Archives for posts with tag: Fukushima

J-value or Justification Value.

https://wp.me/s1RKWc-4o
__________________________________________________________________

Background

trolley_problem

Often we are faced with the problem:

Shall or Shall Not

We have classic dilemma:
“The Fat Man and the Trolley”
Shall I kill one, in order to save five?

Recently it has been attempted to quantify this recurring dilemma using J-value.
For good and for bad it has been necessary to include the value of human life and human wellbeing.
From the link in the heading, I quote:

  • How much should a nuclear power plant spend on protecting its workers?
  • Is it cost-effective to install a new safety system for railway signaling?
  • Should the Government be spending more to prevent road deaths?

I will ask:

  • Do you take on a bullet-proof west before you go out to post a letter?

From my time in Africa I have tried to face the problem:

  • How to spend the limited funds available if you want to give
    (some of) the countless orphans a better future life?

In my opinion a lot of the discussions should be modified considering the philosophy related to J-value.
The following are a few examples.

Relocation measures following nuclear power plant accidents.

From the highlights to a very detailed net-paper www.sciencedirect.com,
I refer that
75 % of the evacuations at Chernobyl and ALL at Fukushima were not justified if the evacuations were evaluated considering J-value.

Or more specific:
You consider years lost from the (very limited) radioactive pollution, assuming the alternative “Just stay at home.”
This is then compared to the years lost as a consequence of the mandatory evacuations.

Personally I will claim that the many “evacuation-casualties” has been a result of the reckless fight to demonize nuclear.

Calculations

From the above mentioned paper I quote:
It balances the costs of a safety scheme against the improvement in quality of life of those affected as a result of implementing that scheme.

trolley_problem

Going back to the example with the run away trolley you have:

blaThe scheme: Shifting the
bla – direction of the trolley.
blaCosts: Killing one man.
blaImprovement: Saving five
bla – lives.
blaJustification Value: 5 saved compared to one killed.

Relationship between radiation and harm

Originally – and to be sure – it was assumed that “No matter how little, all radiation is harmful”. (LNT or Linear No Threshold)
Without finding it specified, I understand that this assumption has been used in the above mentioned paper.

However, there are strong evidence showing that even 1000 mSv per year is not harmful if it is evenly distributed, thus giving the human “repair mekanisme” time to do the job.

For obvious reasons there is an enormous confusion about radiation and the above mentioned 1000 mSv/year is 50 times the limit used at Fukushima where people were evacuated – mandatory? – if the radiation was more than 20 mSv/year.
If this is considered there will be even less justification for the many evacuations.

Value of human life

For good and for bad it has been necessary to discuss the value of human life.
It has been done in the above mentioned paper.

In order to set it in perspective, I refer from a lecturer given by a German visiting professor in Dar es Salaam.
He did not shy away from difficult explanations and I remember the following:

  • In the good old times a lot of Germans had at good holiday in the then peaceful Yugoslavia.
    -mm –Some came home in a cuffin.
    -mm –You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
    But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark.
    The following year the flow of tourists was halved.
    Of course, it soon came back to normal.
trolley_problem

Sometimes we can not shy away from the classic “Trolley Dilemma” where it is discussed:
“Shall I divert the train and kill one in order to save five?”

Still it is relatively easy.
But it is also asked: You stand on a bridge
bla Will you push one man to death in order to save five?
bla And what will you do if this man is a friend of yours?
OR
bla Jump yourself.
An Indian soldier saved his group.
He got the Victoria Cross Post Mortem.

Noise from windmills

What is the value of human life and welfare compared to the wish for
so-called green electricity?
See part of the discussion on http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1gi

Contaminated / Uninhabitable Areas

Much more than half of all people live in contaminated sites.
Most air pollution or contaminated drinking water.
Whatever our choice – It is in fact based on J-value.

Cleanup at Hanford

During the war and later during the Cold War, plutonium was produced at the Hanford US plant.
As with almost all military activity, there was a poor safety culture.
And, as it is usually the case with “nuclear clean-up”, there have apparently been exaggerated demands.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to find anything but alarming information.
Typically: The account of a tunnel that collapsed.
The cleanup will be both expensive and late.
From the daily newspaper Information: A bombs require US victims.

Despite much search, it has not been possible to find factual information:
(Persons Injury / Death – mSv / ?? or Bq / ?? )
If you, my unknown reader, have factual information, write to me at thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Sellafield

In connection with a political struggle between the English Government and the coal miners, it was decided, in fact demanded, that the plant for Plutonium production should also provide power.
As we know, this urgent decision resulted in a very poor security culture and much pollution.

From the Danish paper Information, which usually is anti-nuclear:
bla The British nuclear plant Sellafield houses Western Europe’s most
bla harmful buildings with tons of unknown radioactive material
bla stored in pools.
bla The cleanup will cost the British taxpayers unimaginable sums and
bla will last decades.

As usual, one should try to assess the situation as it was at the time of the Cold War and the political conflict.
Was it justified? J-value

A supporter of nuclear power feels that it should be added that spent fuel elements from nuclear power, along with other highly radioactive material, will be stored in pools under water for up to 30 years.
Of course, because it’s safe and convenient.

Belgian nuclear power 2018

In 2018 it appears that 6 out of 7 Belgian reactors were taken out of service due to incipient damage at connecting buildings.
blaThese buildings contained the pumps to be used if everything else
blafailed. And the buildings might not withstand a crash by an airplane.
On Ingeniørens Netavis (Nov 2018), this is addressed with the almost mocking headline:
One [not closed] out of seven is actually pretty miserable.
At the end of more than 125 submissions, an assessment was proposed based on J-value.
In any case, such an assessment would have shown that the closures could only be defended as “politically motivated” and driven by an inflated popular mood.
This attempt to reach the core was not well received.
blaFor reasons, best understood by others, the two above links are now,
blaand contrary to general practice, referring to a “Not Found” (May 2020)

German resistance to nuclear power

In Germany, there is a popular fear of everything with Atom.
Apparently this can be traced back to a study, allegedly showing that children who lived near nuclear power plants had more cases of leukemia and other forms of cancer.
Although the original study has been disputed, an analysis based on J-value would have been appropriate.

  • In a desperate (and fruitless) attempt to find a connection between the clearly contradictory information, I ask if this (very small) deviation can be explained by Neutrinos.

But again, I emphasize that this, like so much else, should be assessed using the J-value philosophy.

Military Considerations

Although the term J-value was not used at that time, it must have been an almost inhumane task, e.g. deciding whether the invasion of Normandy should be postponed due to bad weather forecasts.

Baggrund

I en grundig norsk E-bog Radon, Lungekræft og LNT-modellen finder man mange interessante vurderinger om stråling og helse.
Nedenstående er uddrag fra dette.
________________________________________________________________________
Like etter Tsjernobylulykken bestemte helsemyndighetene at den øvre grense for radioaktivitet i matvarer skulle være 600 Bq/kg
Senere fikk reinkjøtt en grense på 6000 Bq/kg.

En god del kjøtt av sau, og særlig rein, har inneholdt betydelig mer enn dette.
Er det farlig å spise slikt kjøtt?
En middag med kjøtt som inneholder 10 000 Bq/kg gir en ekstra stråledose som tilsvarer en flyreise til Syden.
Dosen er fordelt over et helt år. Vi kan spise et par hundre slike middager i året før stråledosen blir like stor som den dose vi får (i gjennomsnitt) fra naturlig stråling!
Vi mener at det er uheldig å fiksere en bestemt grenseverdi gitt i Bq/kg. Derimot bør vi satse på å gi informasjon om stråledoser ved inntak av kunstige radioaktive isotoper.


Fra en anden (også norsk) kilde
citeres følgende:
Lave doser av stråling ser ikke ut til å være farlig, og det fins ganske mye forskning som peker mot at lave stråledoser til og med kan være bra for oss (Google “hormese” eller “hormesis”).
Å “regne seg frem til” at det blir 500 ekstra kreftdødsfall i Norge på grunn av Tsjernobyl, er 100 % useriøst og uetisk.

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 discussion

Although the term “Contaminated” is usually seen in relation to nuclear, it will be seen that most contamination in reality is a result of rejecting nuclear power.

In connection with the reporting about contaminated areas you often see a mix of criteria for concepts such as “polluted” or “uninhabitable”.
As a conclusion of the following you will see that the areas can be contaminated without necessarily being uninhabitable.
Although nuclear contamination worldwide is a minor problem it takes up a major part of the public discussion – also in the following.

I have tried to divide the discussion in the following:

  • How is it measured?
    Some of it is here.
  • What are we exposed to?
    An overview of natural radioactivity found here.
  • What can you tolerate?
    Here, as in most diskussions, ignorance replaced by great confusion.
    Large populations – even in Europe – live exposed to
    10 mSv / year. few places more.
    Aparently without harm.

The background radiation we are all exposed to, is about 2 mS/year.

  • There are overwhelming material showing that moderate the influence of ionizing radiation are beneficial. Almost like a vaccination against cancer.
    But let that be.
  • What do you allow?
    In a race to the bottom politicians try to avoid criticism and specify still lower permissible doses for what is described as dangerous and to be avoided.
    Thus, the permissible exposure of workers at German nuclear power plants in 1988? Reduced from 22 to 2 mSv/year
  • The extreme is apparently reached in Japan.
    To be on the safe side, a limit of
    one millisievert / year was introduced. (Arbitrarily)
    This is only a tenth of that many Europeans have suffered throughout their lives.

Unfortunately, I must note that it was necessary to get all these details in place before you can get to the real.

What happened?
Leaving aside the obvious forgery and remember that the discussion is about uninhabitable spaces I can only say:

  • I have not found anything about the situation in Japan after the atomic bomb attacks.
    It was before the concept uninhabitable areas was ‘invented’.
  • To complete the picture from Japan I mention that people who at the nuclear bombing were exposed to 500 mSv, and got weak symptoms of acute radiation sickness, nevertheless had no shorter life span than people in general.
  • Emissions from the accident at Three Mile Island was so extremely small that it is irrelevant; Also in this context.
    There were compensations for lost wages as compensation for unnecessary forcible evacuations and spent almost as much on ‘legal expences’.
  • Similarly, it must be noted that information about the accident at Fukushima are so entangled by conflicting “evidences” that it is not possible to draw conclusions.

Thus, we must start with the disaster by Chernobyl.
There you will find information, some of it seems reliable.

  • Without source reference is a picture showing dead trees.
    OK There were major release of radioactive material.
  • Of course, effortlessly, you will find countless horror stories.
  • You see the “back-mowaers” (babushkas) live in areas with
    more than 500 kBq/m^2
    Almost all are old and will naturally die from old age before they may get injuries from the perhaps not so dangerous radiation.
  • Maybe this page help with reliable information on the situation shortly after the disaster.

Already in 2006 you will find an assessment by the BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
The following is from this article.

  • “Low doses of radiation are a [very] poor carcinogen,” says Professor Brooks, som har spent 30 years studying the link mellom radiation and cancer.
    “If you talk to anybody and you say the word radiation, direkt you get a fear response. That fear response har caused people to do things att are scientifically unfounded.”
  • Beneficial effects:
    Other studies having come to even more startling conclusions’.
    Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, har spent 10 years studying animals living Reviews within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl.
    Han har found att, far from the effects of low-level radiation being Carcinogenic, it fremgår two boost dem att genes protect us against cancer.
    (Radiation hormesis?)

    Generally, information from the BBC considered reliable.

October 2015 The Guardian (England) comes forward with something similar:

  • For years, both animals and plants thrived in the forbidden zone that is closed to humans.
    Måske it is not so terribly terribly dangerous.
  • Especially the comments for this article gives a good insight into the general reluctance to accept information that goes against what I very rude call “ordinary childhood”.

Of course, Greenpeace has been out with activists – Wearing white protective clothing and breathing apparatus.
To tell the “back-movers” that their lives are in danger.
Of course, this white protective suit is completely without effect if the purpose is to protect against ionizing radiation.

If you, my unknown reader, have come so far, I suggest that you try to draw the consequences.

If you still have doubts and want more, I refer to anything else I have written:
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
Chernobyl.
Fukushima.
Pollution of the ocean.
Unlike most doomsday prophets, I have a large scale given references to my sources.

And later (2018) you read at FOBIS.com that UNHCR has adjusted the estimate of “late casualties” (from cancer?) from about 4000 to about zero.

If you feel you have missing information, write to me at thorkilsoee@gmail.com

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

____________________________________________________________________
Dødsfald i forbindelse med kernekraft bør sammenlignes med dødsfald i forbindelse med andre ENERGIKILDER.
På den måde vil det være urimeligt at diskutere skader ved militære anlæg og ved forskningsinstitutioner.

Saglig diskussion bør naturligvis kun omhandle dødsfald i forbindelse med tænkte fremtidige reaktorer, hovedsageligt i Europa.
Således vil det være naturligt at udelukke den specielt farlige reaktorer ved Tjernobyl.

På samme måde vil en saglig vurdering udelukke diskussion om reaktorerne ved Fukushima, hvor forholdene var specielle og skader fra tsunamien på et stort område var forfærdelige.
På trods af oplagte mangler og på trods af utallige rædselsberetninger var skaderne på reaktorerne meget begrænsede.
—- De tre, der døde på kraftværket, de druknede og
—- de store evakueringer viste sig at være sagligt ubegrundede.

Således vil diskussionen indskrænkes til ulykken ved Three Mile Island.
Her var der tale om meget store materielle skader.
Men ingen personskader fra radioaktivt udslip.
Som ofte i USA udbetaltes småbeløb.
Her hovedsageligt eller udelukkende for tabt arbejdsfortjeneste på grund af forståelige, men unødvendige krav om evakueringer.
Derudover blev næsten det samme beløb brugt til “legal expences”.

Endeligt vil jeg konstatere at der, på trods af ihærdige påstande, ikke har været bare ET ENESTE tilfælde af personskade på grund af radioaktivitet i forbindelse med civil kernekraft i de 50 år der har været kernekraft i vesten.
Her er der tale om skader, ved den nødvendige minedrift, ved driften af reaktorerne og ved behandling af det, der stadigvæk kaldes affald.

Hvis du, min ukendte læser, har FAKTUELLE oplysninger, der modsiger dette, så skriv til mig på thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Fra Climate Ansvers og tidligere også fra Ingeniøren, citerer jeg følgende:

Energikilde – – Dødsfald/trillion kWh – ….- Andel af forsyning af el
Coal – global – – – 170.000 – – – – – – – – (50% global electricity)
Coal – China -…. – 280.000 – – – – – – – – (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. – -… -. – 15.000– – – – – – – – – (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil – – – – -……- – –36.000 – – – – (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas -…… – –4.000 – – – – – – – – – (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass …..- 24.000– – – – – – – – – (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) – ..- – – –440– – – – – – – – – (< 1% global electricity)
Wind – – – – –…. – – – –150 – – – – – – – – (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – – – – -…. – – –1.400 – – – – – – – – (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – – – – – ….- – – 90 – – – – – – – – (17% global electricity)

Alt tyder på at når der angives 90 dødsfald/TWh er det fordi dødsfald ved Tjernobyl og Fukushima inkluderet – og overdrevne.
Det lave tal for vadkraft tyder på at en enorm katastrofe i Kina er overset.
Desuden savner man oplysninger om “Solar Totalt”

En længere artikel (June 10, 2012), der er i overensstemmelse med ovenstående, findes her.

En tilhænger af kernekraft vil naturligvis fremhæve at kernekraft er det eneste realistiske alternativ til kulkraft.
Tilsvarende nævnes at UNSCEAR har nedjusteret antallet af “sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl fra omkring 4000 til “næsten nul”
Det kan argumenteres at dette er fordi man har medregnet erfaringer fra Hiroshima hvor man, mod al forventning, ikke har fundet den meget omtalte stigning i forekomst af kræft.
Da denne nedjustering betvivles henviser jeg til mit forsøg på en vurdering.

På internettet finder man dette:


severe accidents

Klik på tabellen for fuld størrelse.

Mere illustrativt fra New Scientist (2011)


dodsfald-ved-kraftkilder
Klik på tabellen for fuld størrelse.
Her, som så mange andre steder, benyttes gamle og overdrevne tal for dødsfald ved kernekraft.
Senere data angiver omkring 60 dødsfald ved Tjernobyl – ikke 9000
Derudover var der over 1000 “Evakueringsdødsfald” der næsten alle kunne være undgået hvis man havde overvejet uden den oppustede frygt.
En tilhænger af kernekraft siger
————————-Send regningen til Greenpeace.

Risiko – Generelt

Fra What is nuclear får man følgende oplysninger.

Activity ———————————————–mSv
Typical yearly dose, all sources —————- 3.6
Full set dental X-ray ——————————– 0.4
Flying roundtrip from D.C. to Los Angeles 0.05
Living outside nuclear plant ——————- 0,001 /year

Helth risk —————————— Expected life lost
Smoking a pack of cigarets a day —— 6 years
Being 15 % overweight ——————– 2 years
Working in construction ——————- 227 days
Working in nuclear power plant
(1000 mrem/year)—————————– 51 days
Typical annual background radiation
(3 mSv/year)

Forurening

Udover dødsfald har den generelle modstand mod kernekraft resulteret i megen forurening, ikke bare med CO2

Et par andre kilder

Fra Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes. February 26, 2013 citeres følgende – Relateret til panikken efter tsunamien.

  • Ifølge World Data Bank steg Japans kulforbrug med 57 TWh, naturgas 58 TWh og olie 9 TWh gennem 2011.
    Det er rimeligt at antage, at dette forblev det samme gennem 2012.
  • Dødsfald / TWh / år fra kul-, gas-, olie- og nuklear-baseret produktion er henholdsvis 24, 3, 19,2 og 0,052.
  • Ekstra fossile dødsfald og alvorlige lidelser over 2 år:
    Kul = 24 mennesker x 57 TWh x 2 år = 2.736 dødsfald plus
    25.000 alvorlige lidelser
    Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 dødsfald plus 3.400 alvorlige lidelser
    Olie = 19,2 x 9 x 2 = 342 dødsfald plus 2.900 alvorlige lidelser
    I alt ekstra fossile dødsfald = 2.736 + 348 + 342 = 3.426 plus 31.300 alvorlige lidelser.
    Atom = 0,052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 dødsfald plus 54 alvorlige lidelser.

Der afslluttes med følgende:

  • Modstandere af atomenergi er fuldstændig irrationelle med hensyn til ”farerne ved nukleare”.
    Bemærk, at naturgas er 8 gange mindre dødbringende end kul.
    Disse dødsfald er aktive, så længe Japans nukleare anlæg er i tomgang!!
  • Den kritiske læser hævder sig ved et rodet layout og at enheden Deaths/TWh/yr er selvmodsigende.

Kilder til ovenstående:
http://billothewisp.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/fukushima-hidden-epidemic.html
Og en meget lang artikel på The Lancet 2007
(The Lancet anses normalt som meget pålideligt og graph side 983 er meget illustrativt.)

  • Brug af atomkraft i stedet for fossile energikilder, såsom kul, har forhindret omkring 1,8 millioner luftforurening-relaterede dødsfald globalt – – –
    Se her.

Ikke bare dødsfald

Ovenstående har hovedsageligt behandlet antal af dødsfald.
Det er efter min mening langt fra fyldestgørende.
Hvis man er ærlig skal man også diskutere Liv og Livskvalitet.

I forbindelse med et – desværre opgivet – projekt for forældreløse børn i Tanzania gik jeg så vidt som at skrive:

– – – – De, de er måske de heldige, de får fred i deres grav – selv om de måske ikke får en grav.

Støj fra vindmøller
Selv om vindkraftens lobbyvirksomhed gør et stort arbejde for at neddysse omtale af skader fra støj og andet, er det et alvorligt aspekt i det, der optimistisk kaldes Den Store Grønne Omstilling.

Kulkraft
Ud over dødsfald, som omtalt, er der mange der lider af astma og lignende.
Dårligt helbred og dårlig livskvalitet hører med til billedet.

Olie og Gas
Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende er der alvorlige skader, også menneskelige, i forbindelse med udvinding af olie og gas.

Evakueringer
Efter ulykkerne ved Tjernobyl og Fukushima var man vidne til meget store evakueringer.
Disse evakueringer var skyld i mange skader, både fysiske og psykiske.
Endog selvmord.
Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende har disse skader langt overskredet de, tilsyneladende hypotetiske, skader der ville have været set hvis disse evakueringer havde været begrænset til et rimeligt niveau.

Bhopal 1984
Den alvorligste industrielle ulykke var The Bhopal disaster.
Her var der mindst 3800 døde og i 100.000vis af syge og forgiftede.
Sammen med uhyggelig megen forurening.
I virkeligheden meget værre end Tjernobyl og Fukushima TILSAMMEN.
Men det var fattige indere og det var ikke en ulykke med radioaktivitet.
Det er næsten glemt.

Black Swan Theory


black-swan
Ekstreme og “uforudsigelige” ulykker er forsøgt behandlet på dette link.
Det der dominerer i denne vurdering er financial crash og lignende.
Verst tænkelige menneskeskabte katastrofe vil formentligt være i forbindelse med et
blank xxxxxxxxxdæmnidæmningsbrud.

Der er naturligvis internationale eksperter, der vurderer nuclear sikkerhed.
MEN
I forbindelse med kernekraft er den egentlige Black Swan risiko forbundet med politiske tiltag.
Som fx da man i Tyskland uden varsel og uden tilstrækkelig kompensation “sådan bare” besluttede at udfase kernekraft.

Drabsforsøg på politi

Et nær dødsfald

Ved en omfattende demonstration mod A-kraft blev en tysk betjent slået bevidstløs og ført med strømmen ned af et vandløb medens hundredvis af demonstranter stod og hujede.

Han blev reddet fra druknedøden da en demonstrant længere nede forstod realiteterne og samlede ham op.

Hvorfor denne diskussion?

Jeg mener at det er nødvendigt at give et modsvar til årtiers dygtig propaganda, som fx ses og afdækkes på en anden post:
Greenpeaces Troværdighed er en Myte.

Efterskrift

Februar 2020 læser man på Weekendavisen og på Ingeniøren at udfasning af atomkraft hæmmer Tysklands klimaindsats og at det tyske Energiewende har været skadeligt for folkesundheden.

Ved opslag på internettet er det let at finde modstridende oplysninger fra måske velmenende kilder, der beretter om dødsfald i forbindelse med uranminer.
De fleste af disse sider giver ikke andet end vage oplysninger, der kun udmærker sig ved at være alarmerende.
Derfor vil jeg nøjes med at referere til New Scientist og naturligvis også til
World Nuclear.

Som en slutbemærkning opfordres modstandere af kernekraft til at give kilder til faktuelle oplysninger, der støtter de gentagne påstande om specielt mange dødsfald ved kernekraft og minedrift for uran.

Skriv til thorkilsoee@gmail.com

https://wp.me/p1RKWc-TF

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.
__________________________________________________________________________

Fukushima

The release of radioactive material has been estimated to be between
500 PBq and 1000 PBq
The Pacific Ocean covers 165 million km^2 and contains 66 million km^3 of water.
Assuming all of these 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) to be equally distributed over 1 % of the ocean to a depth of 50 m, and without considering the ‘sinking down’ of heavy material, you will get 12 Bq/kg. If you thereafter consider that some 90 % of the radioactive release is Iodine131 (see page 116 in UNSCEAR 2013 Report,) only some 2 Bq/kg will be active at the time of the horror-stories.
Further, it may be worth mentioning that the US National Academy of Science has referred to measurements showing 7 Bq/m^3 Fukushima-derived fallout of 137Cs near the Canadian continental shelf.
This may have been rather difficult to measure, considering that the natural level of radiation in the ocean is 11,000 Bq/m^3

In order to relate to something familiar, it can be mentioned that all of us carry with us about 65 Bq/kg (65,000 Bq/m^3) as part of our human body, or that a radon level of 100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied house. (Watras Incident, as discussed on another post.)
Correct me if I am wrong.
Fukushima Greenpeace
Considering this, it is difficult to understand how well established “green organizations” show maps and indicate the “extreme danger” related to the radioactive pollution the whole way to the American west coast.
Even far inland.
1 RAD = 10 mSv However, this unit is (deliberately?) confusing and will not have any meaning without stating the time. E.g. RAD/hour.

Without being able to check, I think this link from The Register is more reliable.

If you have trust in World Nuclear, the following may be interesting:

  • A silt fence has long been in place to prevent contamination reaching the open sea and the diluting effects of ocean currents mean that radioactivity cannot be detected in seawater beyond the plant harbour.

If you are a fan of YouTube and have seen “The Ocean of Death”, you may wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has caused the disaster shown on the film.
Contrary to radiation; fish are rather sensitive to change in the concentration of salt in the water. So, if not directly falsified, the dead fish may be found outside a plant for desalinating seawater.
Besides this it is worth looking at the last table in a paper from UNSCEAR. Here it is seen that the radiologic tolerance  for fish is some ten times that for mammals and birds.
On the other hand you may be relieved to see how the animals are thriving in the highly radioactive and forbidden zone at Chernobyl.

As far as I am aware of, Tepco’s limits for groundwater contamination is that groundwater should contain less than 5 Bq/L of beta ray-emitting radioactive material and 1 Bq/L of caesium-134 and caesium-137.
Again, this should be seen in relation to the natural load of the human body: 65 Bq/L and of the ocean: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
To be on the safe side, the standard for public radiation exposure was (arbitrary) set
to one millisievert/year.
This is only one tenth of what some Europeans have been exposed to throughout their lives.

My conclusion is clear.
Something is rotten – somewhere –
But where ?

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.
__________________________________________________________________________
I forbindelse med omtale af forurenede områder ser man ofte en sammenblanding af kriterier for begreber som ”forurenede” eller ”ubeboelige”.
For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at langt over halvdelen af jordens befolkning lever i områder, hvor der er luftforurening.
Over to millioner dør årligt på grund af luftforurening fra kulkraft.
På verdensplan er generel luftforurening skyld i ni millioner dødsfald.

Som en konklusion af det følgende vil man se at områder kan være forurenede uden nødvendigvis at være ubeboelige.

Jeg har prøvet at opdele diskussionen i følgende:

  • Hvordan måles det?
    Noget findes her.
  • Hvad udsættes vi for?
    En grundig oversigt over naturlig radioaktivitet findes her.
  • Hvad kan man tale?
    Tilsyneladende er manglende viden erstattet af stor forvirring.
    Store befolkningsgrupper – også i Europa – lever udsat for
    10 mSv/år.
    Enkelte steder meget mere.
    Tilsyneladende uden skadevirkninger.

Den baggrundsstråling, vi alle udsættes for, er omkring 2 mS/år.

  • Der er overvældende materiale, der viser at moderat påvirkning af ioniserende stråling er gavnlig. Næsten som en vaccination mod kræft.
    Men lad det nu være.
  • Hvad vil man tillade?
    I et ræs mod bunden forsøger politikere at undgå kritik og fastsætter stadig lavere tilladelige grænser for hvad der betegnes som farligt og skal undgås.
    Således blev den tilladelige påvirkning af arbejdere på tyske kernekraftværker i 1988? nedsat fra 22 til 2 mSv/år
  • Natural Radiation EUDet helt ekstreme nås tilsyneladende i Japan, hvor panikken overtrumfede logikken.
    For at være på den sikre side, fastsatte man (helt arbitrært) en grænseværdi på
    en millisievert/år.
    Dette er kun en tiendedel af det mange europæere har været udsat for gennem hele deres liv.

Desværre må jeg konstatere at det var nødvendigt at få alle disse detaljer på plads inden man kan komme til det egentlige.

Hvad er der sket?
Når man ser bort fra klart falskneri og husker at diskussionen er om Ubeboelige Områder kan jeg kun oplyse følgende:

  • Jeg har ikke fundet noget om forholdene i Japan, efter atombombeangrebene.
    Det var før man ‘opfandt’ begrebet Ubeboelige Omrder.
  • For at færdiggøre billedet fra Japan nævner jeg at personer, der var udsat for 500 mSv, fik svage symptomer på akut strålesyge.
    Alligevel havde de ikke kortere livslængde end normalbefolkningen.
  • Udslip fra ulykken ved Three Mile Island var så ekstremt små at det er uden relevans; også i denne sammenhæng.
    Der blev udbetalt erstatning for tabt arbejdsfortjeneste som kompensation for forståelige men unødvendige tvangs-evakueringer og brugt næsten lige så meget på ‘legal expences’.
  • Tilsvarende må det konstateres at oplysninger om ulykken ved Fukushima er så indfiltrede af modstridende oplysninger at det ikke er muligt at drage slutninger.

Således må vi starte med katastrofen ved Tjernobyl.
Der finder man oplysninger, der trods alt virker pålidelige.

  • Uden kildeangivelse findes et billede, der viser døde træer.
    OK Der var meget store udslip af radioaktivt materiale.
  • Naturligvis finder man, helt uden besvær, utallige rædselsberetninger.
  • Man ser at “tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever i områder med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Næsten alle er gamle og vil naturligvis dø af alderdom før de eventuelt får skader fra den måske ikke så farlige stråling.
  • Måske kan denne side bidrage med troværdige oplysninger om situationen kort efter katastrofen.
    Her ser man en frygtindgydende tabel med tal for forurening.
    OK
    Der var megen radioaktiv forurening forbundet med katastrofen.
    MEN
    Hvis man derefter ser hvorledes ”tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever gladelig i områder forurenet med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Ja så bliver tallene pludseligt knapt så frygtindgydende.

Allerede i 2006 finder man en vurdering fra BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
Det følgende er fra denne artikel.

  • “Lave doser af stråling udviser [meget] ringe kræftfremkaldende virkning,” siger professor Brooks, der har tilbragt 30 år på at studere sammenhængen mellem stråling og kræft.
    MEN
    “Hvis du taler med nogen, og du siger ordet stråling, får du straks en frygt reaktion.
    Denne frygt reaktion har foranlediget folk til at gøre ting, der er videnskabeligt ubegrundet.”
  • Gavnlige effekter:
    Andre undersøgelser er kommet til endnu mere overraskende konklusioner.
    Professor Ron Chesser, Texas Tech University, USA, har brugt 10 år på at studere dyr, der lever i det 30 kilometer udelukkelse zone omkring Tjernobyl.
    Han har fundet at virkningerne af et lavt niveau af stråling, langt fra at være kræftfremkaldende, så ser det ud til at sætte skub i de gener, der beskytter os mod kræft.
    (Radiation Hormesis ?)

    Almindeligvis kan oplysninger fra BBC betragtes som pålidelige.

Oktober 2015 kommer The Guardian (England) frem med noget tilsvarende: – – — – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – 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 forfærdeligt farligt.
  • Specielt kommentarerne
    til denne artikel giver et godt indblik i den almindelige modvilje mod at acceptere oplysninger, der går imod det jeg, meget ubehøvlet, kalder “den almindelige barnetro”.

Naturligvis har Greenpeace været ude med aktivister – Iført hvid beskyttelsesdragt og åndedrætsværn.
For at fortælle “tilbage-flyttere” at deres liv er i fare.
Men denne hvide beskyttelsesdragt er helt uden virkning, hvis formålet er at beskytte mod ioniserende stråling.
Efter katastrofen var der megen luftbåret radioaktivitet.
Men i dag er dette fine åndedragtsværn nærmest latterligt.

Altså

Hvis du, min ukendte læser, er kommet så langt, vil jeg foreslå at du prøver at drage konsekvenserne.

MEN

Hvis du stadigvæk er i tvivl og ønsker mere, henviser jeg til noget andet jeg har samlet sammen:
Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte.
Tjernobyl.
Fukushima.
Forurening af Oceanet.
I modsætning til de fleste Dommedagsprofeter har jeg i stor stil givet referencer til mine kilder.

Hvis du har FAKTUELLE oplysninger, der mangler, så skriv til mig på thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Bhopal

Når man taler om katastrofe og forurening, bør man sammenligne med katastrofen ved Bhopal. (1984)
Den alvorligste industrielle ulykke var The Bhopal disaster.
Her var der mindst 3800 døde, 100.000vis syge og forgiftede samt en meget omfattende forurening.
I virkeligheden ti gange så alvorligt sammenlignet med Tjernobyl og Fukushima TILSAMMEN.
Men det gik mest ud over fattige indere der, som så mange andre, ‘sådan bare’ var flyttet ind på et forbudt område.
Det var ikke en ulykke med radioaktivitet.
Nu er det næsten glemt.

Militære Områder

Ofte ser man hvorledes der ved militære anlæg har været en dårlig sikkerhedskultur, og efterlader forurening, der ikke ville være acceptabel ved civile anlæg.
Ikke bare i det gamle Sovjet.
Desværre er der flere eksempler, der benyttes til at dæmonisere også civil brug af atomkraft.
Fx et kollaps af en tunnel ved et nedlagt militært koldkrigs-anlæg ved Hanford i USA.
Hvis man læser ovenstående link og sammenligner det venstre billede med det andet, der stammer fra et civilt anlæg i Sverige.
Ja så løber det koldt ned af ryggen – i hvert fald på mig.

Svensk affald

Hanfordtunnelcollapse-May2017-460(DOE)
Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

På Ingeniørens netavis, der normalt er domineret af modstandere af alt med Atom læser man at
De mange evakueringer var unødvendige og derigennem skadelige.

Frygten for stråling er bestemt ikke ubegrundet.
Men i det meste af den offentlige debat er den vildt overdrevet.

__________________________________________________________________
– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
_______________________________________________________________
I stedet for at rode rundt og blande tingene sammen – Lad os begynde med at vurdere det vi ved:

  • Enheder: Den biologiske virkning af radioaktivitet måles i
    mSv (milli Sivert)
    Mere se her.
  • Strålesyge, der næsten altid skyldes akut skade, har et velkendt og klart afgrænset forløb.
    Således er det ikke svært at afvise næsten alle krav, hvor stråling angives som årsag til alle mulige lidelser.
  • Naturligvis løber det koldt ned af ryggen på os når vi tænker på at Strålesyge slog 60.000 Hiroshima-borgere ihjel inden udgangen af året.
    Dette tal er udover dem, der døde næsten øjeblikkeligt af trykbølgen og brandsår.
    Trods alt, så var de menneskelige lidelser alligevel mindre end ved ildstormen i Tokio.

LNT (Liniear No Treshold, eller lige meget hvor lidt, så er det skadeligt)
Denne hypotese er baggrunden for næsten al vurdering af skader fra moderat eller lille påvirkning af ioniserende stråling.
black – Det kom frem, nok mest i mangel af bedre.
black – Det gør det muligt at lave statistiske beregninger og komme frem
black til forudsigelser, der ofte bliver helt groteske.
black – Det passede godt i den kolde krigs propaganda.
black – Det hævdes og begrundes at kullobbyen stod bag hypotesen.
black – Som det ses af det følgende er denne forudsætning urealistisk.
black – Et humoristisk, men alligevel relevant, indslag findes her.
black – En mere saglig gennemgang kan findes her.

HVAD SÅ?

Da man efter mange år kunne lave en opgørelse af livsforløbet af de overlevende fra atombombeangrebene kom man bl.a. frem til følgende:

  • Personer, udsat for strålings-doser under 500 mSv havde ikke kortere levetid end normalbefolkningen.
    —– 500 mSv som enkeltstående påvirkning vil medføre
    —– svage symptomer på akut strålesyge og er mere end
    —– 100 gange det, der normalt tillades.

Allerede på dette grundlag kan man rent logisk udlede at:
Hvis der havde været en stærk sammenhæng mellem stråling og cancer; så ville mange af disse personer have fået cancer.
Og således ville middellevetiden have været væsentligt kortere end normalbefolkningen.

Dette kan således tages som et bevis for at der er meget lille korrelation mellem stråling og cancer.

  • Personer, der kun lige overlevede den akutte strålesyge
    (3000 mSv), havde derimod en gennemsnitlig levelængde, der var 3 år mindre end normalbefolkningen.
  • Børn født af forældre, der havde været udsat for endog meget høje doser af ioniserende stråling havde ikke flere medfødte misdannelser end normalbefolkningen.
    Således kan fx dette link afvises som oplagt bedrageri.

Fra kilder, der kan anses for at være troværdige, bekræftes ovenstående.

  • Allerede i 2006 beretter BBC hvorledes dyrelivet trives i de forbudte områder ved Tjernobyl.
    Angiveligt bedre og med færre tilfælde af kræft.
    Således kommer man nærmere et andet tabubelagt emne: Radiation Hormesis.
  • Fra samme artikel hæfter man sig ved udtalelsen om at lave doser af radiation er et [meget] svagt karcinogen.
  • Dyr ved Tjernobyo2015 finder man en artikel i
    The Guardian (England). Her konkluderes at:
    I årevis har både dyr og planter trivedes i den forbudte zone, der er lukket for mennesker.

De mange kommentarer til ovennævnte artikel viser hvorledes årtiers dygtig misinformation har godt hold i læserne.

  • Efter atombombeangrebene i Japan er der rapporteret mange tilfælde af ”kronisk strålesyge”.
    Også dette savner imidlertid ethvert holdepunkt i den medicinske virkelighed.

På nedenstående graf angiver de hvide fælder EKSTRA tilfælde af kræft blandt de overlevende efter atombombeangrebene i Japan.
Modsat utallige dommedagsprofetier ser man at der er få ekstra tilfælde af kræft.

Kræft fra stråling - kun det hvide

For at bringe dette i det rette perspektiv fremhæver jeg at den stråling der var et resultat af ulykkerne ved Tjernobyl og specielt ved Fukushima var størrelsesordner mindre en den ved atombombeangrebene i Japan.
ALIGEVEL
Konspirationsteorier trives i bedste velgående.

  • Her angives at dødsfald ved Tjernobyl allerede er nået 1.000.000 og at der kan forventes 7.000.000 fremtidige dødsfald.
    Man fristes til at sige at hvis vi venter længe nok, så vil vi være døde – Alle sammen.
  • UNHCR har nedjusteret antallet af “Sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl fra 4.000 til omtrent nul.
    Dette har naturligvis medført tvivl og debat.
  • Hvis man søger efter billeder af vandskabte børn og hjælper lidt med billedmanipulation er det ikke svært at nå frem til noget som dette.
    – – – – For snart meget længe siden hjalp jeg en dreng,
    – – – – der var født helt uden arme. Det var ikke et resultat
    – – – – hverken af stråling eller af Thalidomid.
  • I betragtning af ovenstående fristes man til at sige at Greenpeace er tilbageholdne når de skriver:
    bla”Det er nu mere end 20 år siden atomkraftulykken i Tjernobyl,
    blader ramte millioner af mennesker i det vestlige Rusland, Ukraine
    blaog Hviderusland.
    blaKatastrofen var skyld i hundrede gange mere radioaktiv stråling
    blaend atombomberne over Hiroshima og Nagasaki.
    blaI dag, over tyve år senere, fortsætter mareridtet for tusindvis
    blaaf mennesker.”

    Alligevel er min vurdering at
    Greenpeaces torværdighed er en myte.

Nu venter jeg kun på din vurdering.
Skriv til mig på thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Lidt mere

Kortfattet oversigt over skader ved stråling.
Dansk helsefysiker giver en vurdering.
Der Spiegel er så småt begyndt at se realiteterne.

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.
_______________________________________________________________

(11 Marts 2011)

Fukushima TsunamiEt jordskælv og en efterfølgende tsunami ramte området omkring Fukushima på Japans østkyst.
Selve tsunamien krævede tæt ved 20.000 ofre.
Men selv om de tre, der døde ved kraftværket, ikke døde som følge af ioniserende strålig, så blev det snart det dominerende emne i debatten.

Naturligvis blev der distribueret jod-tabletter og foranstaltet store evakueringer.
For at imødegå en udbredt frygt for en ikke eksisterende fare følte politikere sig nødsaget til at opretholde disse evakueringer også længe efter det var berettiget.
Hvis det overhovedet var berettiget i første omgang.
Natural Radiation EU
For at forstå dette, må man huske at der var opblæst en hysterisk frygt og at en politiker vil risikere sin politiske fremtid hvis han ikke viser handlekraft eller kan beskyldes for at udsætte befolkningen for farer.
For at være på den sikre side, blev grænsen for tilladelig stråling sat til en millisievert per år.
Mindre end halvdelen af det vi allesammen er udsat fra naturlige kilder.

Støvmasker BørnAlligevel kom der noget godt ud af frygten.
For at beskytte mod radioaktivt støv, var der megen brug af ansigtsmasker.
Dette reddede mange fra skader fra det asbest-støv, der var hvirvlet op fra de ødelagte bygninger.

Det er nemt at være bagklog og sige at der skulle have været en helt anderledes kraftig mur til at beskytte reaktorerne.
Eller bygget længere oppe på land og haft større udgifter til kølevand.
Der kunne også have været et bedre kølesystem eller man kunne have lyttet til svenske forslag om at lave et filter, som man havde ved reaktorerne ved Barsebäck.
Endeligt var det uansvarligt at vente for længe før man brugte saltvand til køling.
Selv om japanerne er dygtige og samvittighedsfulde, fejlede man da man flere gange tidligere overhørte advarsler fra Det Internationale Atomenergiagentur.
Fukushima Fier in the OIL
MEN
Når formålet er at skabe frygt og sensation, er det tilsyneladende sådan at hensigten helliger midlerne.
Danmarks Radio kunne tilsyneladende ikke finde noget, der var tilstrækkeligt rædselsvækkende fra kraftværket.
I stedet vistes en røgsøjle fra et brændende olieraffinaderi.
Således bliver det let for alle at forstå den uhyggelige – næsten ikke eksisterende – fare ved radioaktiv forurening.

Stadigvæk er det svært at forstå hvorledes denne fanatiske propaganda og de klare fejl ved kraftværket kan begrunde den næsten panikagtige diskussion om kernekraft i Europa, hvor der ikke er fare for en tsunami.

Panik og Følger

  • De store evakueringer, der senere viste sig at være unødvendige, medførte meget store skader på de mange som frygten havde ”jaget fra hus og hjem”.
    Både fysiske og psykologiske skader – endog selvmord.
    Ifølge officielle kilder: Vel over 1000 dødsfald forårsaget af evakueringerne.
  • Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende, har disse skader langt overskredet de, næsten hypotetiske, skader fra den, trods alt meget begrænsede, forøgede radioaktivitet som befolkningen ville have været udsat for, hvis de kunne have returneret hjem.
  • På den måde vil jeg hævde at de ansvarlige for disse urimeligt mange “evakueringsdødsfald” ikke findes i forbindelse med kraftværket, men blandt de selvbestaltede miljøforkæmpere, der oppiskede en næsten ubegrænset, men ubegrundet, frygt.
  • I bagkundskabens klare lys og i forbindelse med behandling af teorien for J-value (justification value) kommer man frem til at ALLE de mange evakueringer var overflødelige og derigennem skadelige.
  • På internetsiden Forbes læser man også at Fukushimas refugees are victims of irrational fear. Not radiation.
  • Tilsvarende ses det at 75 % af evakueringer ved Tjernobyl var overflødige og derigennem skadelige.

2018 25. jan. ser man at UNSCEAR har nedjusteret antal af dødsfaldet i forbindelse med katastrofen i Tjernobyl fra 4000 til “Næsten nul”
Da denne nedjustering er blevet betvivlet, henviser jeg til følgende link, hvor jeg har forsøgt at lave en oversigt og evaluering af tilgængelige og pålidelige oplysninger .
¨…. Hvis læser dette link: Greenpeace’s troværdighed er en myte, er det
….. let at se hvorfor information fra Greenpeace ikke er inkluderet.

MEN

Den største og næsten oversete skade kom fra den panikagtige lukning af over 40 velfungerende reaktorer.
Dette medførte en stærkt forøget forurening – både lokalt og globalt.

Fra en lidt rodet og måske upålidelig kilde Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes. February 26, 2013 citeres følgende:
(Kort uddrag og oversættelse)

  • Ifølge World Data Bank, forøgede Japan brugen af fossile brændsler.
    Således genereredes 125 TWh mere fra kul, naturgas og olie.
    I alt resulterende dette i over 3.000 flere dødsfald og 31.000 alvorlige skader. (Årligt ?)
    Disse skader vil fortsætte indtil frygten er manet væk og de stansede reaktorer kan genstartes.
    Lidt flere detaljer kan findes på en anden post.
  • Fra Neutron Bytes (August 9, 2017) haves følgende:
    Hvis 10 kernekraftreaktorer genstartes i Japan inden marts 2019, falder værdien af importerede fossile brændstoffer med $4.55bn (€3.84bn).

Derudover kan jeg referere til følgende:
http://billothewisp.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/fukushima-hidden-epidemic.html
Og, lidt bedre: The Lancet 2007
– – The Lancet anses normalt som meget pålideligt og graph side 983 er
– – meget illustrativt.

National Geographic
prøver at give en objektiv vurdering.
Strengt taget er de mange kommentarer meget illustrative.
De giver et godt billede af den folkelige misinformation.

Oprydningen

Omkostningerne i forbindelse med oprydning er tilsyneladende ved at løbe løbsk.
For detaljer henviser jeg til en anden side.

Oceanet

Det oplyses at udslippet af radioaktivt materiale har været mellem
500 PBq og 1000 PBq eller 10^18 Bq
World Nuclear angiver: “Eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)”
Med sædvanlig sans for (fiktiv) nøjagtighed angives 11.346×10^18 Bq.
Jeg tillader mig at tvivle på dette tal, der er ti gange mere end de 10^18 Bq jeg regner med.
Samme sted angives at den samlede radioaktivitet i alle oceaner fra Potassium 40 er 14.000×10^18 Bq, eller 1000 gange mere.
I forbindelse med de mange tal, vil man savne oversigt over radioaktivitet udledt fra afbrænding af fossilt brændstof.

Tilsvarende må man undres over hvordan det er muligt for Greenpeace at komme så tæt på (påstået) dumping i oceanet, at der er muligt at få de billeder, der findes her.

Det Pacifice Ocean dækker 165 millioner km^2 og indeholder 66 millioner km^3 vand.

Hvis man antager at alle disse 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) bliver jævnt fordelt over 1 % af oceanet til en dybde på 50 m, og ikke medtager at størsteparten vil synke ned vil man få 12 Bq/kg.
Hvis man derefter overvejer at sådan 90 % af det radioaktive udslip var jod 131 (se side 116 i UNSCEAR 2013 Rapport)
Ja så vil højst 2 Bq/kg være tilbage på tidspunktet for de mange rædsels-beretninger.
Desuden har the US National Academy of Science meddelt, at der er fundet et 7 Bq/m^3 137 Cs af affald fra Fukushima nærved den Kanatiske kontinentsokkel.
Dette må have været temmeligt svært at måle, når men tænker på at der allerede findes 10.000 Bq/m^3 fra naturlige kilder.

For at sammenligne med noget, der er nærmere, nævnes at vi alle bærer rundt på omkring 65 Bq/kg (65.000 Bq/m^3) som del af det menneskelige legeme, eller at 100.000 Bq/m^3 radon var fundet i en beboet bygning. (Watras Incident, som diskuteret på en anden post.)
100.000 Bq/m^3, som luftforurening, er ‘sådan bare’ 1000 gange det der normalt tolereres.
Ret mig hvis det er forkert.

Fukushima Greenpeace Hvis man tager alt dette i betragtning er det svært af forstå hvorledes veletablerede “grønne organisationer” kan vise kort der viser “alvorlig fare” fra radioaktiv forurening hele vejen ind over den Amerikanske vest-kyst.
1 RAD = 10 mSv
Selv denne enhed er (bevidst?) forvirrende og vil ikke have nogen mening.

Hvis du stoler på World Nuclear eller Atomic Insights, vil det følgende være interessant:

  • En silt barriere har i lange tider været i funktion, og har forhindret forureningen i at nå oceanet, hvor fortyndingen bevirker at radioaktivitet ikke kan måles i havvand udenfor havnen.

Senere beretninger om store forureninger fra lækkende tanke er vildt overdrevne.
Formentligt direkte bedrageri.

En mere neutral opgørelse af situationen kan findes her.

Hvis du er glad for YouTube og har set “The Ocean of Death”, vil jeg tro at du alligevel kommer i tvivl når du ser at de mange fisk er så påvirkelige at de kan mærke en forøgelse af radioaktiviteten fra 11.000 til 11.007 Bq/m^3.
I modsætning til radioaktivitet; er fisk relativt påvirkelige af ændringer i vandets saltindhold.
Således, hvis det ikke er direkte falskneri, kan de døde fisk måske findes udenfor et af-saltningsanlæg for havvand.
Måske ville det også være interessant at se lidt på den sidste tabel i et indlæg fra UNSCEAR.
Her kan det ses at den radiologiske tolerance for fisk er ti gange den for dyr og fugle.
Du vil måske få trøst ved at se hvorledes både planter og dyr trives i den stærkt radioaktive og lukkede zone ved Tjernobyl.

Så vidt jeg kan forstå er Tepcos grænser at forurening af grundvand ikke må overskride 5 Bq/L af beta stråling fra radioaktive materialer og 1 Bq/L fra cæsium-134 og cæsium-137.
Dette skal igen sættes i relation til den naturlige radioaktivitet i den menneskelige organisme – mere end ti gange så meget: 65 Bq/L.
I oceanet: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
For at være på den sikre side, fastsatte man (helt arbitrært) en grænseværdi på en millisievert/år.
Dette er kun en tiendedel af det mange europæere har været udsat gennem hele deres liv.

Min konklusion er klar:
Noget er råddent!

Men hvor?

Hvis du ikke er træt, kan du finde lidt af svaret her:

Meget mere

2018 giver World Nuclear en grundig og forhåbentligt ærlig vurdering af situationen.

På Wikipedia finder man en grundigt, lidt forsigtig, men formentligt ærlig vurdering.

Tilsvarende for Videnskab.dk, der hæfter sig ved de meget lave grænseværdier.

Miljøforkæmperen George Monbiot, der oprindeligt var imod kernekraft, blev overbevist om kernekraftens relative sikkerhed efter, hvad han betegner som de begrænsede skader ved reaktorerne efter jordskælvet og tsunamien i Japan.

Jeg tillader mig at gentage at vi alle sammen bærer rundt på 65 Bq/kg som et resultat af vores liv på jorden.
I alt over 4000 radioaktive henfald per sekundt !

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

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.
____________________________________________________________________

Radiation and Radiation Sickness

Wherever we go, we as well as our forefathers, have been exposed to
some sort of radiation.
Most of it from natural sources and some manmade – occasionally dangerous.
BUT
We are also exposed to a lot of (deliberate?) misunderstandings about radiation sickness.
This is the reason for the following which is only an attempt to summarize existing and easily available knowledge.
Sometimes I could not avoid exposing obvious false “information” produced by so-called green organizations, specializing in scaremongering.

Units

Bq Becquerel
1 Bq is one radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit.
One adult human contains about 4,500 Bq from natural sources.
More can be found form World Nuclear
Sv Sievert
The Sievert is a measure of the health effect of ionizing radiation on the human body.
Also here World Nuclear gives a good overview of the situation.
A very illustrative, and apparently reliable, Radiation Dose Chart is provided by Wikimedia.
As the Sievert is a very high unit, the mSv is used in most literature
as well as in the following.

Symptoms

Radiation sickness is generally associated with acute exposure and has
a characteristic set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion.
In this way it is not difficult to dismiss a lot of claims, where all types of illnesses  are attributed to radiation.

  • A specific list of symptoms is found on Med Lines.
    A more general description is found on Wikimedia.
    And a very detailed description on Chemeurope.com
  • According to information in the last link, death form radiation can be very slow and painful. (Walking Ghosts)
  • It has not been possible to find anything reliable about other types of symptoms, such as long term diseases, except for cancer,
    which, contrarty to horror-stories, is a part of nature and
    seldom will be a result of radiation.
  • Almost all calculations of future deaths, mostly from cancer, are based upon the assumption that even small doses of radiation are harmful. (Liniar No Treshold)
    However this assumption is so much on the safe side, that it is obviously wrong.

Short time doses

(At accidents and especially after the nuclear bombing in Japan)

  • 100 mSv: There has never been recorded harm to persons exposed to doses below 100 mSv
  • However, 20 mSv is claimed by anti-nuclear activists to give increased risk of cancer, especially for small children.
    (1 % extra risk for new-born girls.)
    You will not find anything about how it should be possible to collect reliable data – considering the almost impossible task to know the actual exposure and the natural variation in cancer risk.
  • 500 mSv: Careful monitoring of survivors after the nuclear
    bombing in Japan shoved that persons exposed to 500 mSv or less did not have a shorter average lifetime than the rest of the population.
    (500 mSv as a single exposure will cause minor symptoms of
    acute radiation sickness, and is more than 100 times what is
    normally allowed)
  • 3000 mSv resulted in half of the exposed died.
    The survivors were found to have an average live length 3 years less than the general population.
    A little more and reference: Se another page.
  • At an experiment going wrong and turning into “criticality” a chemist, Cecil Kelley died from a 200 microseconds blast of neutrons and gamma radiation.
    Although the radiation he received was some seven times the deadly doze, he was fully conscious some time, and it took 35 hours before he died.
    Contrary to general misunderstanding, such a criticality can not develop into anything like a nuclear explosion.

Intermittent exposure and
Long term exposure

Both dose and dose rate contribute to the severity of acute radiation syndrome.

  • It is the reason for treatment with radiation against cancer is not given as one single doze.
  • Similarly writes Vidneskab.dk that it is only if you are exposed to
    an annual radiation dose more than 1.000 mSv, it starts to
    become disturbing.

1.000 mSv per year is quite a lot and if it is received as a single dose, it starts to be life-threatening.
In order to bring it in perspective I mention that in Japan people have been evacuated (mandatory ?) if the radiation vas above 50 mSv/year.

In the clear light of the after-thought,
it can be seen that the more than one thousand evacuation related deaths were justified by nothing, but an inflated fear, created by – – – -.

Next Generation

Contrary to all expectations and numerous horror stories, there has
never been observed genetic damage to children born to parents who have been exposed to even very high doses of radiation.
However, for children still “in the womb” there has been cases of stillbirth and horrific deformities.
This was seen in Japan after the nuclear bombs, but nowhere else.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ea

Even Der Spiegel (2016 April 26) has seen the following:
The scariest consequence is damage to the genome.
But for the body, even that kind of damage is not necessarily a dramatic event in the near term.
Every single cell experiences it thousands of times every day.
Often enough, the attack comes from inside: Cell metabolism creates aggressive molecules, so-called oxygen radicals, that continuously
impair DNA.

Long-time doses and
Chronic Radiation Poisoning

Very little is known – or to be more precise agreed upon – the effect of slowly, but steadily exposure to radiation.
The following is the essence of what I have been able to find:

  • High dozes-rate will result in death from acute radiation poisoning before you will develop chronic radiation poisoning.
    Therefore you have to be steadily exposed for a minimum of
    seven years in order to get Chronic Radiation Poisoning.
  • The Walters Incident. (Radon)
    100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied
    building without having caused harm to the inhabitants.
    It is far more than the accepted limit (200 Bq/m^3).
    However, there has not been any harm to the occupants.
  • 1,000,000 Bq/m^3 can be found in unventilated mines.
    It was first recognized in 1530 by Paracelsus in his description
    of a wasting disease of miners.
    Sure, it was what is now recognized as “chronic radiation poisoning.”
    See also http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ec
  • Typical domestic exposures are about 100 Bq/m^3 indoors and
    10-20 Bq/m^3 outdoors.
  • Natural Radiation EU Natural background radiation is found to vary a lot – even within Europe.

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 been no reports of ill health or other adverse effects among the local people who have lived in the area for generations.
This has given rise to the term “The Ramsar Paradox”
Genetic selection over many years may explain. (Something)

The little we know

  • For damage from radiation, as well as all other damage to the human organism, the natural healing process will ‘try to repair’. Chronic radiation poisoning will only happen if this natural ‘repair mechanism’ cannot follow the damage done by the continuing radiation.
    More see here.
  • After the Kyshtym Disaster 66 cases were diagnosed.
  • The Russian spy Litvinenko, and others have been assassinated using radiation poisoning (Pu210).
    These deaths were from slowly progressing, but still “acute”, radiation poisoning.
  • Sure, you will also find many horror stories and conspiracy
    theories about chronic radiation poisoning.

However

  • Taipai CancerThere are several well documented claims of positive influence of moderate exposure to radiation.
    I have tried to summarize here.

Deliberate Exposure – Health Seekers.

The magic cure
Just as much as radon and radiation is feared, it has been seen as a magic cure for all types of illnesses.
For a period around 1915 radioactive water was the fashion, until some rich and enthusiastic people overdosed and died a horrible death.
Radon baths ————————————————–Radon Treatmeng
It should be noted that now, as well as long before radon and radioactivity was known, health seekers have been frequenting locations, where they receive “radon-treatment” for all types of illnesses.
On the internet you may find several advertisements for spas and clinics, as for instance: here, here and here.
Radon in ”Health Water”
Even radon mineral water is regulated:
The minimum strength should be 74 Bq/L, but the following is found:
Merano: 2000 Bq/L and
Lurisia (Italy): 4000 Bq/L
1 Bq = one radioactive decay per second.
And
All of us carry around with some 65 Bq/kg as part of the human body.

Unjustified Claims

Based upon this, and much more, I dare to say that at least the following is based upon falsification.

  • From Greenpeace: 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.”

    If you check the details, it is easy to see that Greenpeace has lost their credability.
  • From YouTube Ocean of Death:
    Here you may wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has
    caused the disaster shown.
    For details: See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-yI
  • Also from YouTube “Fukushima Death Cloud kills hundreds on
    US Warship”.
    Many of the claims, if not all, are related to diseases or injuries
    that cannot be attributed to radiation.
    Here it should be remembered, that in America everybody tries to sue for damage, if they can find the slightest reason.
    Further, it may be cheaper to settle for a minor “compensation”
    and in this way close the file.
  • The record is probably reached with “data” regarding injuries after the accident at Chernobyl:
    A million deaths (already) and seven million in the future.
    OK
    If we wait long enough we will be dead – all of us.
  • At the same place it is reported that 70,000 cleanup workers became disabled due to radiation sickness.
    The latter is clearly contrary to medical experience, most from the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan.
    Here it was found that if you get radiation sickness, you will either die or recover after some (long) time.
  • Similary, with no justification, claims were settled “out of court”
    after the Three Mile Accident.

Damage to the Genome

From Der Spiegel (2016 April 26) you have:
The scariest consequence is damage to the genome.
But for the body, even that kind of damage is not necessarily a dramatic event in the near term.
Every single cell experiences it thousands of times every day.
Often enough, the attack comes from inside: Cell metabolism creates aggressive molecules, so-called oxygen radicals, that continuously impair DNA.

Fear of the unknown

Radiation and radiation-sickness is difficult to understand and feared by many.
Now I must apologize for the following.

  • Some people fear flying although the taxi drive to the airport is more dangerous.
  • In the “good old times”, many Germans had a nice holiday in what was a very peacefull Yugoslavia.
    Some of them came home in a coffin.
    Og.kl– You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
    But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark.
    The following year, the flow of holiday-seekers was halved.
    Soon it was back to normal.

Helped by a hungry press this natural fear of the unknown has been cleverly used by so-called green organizations.

  • In Denmark, a boy at the beach can see something in Sweden, at the other side of Øresund.
    Og.kl– What is it?
    Og.kl– It is Barsebäck (A nuclear reactor.)
    Og.kli– Mama I want to get home! (to safety)
  • In Tanzania, a friend of mine – a good English woman – followed the Chernobyl accident, relayed from the BBC TV.
    She saw how the radioactive cloud started to engulf the whole world.
    Thereafter she went in to say good bye to her sleeping children.
    “For now we are soon going to die all of us.”

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.
______________________________________________________________________

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 not longer justified.
Not for objective reasons but to meet the widespread fear of a nonexistent danger.

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 safe, the limit for radiation was set to one millisievert / year.
Less than half of what we all of us receive from natural sources.

Støvmasker BørnHowever something good did come out of the fear:
To prevent radioactive dust, there was 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 shore 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 reactors at Barsebäck in Sweden.
Finally, it was irresponsible to wait too long before using seawater for cooling.
Fukushima Fier in the OILHOWEVER
When the purpose is to create fear and sensation, 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 danger from the almost nonexistent radioactive contamination.

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

BUT

  • The main, and almost overlooked, damage came from the panicky closure of over 40 functioning reactors.
    This resulted in higher costs and greatly increased pollution
    Both locally and globally.

From a slightly messy and perhaps unreliable source Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes. February 26, 2013 I quote as follows:
(Short excerpts.)

  • According to the World Data Bank, Japan increased use of fossil fuels, generating 125 TWh more from coal, natural gas and oil.
    In all, this resulting in over 3,000 more deaths and 31,000 serious injuries. (Yearly ?)
    These injuries will continue until the fear is conjured away and the reactors can be restarted.
    A few more details can be found at another post.

Additionally, I refer to the following:
Fukushima hidden epidemic of fear killed thousands.
And, a little better: The Lancet in 2007
(The Lancet is normally regarded as very reliable and graphs page 983 are very illustrative.)

Evacuations

The fear and the evacuations resulted much harm and many deaths.
LATER
A very detailed analysis has been carried out, trying to evaluate the evacuations using J-value or Justification Value
According to this study, and contrary to the usual horror stories, it has been shown that 75 % of the evacuations at Chernobyl and ALL of the evacuations at Fukushima were unjustified and had not saved any life.
Compared to the alternative: “Just stay at home.”

This very long paper also tries to evaluate the fundamental question about damage from radiation: LNT or more detailed findings.
Anyhow, I dare to conclude that (almost) all of the evacuations and the subsequent suffering has been the result of a reckless fight to demonize nuclear.

The Ocean

The release of radioactive material has been estimated to be between
500 PBq and 1000 PBq
– – –Bq is the usually used unit for radioactivity.
– – –1 Bq is one radioactive decay per second.
The Pacific Ocean covers 165 million km^2 and contains 66 million km^3 of water.
Assuming all of these 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) to be equally distributed over 1 % of the ocean to a depth of 50 m, and without considering the ‘sinking down’ of heavy material, you will get 12 Bq/kg.
If you thereafter consider that some 90 % of the radioactive release was Iodine131 (see page 116 in UNSCEAR 2013 Report) only 2 Bq/kg will be active at the time of the horror-stories.
Further, it may be worth mentioning that the US National Academy of Science has referred to measurements showing 7 Bq/m^3 Fukushima-derived fallout of 137Cs near the Canadian continental shelf.
BUT
All this may have been rather difficult to measure, considering that the natural level of radiation in the ocean is 11.000 Bq/m^3

In order to relate to something familiar, it can be mentioned that all of us carry with us about 65 Bq/kg (65,000 Bq/m^3) as part of our human body.
Or that a radon level of 100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied house. (Watras Incident, as discussed on another blog.)
100,000 Bq/m^3 is ‘just’ 1000 times the usual limits.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Fukushima Greenpeace
Considering this, it is difficult to understand how well established “green organizations” show maps and indicate the “extreme danger” related to the radioactive pollution the whole way to the American west coast.
And continuing far indland.
1 RAD = 10 mSv However, this unit is (deliberately?) confusing and will not have any meaning.

If you have trust in World Nuclear or Atomic Insights, the following may be interesting:

  • A silt fence has long been in place to prevent contamination reaching the open sea.
    And: The diluting effects of ocean currents mean that radioactivity cannot be detected in seawater beyond the plant harbour.

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

Mass deaths of whales, far away from Fukushima, has been used as evidence of radioactive contamination of the ocean.
However, it is bypassed that back in ancient times Aristotle reported on this phenomenon.

If you are a fan of YouTube and have seen “The Ocean of Death”, you may wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has caused the disaster shown on the film.
Contrary to radiation; fish are rather sensitive to change in the concentration of salt in the water.
So, if not directly falsified, the dead fish may be found outside a plant for desalinating seawater.
Anyhow, it is worth looking at the last table in a paper from UNSCEAR.
Here it is seen that the radiologic tolerance  for fish is some ten times that for mammals and birds.
You may also be relieved to see how plants and animals are thriving in the “highly radioactive” and forbidden zone at Chernobyl.

As far as I am aware of, Tepco’s limits for groundwater contamination is that groundwater should contain less than 5 Bq/L of beta ray-emitting radioactive material and 1 Bq/L of caesium-134 and caesium-137.
Again, this should be seen in relation to the natural load of the human body: 65 Bq/L and of the ocean: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
To be on the safe side, the limit for public radiation exposure was (arbitrary) set to one millisievert/year.
This is only one tenth of what some Europeans have been exposed to throughout their lives.

My conclusion is clear.
Something is rotten – somewhere –
But where?

If you are not tired, you can find some of the answer here:

If you are looking for the extreme conspiracy theory, then look here.
If, on the other hand, you want to get piece for your mind, you better look here.