from fossil fuels, we tacitly accept.
Besides greenhouse gases emitted, other pollution is found in the form of uranium and thorium, up-concentrated most in the ashes but also in the smoke.

Fukushima (11 March 2011)

Fukushima Tsunami An earthquake and a subsequent tsunami hit the area around Fukushima on Japan’s east coast.
The tsunami claimed close to 20,000 deaths.
But even if the three deaths on the nuclear power plant were not caused by ionizing radiation, it soon came to dominate much of debate in the public media.

Obviously there were distributed iodine tablets and implemented large evacuations.
For “purely political reasons” these evacuations were maintained long after it was no longer justified.
Not for objective reasons, but to meet the widespread fear of a
nonexistent danger.
Much later a detailed analysis based upon J-Value (Justification Value) showed that none of the evacuations were necessary and that the many deaths in connection with the evacuations could not be justified.

Here, it should be understood that self-styled environmentalists quickly
got whipped up an atmosphere of almost unlimited fear and that politicians
will risk their political future if they do not show vigor or if they can be accused of exposing people to danger.
To be on the safe side, the limit for radiation was set to one millisievert
per year.
Less than half of what we all receive from natural sources.

Støvmasker BørnHowever something good did come out of the fear:
To prevent radioactive dust, there
was a widespread use of dust masks. This saved many from damages from the asbestos dust that had been stirred up from collapsed buildings.

It is easy to be wise after the event and talk about that you should have built a completely different strong wall to protect the reactors.
Or built them higher up on land and a little further away from the sea and thus have had somewhat higher costs for the cooling water.
You could also have had a safe cooling system or listened to recommendations about making a filter, as known from the reactor at Barsebäck in Sweden.
Finally, it was irresponsible to wait too long to cool the reactors using salt water.

Fukushima Fier in the OILBUT
When the purpose is to create fear and sensation. Then the aim will apparently justify the means.
The Danish Radio, and others, could not find something sufficient horrific to show from the power plant.
Instead was shown a plume from a burning oil refinery.
Thus, everybody can understand the message about the terrible, but not existing, danger of radioactive contamination.

Yet it is hard to see how this passionate propaganda and the obvious failure of the power plant should justify the ongoing, almost panicky, discussion against nuclear power in Europe, where there is no risk of a tsunami.

Later announcements of huge pollution of the ocean from leaking tanks are wild exagerations. Probably directly forgery.

Worst Imaginable Disaster

Often opponents of nuclear power speak on ‘the worst disaster’ with large amounts of radioactive emissions.Oversvømmelse
While this has very little hold in reality, we should concentrate on the real danger:
The world is working itself toward towards what will be the worst disaster:

The lurked climate catastrophe which, according to most experts, could have been avoided or reduced if we had gone hard in for nuclear power.

The problem of waste

In many heated discussions opponents raise the question “What about
the waste problem?”

Here it is natural to emphasize that the real waste problem is the emission of greenhouse gases, especially from coal, oil and natural gas, and therefore it is imperative to move to the use of nuclear power.

Despite persistent allegations, safe disposal of radioactive wastes is no problem.

KK affald SverigeThus, the Swedish plan for waste disposal was approved in 1979 as a condition for start of the last six reactors.
In view of the long storage time on the power plant and the move towards recycling instead of “final disposal”, the plan has obviously not been locked in final details.

HOWEVER
The discussion regarding radioactive waste has slowly but surely been decoupled from the facts.
Therefore it can best be compared to false trade description when it still is described as “the waste problem“.
Unlike much other waste, the management of the small amount of waste from civilian nuclear power is treated 100% safe – both by recycling and final depositing.

isar2_reaktor
The spent fuel rods from the reactors are stored under water. The first three years on the power plant (6) within the two meter
thick reactor containment (1).
Thereafter, at an intermediate storage for up to 30 years.
This is because one will wait with final disposal or reprocessing, until it has “cooled down”. (Atoms with relatively short ”half-life” will decompose into harmless atoms.) Opbevares under vand

It is not because you do not know what to do about these used fuel rods.
AND
If a terrorist should try to take it out of the water and out of this temporary storage, he will soon die of acute radiation sickness.
Thus, this terrorist will be the first and probably the only victim.

However, this material still regarded as waste, is a valuable future  resource containing large amounts of useable fuel for use in the future. Thus the former “final depots” are now rebuilt to be “safe but accessible depots”.

In sharp contrast to waste management in connection with the civil use
of nuclear energy, there has sometimes been quite a lot of careless treatment of waste at military installations.
It was widely done in the old Soviet Union but also took place in England (Sellafield) and in the United States (Hanford).

Despite many (deliberate?) misunderstandings, this has obviously
nothing to do with nuclear power for civilian use.

The half-life
A common misconception is that the longer the half-life of a radioactive material is, the more dangerous it is.
It is true that it will continue to radiate in much longer time.
But it also means that the radiation will be spread over a correspondingly long time.

Thus, it is fraud when, again and again, we hear talk of a substance that will be highly radioactive for a long time.
It will either be with a high level of radioactivity or it can be radioactive for a long time.
But not both.

For example, the common isotope of the element thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years.
This is about as long time as the universe has existed since it started in the Big Bang, also about 14 billion years ago.
This effectively means that Thorium can not be considered as radioactive. It is even used for shielding against radiation.

Additionally, it may be mentioned that the much talked about plutonium isotope, that can be used in nuclear reactors and for nuclear weapons, has a half-life at 24,000 years, so that the radiation is spread over a very long period and therefore is not particularly dangerous right “now and here”.
If plutonium is ingested 99 % of it will, quite naturally, be disposed on the toilet and 90 % of the rest will be disposed on the commentary long time before it has a chance to do any harm.

In return, the radioactive iodine-131 has a short but hectic process and thus is a serious danger “here and now “, but not in the long term. Fortunately, early action with iodine tablets almost eliminates the risk.
In addition, thyroid cancer can be treated successfully.

“Green” Waste

Solar panels (PV) is seen as the answer to clean energy.
However discharged solar panels are just dumped in landfils after providing less than one procent of the power compared to the much talked about nuclear waste. (kWh/kg waste)

How to measure the effects of ionizing radiation?

As our knowledge has developed, many different units for the strength
of radiation have been used over time.

Naturally, this has given rise to many misconceptions.
As it can be expected, this is used skillfully by the so-called green organizations who seems to want to change everything related to
radiation into a serious danger.

RADIATION UNITS

Sievert Sv is the now recognized unit for the biological effect of radiation.
1 Sv = 1 J / kg corrected for the biological effect.
MilliSivert mSv a thousandth sievert and is a more useful unit.
Although it is probably the same, 200 million pSv looks more dissuasive than 0.2 mSv.
Bananen unit

As a curiosity can be mentioned that one banana unit is the radiation load, a person recive by eating one banana.

A more illustrative unit would be “a cigarette unit”.
It would be the radiation which has the same detrimental effects as smoking a cigarette.

How much can you tolerate?

No one can with full security know how the human body is affected by small doses of ionizing radiation.
However, there is a fairly good knowledge of the harmful effects of large doses.

To be on the safe side, one supposes that “No matter how little it is harmful.” (LNT)

Although, by all accounts, it is unreasonably too much on the safe side, this assumption is used in the following as well as in almost all other calculating of damage from ionizing radiation.

When trying to assess biological effect of ionizing radiation, distinction must be made between evenly influence (long term exposure) and
single impact influences (instant exposure).

Evenly impact: 
5 mSv per year is supposed to result in a 0.01% increased risk of cancer. This, of course, cannot be measured as the “natural” risk of an individual developing cancer is otherwise about 30%.
Limits of ionizing radiation on the German nuclear power plants have since 1988 been reduced from 22 mSv per year to 2 mSv per year.
Natural background radiation to which we are all exposed to throughout life, usually is 2 mSv per year.
Vidneskab.dk write that 1000 mSv/year, if it is evenly distributed, will give the organismen time to repair the damage on an ongoing basis and will not be harmful.

Single impact:
It is normally expected that 10 mSv will cause a 0.2% increase in the
risk of birth defects.
This is in addition to the “natural” risk of approximately 8%

3000 mSv will cause about 50% of the irradiated will die.

After the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan, we have seen reported many cases of “chronic radiation sickness.”
However, this lack any reference to the medical reality.
On the other hand, very reliable sources report that persons exposed to radiation doses below 500 mSv had no shorter life time than the general population.
bla 500 mSv as a single exposure will cause minor symptoms of
bla acute radiation sickness, and is more than 100 times what is
bla usually allowed.
Individuals, who just only survived the acute radiation sickness, had an average live length 2.6 years less than the general population.

Apart from possible damage from burns and a very little increased risk of cancer, people exposed to excessive radiation, will either die or recover after some (long) time.

Contrary to all expectations and countless atrocity stories, there has never been found hereditary damage in children born of survivors.

Overview
A thorough assessment of existing knowledge is given by World Nuclar and UNSCEAR

Background Radiation

Natural Radiation EU No matter where you are, on or above ground, so everything and everyone is exposed to some background radiation.
Under normal conditions this radiation is around
2 mSv per year.
However, there are very large local variations.
Lowest background radiation is found near the equator and away from land.

Highest reported levels of natural radiation is found in the area around  Ramsar in Iran.
In some places this radiation is 200 times more than the natural background radiation elsewhere.
This is far above what is allowed for workers at nuclear power plants.
However, there has not been any reports of ill health or other adverse effects for the local people who have lived in the area for generations.
This originally gave rise to the term “The Ramsar Paradox”.

Other sites exhibit similar conditions and the still used assumption that
“No matter how little, then it is harmful” can of course be questioned as being too pessimistic, perhaps much too much on the safe side.

We even speak about Radiataion hormesis.
If available data are to be trusted, small amounts of radiation have a beneficial influence, almost like a vaccination against cancer.
This has naturally resulted in a lively debate for and against.

Taipai CancerAn attempt at a critical summary can be found  here.

bla

bla

bla
bla
Fear of radiation is certainly not unfounded.
But in most of the public debate, it is wildly exaggerated.

Alternative Energy

Først skal vi afvikle kulkraft What is Alternative Energy?
The only thing we can agree on, is that there must be an alternative to
the current ruthless burning of coal.
Although nuclear energy is the natural alternative to the use of fossil fuels,
it seems that the term “alternative energy” will only refer to solar power blammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm(P (PV) and power from the wind.
Even biofuels, geothermal, tidal and energy from sea waves.

Sun and wind is often called “ever-lasting energy”.
However, this is a truth with major modifications.
The modern society can not function with an energy source, which is dependent on the whims of nature.
Sun and wind will require very large and extremely costly systems for storing energy or polluting and costly common power plants for the necessary back up.

With the, still small proportion of wind power in Denmark, we are in the fortunate position that – at least for the time being – we can get enough help from Norway and Sweden.
But if the sun and wind, as planned, should be the cornerstone of the Danish and, especially in the German, supply system, it would be totally outside the limits of possibility to find the necessary back up.

The term renewable energy is often used for both wind and solar power. However, we must note that the bitter truth is that it has not yet managed to find any form of energy that is more unstable than just wind power.

It is often said that we should “just” link the countries of Europe with a strong network of power lines.
BUT
As the North European wind is largely synchronized, this, together with 
so much else, will be both expensive and have almost no effect.

For countries with suitable natural conditions hydropower it is a good source of renewable energy.
Countries with controlled hydropower can even vary the production of electricity from these plants, thus compensating for fluctuations in consumption and other supplies. As for example, wind power.

Three Gorges Dam Turbine The large Three Gorges Dam in China has been subjected to much criticism.
The huge capacity (22 million kW, equivalent to 15 ordinary nuclear plants) pales yet in comparison to the total electricity demand in China.
At present, there is only limited criticism of an even larger project:
The Inga Dam
in Congo.

Biofuel and wooden chips sounds attractive; but will either be an expensive drip in the ocean or seize vast areas og land that would otherwise be farmed or forest.
This has already led to serious increases in prices for food.

Other energy sources can be provisionally disregarded.

It must not be forgotten that geothermal energi might be a
useful complement to other energy sources; but mostly for heating.

Tysk solkraft variation

Energy from the sun

When solar energy (PV) is promoted it is usually “forgotten” that, as with power from the wind, solar is a rather unreliable sources of energy.
In spite of this, especially Germany,
promotes energy from the sun with generous subsidies.

Fusion Energy

Fusionsenergi Many and very costly trials are carried out
in the hope of exploiting Fusion energy. 
It is the energy driving the sun.
At best, it is very long way before it reaches a stage where it can satisfy both economy and highly praised security.

Normally it is “forgotten”, that with the apparent preferred process, the reactor
use will be highly radioactive.after use will be highly radioactive.

Of course, the cost of the necessary and very expensive trials, are often included when it is desired to show that nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.

It can be argued that, for Denmark, as well as for many other countries, the only realistic alternative energy is energy, based on nuclear .

Cost and public support

Apparently it is impossible to penetrate and obtain reliable information on the costs of energy sources.
Almost all players have apparently “forgotten” something.
The debate is loaded with claims about public support for the ”the others” while the same people do not tell that that they get indirect support, for example in the form of fixed prices for production.
Or as by the desire that all gasoline must contain at least 15% bioetanol.

Sweden has an enviable mix of hydro and nuclear power and consequently very low electricity prices.
France has about 70% coverage with nuclear power and corresponding low prices.

If you want to have a look through all the smoke and simultaneously save society significant costs, it would be a viable option to introduce variable Spot Prices on electricity.
Here, of course, both consumption and production.

In this way, the price of electricity from sun and wind will come to light
and the current opaque and complicated system of subsidies will be assessed by known and honest conditions.
There is much talk about the benefits and has been written long and probably thorough papers on the subject.
But there has not been found in-depth proposals reaching much further than a “See how good we are, see what we are doing.”

It can hardly be concealed that in countries like Sweden and France, where nuclear power has been allowed to work in peace, are generating electricity for less than the half of what is paid for the Danish wind power.

Storing Energy

There are numerous proposals for “just doing this and that” to store electric energy from windy periods for use in later periods of calm, but still no method is only approximately economically acceptable.
gasvaerkrefoto2
It is possible to produce hydrogen when electricity is cheap, later to use it to create new electricity.
But no one has reported the cost, both for the plant and at a very low efficiency.
Storing of hydrogen can be problematic.

What are we to do?

Most of us agree that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The disagreement starts when you have to figure out what to do.

As soon as the speech comes to nuclear power, one often encounters a wall of demands for more security.
Just as the man who, to be sure, use both belt and braces and even keeps his hands in his pockets. But still ask for more security.

On the website of REO supporters of nuclear power highlights that
“No human has ever come to harm from Western nuclear power plants. Neither the operation of the works or storage of radioactive waste.”
And,
“After more than 15,000 operating years of western nuclear power plants there have been no harm to people.”

This can best be seen in connection with oil and coal killing millions of people each year.
More than 2,000 in the coal mines and probably millions due to respectory desises.

In fairness it must be said that, as far as it is known, there has been reported cases of radiation sickness due to radon among workers in poorly ventilated uranium mines.
This must again be considered in conjunction with the eerie many deaths in the context of coal mines.

Drabsforsøg på politiOn websites from Greenpeace you find countles reports of demonstrations against nuclear power.
Most of these can best be described as innocent, but strictly taken illegal childrens play.
Unfortunately mass demonstrations can degenerate, even to the attempted murder of police.

In addition, you find many dubious horror stories, which are often so vaguely formulated that it is difficult to point out  factual errors.
Besides an incorrect mixing of nuclear power and nuclear bombs, there has not been found factual information related to Western nuclear power plants and the reason for the much resistance.

Despite repeated announcements that Denmark should be “a CO2-free country by 2050”.
Neither Greenpeace nor others have given anything like a complete description of a possible future Danish energy system that satisfies the many declarations of intent.
There is a lack especially factual information on price and supply.

The organization REO, not having the same resources as others, have calculated that the plan for 2020 is possible but will be expencive.
Of course, anything is possible if one is willing to pay and this also
applies to a Danish energy by 2050 without the use of fossil fuels and without nuclear power.

By posting on akraft.dk you can find a very in-depth overview of nuclear power development, also outside Denmark.
Also this website gives an assessment of the media’s sometimes very unilateral treatment of the subject.

On the internet are unfortunately many other sites that testify to a lack of understanding of the physical conditions, well seasoned with skillful manipulation and quarter truths.

But you can not just keep saying no.
The global climate can hardly tolerate the continued emissions of greenhouse gases.

The damage caused by renouncing nuclear energy will in the long run, by far bypass the conceived damage by a responsible use of nuclear energy.

Kaliningrad

Perhaps Denmark can benefit from ‘a small loophole’ that may hopefully satisfy the conflicting political and popular interests:

In the Russian enclave Kaliningrad construction is going on for new nuclear power plants for export of electricity.
It is far enough away, not to be ‘in our backyard’, but not further away than the energy can be transferred at a reasonable costs.
It is probably worth considering whether Denmark should get a share before it is too late.

Thorium

ThoriumApparently we missed another opportunity that will involve fewer, of the mostly imagined, risks that are seen in connection with reactors based on uranium.

During the development of the nuclear bomb, uranium was selected as the material because it was suitable for military use.
When they then began to plan for the peaceful use of nuclear power, it was obvious to continue where one already had some useful knowledge.
But so, it has apparently been forgotten another better, cheaper and especially even safer, way to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

After a long break thorium has again come to light, and work is dome to clarify and resolve the many new challenges.

Countless articles in media and on the internet give long explanations and highlights the huge benefits while there are few objections that most
goes to the numerous and long-term studies that will be needed.
Of course, you also see the usual protests that testify inability or unwillingness to communicate the facts.
It is impossible to go into detail, but little more can be found at this link: Thorium.

There are huge reserves of Thorium in Greenland and in Norway and it is tempting to say that in Denmark we should go ahead, freeing ourselves
of the collective anxiety neurosis, and become a pioneer of cheap and clean energy that does not depend on the unreliable wind and sun .

Thus, if we are able to think and act clearly, then electricity will later be so cheap that you can get closer to a fossil free enerisystem and, as in Sweden, use electricity for general heating, obviously using heat pumps.

If if if. Yes if:
So Denmark will be able to meet most of its goal to become a so-called CO2-free country.

If not, well then Denmark will, for a long time to come, endure perhaps the world’s highest electricity costs, along with a nagging feeling guilty about our increasing emissions of CO2

  • Why do we use so much energy to search our own prejudices confirmed – and, if necessary, manipulate the reality when it
    occurs rebellious?
  • Why is factual information often greeted with a “they lie”?
  • Why are we still so afraid of a serious debate on nuclear energy?

Sincerely
Thorkil Søe

Postscript

The above blog has been presented Greenpeace with desire for
feedback and / or fixing of bugs.
For reasons best known by Greenpeace, there is no information about
factual errors.

If you, my unknown reader, should find such errors, I ask for help to correct.
If you would like more details or else I will of course try to help.
Write to thorkilsoee@gmail.com

If you would like to know more about the Danish development and abandoning of nuclear energy, I can recommend the following book:
Niels Bohr must be turning in his grave About the denial of nuclear power .
By Thomas Grønlund Nielsen. Price: 100 kr.
I will also mention that World Nuclear has a very extensive description of many of the aspects related to nuclear power.

In connection with the search on the net and elsewhere, I have been preoccupied with other very specific topics, related to the debate on nuclear energy:

  • About the taboo experience showing that moderate exposure to ionizing radiation causes a greatly reduced risk of developing cancer.
    See: http://wp.me/s1RKWc-386
  • On that, despite countless horror stories in the media, there has
    not been found any genetic defects in children born after their parents had been exposed to even very high doses of ionizing radiation.
    See: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ea
  • About Radon, ‘Cigarette Unit’ and the myths that have emerged about the pollution of the ocean by the disaster at Fukushima.
    See: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ec
  • Something like a Bull against Greenpeace, which has misled the world about the effects of ionizing radiation, has made use of fake “science” and not accepted challenges when their “information” has been wildly wrong.
    See: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-mu
  • A desperate attempt to assess the European energy situation.
    See: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-af

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
_____________________________________________________________________
Det overraskede mig og det vil nok komme bag på mange, at der ikke er konstateret nogen form for genetisk betingede skader på efterkommere
af personer, der har været udsat for endog meget kraftig ioniserende (radioaktiv) stråling.
Dette gælder så vel for overlevende efter atombombeangrebene i Japan, for kræftsyge, der har været udsat for stråleterapi og naturligvis også for indbyggere i området nær Tjernobyl.

Baggrund for det følgende

Skaderne fra atombombeangrebene var forfærdelige, men alligevel mindre end skaderne fra fx ildstormen i Tokyo.
Senere blev disse skader fremhævet i ønsket om at forhindre fremtidig brug af atomvåben, men tilsyneladende også brugt af det gamle Sovjet
i et politisk ønske om at miskreditere USA og dets allierede.

Således blev det efterhånden ”et ubestrideligt faktum” at påvirkning
med stråling medfører mange og alvorlige genetiske skader på senere generationer.
Fx var sygeplejersker, der arbejdede med røntgenundersøgelser i en sådan aldersgruppe at de ikke kunne få flere børn.

Efterhånden som tiden er gået, og nyt materiale er kommet frem, kan der rejses alvorlig tvivl om dette gamle dogme.
Men tilsyneladende må det også konstateres, at befolkningen – i hvert
fald i Danmark – stadigvæk bliver ført bag lyset.
Nu mest fordi forskellige selvbestaltede eksperter og godtroende fredsaktivister, helt ukritisk, har overtaget de gamle påstande fra den tidligere sovjetiske propaganda.

Det følgende er resultatet af et forsøg på at samle og vurdere en del af
det meget materiale, der efterhånden er kommet frem.

Forsøg på en kritisk vurdering

Fra Wikipedia og fra meget andet, kan det ses at der ikke er et forøget antal af medfødte skader som følge af at forældrene har været udsat for endog kraftig påvirkning af ioniserende stråling.
Følgende er uddrag fra ovenstående link (oversættelse):

  • Der forventes ingen stigning i forekomsten af medfødt eller udviklingsmæssige abnormaliteter, herunder kognitiv svækkelse, der kan henføres til bestråling i livmoderen. [47]
    Da ingen stråling har fremkaldt nedarvede effekter / arvelige virkninger, eller teratogene Effekter, nogensinde er blevet påvist ved undersøgelser of børns sundhed.
    Også blandt børn født af kræft-overlevende, der fik strålebehandling, og børn af Hibakusha.
    Intetsteds er der fundet en endelig stigning i arvelig sygdom eller medfødte abnormiteter. [48]
    Ingen stigning i disse effekter forventes derfor i eller omkring Fukushima.
  • For de overlevende fra atom-bombningen af ​​Hiroshima og Nagasaki , der er kendt som Hibakusha oplyses tilsvarende:
    Ingen statistisk påviselig forøgelse af fosterskader / medfødte misdannelser blev fundet blandt deres senere undfangede børn, eller fundet i de senere undersøgte børn af kræft-overlevende, der tidligere havde modtaget strålebehandling [14] [15] [16] [17]
    De overlevende kvinder fra Hiroshima og Nagasaki, der var i stand til at blive gravide, selv om de udsattes for store mængder af stråling.
    Også disse kvinders børn var uden højere forekomst af abnormiteter / fødselsdefekter end i den japanske befolkning som helhed.

En lidt anden information fås fra World Nuclear.

  • Teratogene effekter på fostre var alvorlige blandt dem der var kraftigt eksponeret, hvilket resulterer i misdannelser og dødfødsler over de næste 9 måneder.
    Herudover er der ikke blevet opdaget nogen genetiske skader i efterfødte børn, på trods af omhyggelig og fortsat efterforskning af en fælles japansk-amerikanske Foundation.

Der findes naturligvis mange vurderinger af antallet af medfødte skader.
Naturligvis afhængigt af hvordan det defineres.
Følgende er en rettesnor.

Det vil således være nemt at ”finde” børn, født fx efter ulykken ved Tjernobyl, for at fremvise billeder af til tider alvorlige misdannelser og derigennem appellere til den menneskelige medlidenhed eller sensationstrang.
Eventuelt indsamle gaver til en af de mange “grønne organisationer”.

En del, tilsyneladende troværdige, oplysninger findes i Annex C: Overview of radiation epidemiology, der er en del af en længere artikel fra WHO:
Her kan man finde en oversigt over skader fra radioaktiv bestråling uden at finde omtale af medfødte misdannelser.

Fra Wikipedia citeres følgende:

  • Strålesyge slog 60.000 Hiroshima-borgere ihjel inden udgangen af året.
    Men i modsætning til almindelig opfattelse har ingen af de børn, som blev født af overlevende efter angrebet, tegn på misdannelser [24]

På grundlag af ovenstående og meget andet tør jeg hævde at al tale om medfødte misdannelser og kronisk radiation sygdom er konstruerede rygter.

Derudover kan det nævnes at:

  • Efter atombombeangrebene i Japan kom det som en overraskelse for den videnskabelige verden at der ikke blev konstateret arveligt betingede skader.
  • Fra Sundhedsstyrelsen citeres følgende:
    Dyreforsøg viser, at bestråling af kønsorganer udover at kunne medføre kræft i kønsorganerne også kan forårsage genetiske skader i næste generation.
    Dette er aldrig blevet eftervist for mennesker, men det antages, at strålingsudsættelse af kønsorganerne indebærer en meget lille risiko for arvelige genetiske skader.
  • World Nuclear oplyser at der er fundet genetiske mutationer i fluer, planter og forsøgsdyr, der har været udsat for ioniserende stråling.
  • Samme sted oplyses:
    Omkring 75.000 børn født af forældre, der overlevede høje strålingsdoser ved Hiroshima og Nagasaki i 1945 har været genstand for intensive undersøgelser.
    Disse undersøgelser bekræfter, at ingen stigning i genetiske abnormiteter i humane befolkningsgrupper kan forventes som følge af selv ganske høje doser af stråling.
    Ligeledes er ingen genetiske virkninger fundet som følge af Tjernobyl-ulykken.
  • Bortset fra konspirationsteorier og lignende er der er ikke fundet noget, der betvivler ovenstående.
  • Det gamle Sovjet, og for den sags skyld også andre, har tit været dygtige til at sprede falske oplysninger, der kunne understøtte deres ideologiske teorier. Se fx Active Measures fra Wikipedia.

Jeg ville måske have affærdiget dette sidste link, hvis det ikke var fordi
jeg var i Tanzania på det tidspunkt hvor ”alle vidste” at AIDS var udviklet
af CIA,
der havde genmanipuleret for at ødelægge Afrika.
Dette blev understøttet af daglige artikler i medierne, hvor utallige ”uafhængige eksperter” fremlagde ”videnskabelige beviser”.

Senere, men med begrænset succes, prøvede nogle rabiate katolikker
og muslimer at forklare at man fik AIDS hvis man bruge kondom.

Lidt mere

Tidligere har jeg prøvet at finde hoved og hale i vurdering af modstridende oplysninger vedrørende relaterede emner og har blandt andet skrevet følgende:
Atomkraft – Hvad er forkert?:
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-8 Her findes bl.a. lidt om hvorledes medierne, og specielt Danmarks Radio, ukritisk videregav klart forfalskede oplysninger om ulykken ved Tjernobyl. Desværre uden at dementere.
Radiation Hormesis:
http://wp.me/s1RKWc-386  Et, om muligt endnu mere tabubelagt emne:
Tilsyneladende gavnlig indflydelse af moderat radioaktiv bestråling.
Her findes referencer til andet materiale, der kan siges at være relevant i denne sammenhæng.
Radon and More
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ec Her har jeg forsøgt at kaste lidt lys til de mange håbløst modstridende oplysninger om Radon.
Desuden findes en vurdering af de oplagt forfalskede ‘oplysninger’ om radioaktiv forurening af Stillehavet efter katastrofen ved Fukushima.

Selv Der Speigel har fået øjnene op.
Lidt mere på en anden post.

For en ordens skyld fremhæves at jeg vil være taknemmelig for at modtage kommentarer om faktuelle fejl – også stavefejl – der naturligvis vil blive rettet.
Forslag til ændringer modtages også med glæde.

Thorkil Søe
Jeg er civilingeniør, pensioneret
Bor Brogårdsvej 60-307, 2820 Gentofte
Telefon: 5117 1936
E-mail: thorkilsoee@gmail.com