Archives for posts with tag: Radon

Fra en lang og grundig norsk e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) refereres:
Meget mere: Se http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/tjenester/kunnskap/straling.
– – LNT eller “Liniar No Treashold” angiver at
– – “Lige hvor lidt så er stråling altid skadeligt”
___________________________________________________________________
1. Radon in homes: It is evident from this long paper that we can forget about most of the remedial actions for reducing the average radon level. This would save a lot of money for those involved.
2. Nuclear power: In the fight for reducing the CO2 release to the atmosphere, nuclear power could be a considerable contributor to the worlds energy supply. The world energy consumption increases annually by approximately 2 %. Also the use of fossil fuel with CO2 release increases. A significant contribution to halt and even reduce the CO2 release would be to increase the contribution from nuclear energy. It is a surprise to us that environmental organizations that worry about global warming – are not pro nuclear.
3. Reactor accidents We have had two major breakdowns of nuclear reactors which both have been treated according to the LNT-theory. For both Chernobyl and Fukushima consequences have been calculated using collective doses and LNT. In Chernobyl a number of people were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome and 28 died within 3 months. There has also been recorded thyroid cancer to children that was drinking contaminated milk (I-131). Altogether 11 deaths have been recorded. Whether these cancers have been caused by the Chernobyl accident is rather douptful since similar changes in the thyroid have been observed without radiation. Furthermore, the thyroid doses from I-131 after the Chernobyl accident have not been measured and they are very poorly determined. Cancer deaths in combination with the reactor accidents are based on LNT. No threshold and no hormetic region has been considered. However, the most significant and serious decision taken after the reactor accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima was to evacuate several hundred thousands of people. The decision was taken based on the LNT-theory and the use of collective doses. No attempts were made to compare the radiation level in the contaminated areas with the level found in the HBR (High Background Radiation) regions. If such a comparison had been made, the most negative of the reactor accidents could have been avoided.

__________________________________________________________________________
Hej Thorkil

Sig du det til de pårørende…:

1. nov 2010, Radon slår kun rygerne ihjel:
Citat: “…
65.000 danske huse har højere koncentrationer, end de [Det er yderst lav radioaktivitetskoncentration men det er skadeligt! ->] 200 Bq pr. kubikmeter, der tidligere var verdenssundhedsorganisationen WHO’s grænse. Sidste år blev den sænket til 100 Bq/m3 som cirka 280.000 danske huse overskrider.

Torben Sigsgaard fremhæver konklusionerne om radon og rygning, der forstærker hinandens skadelige virkning, efter flere avisartikler har fået folketingsmedlemmer fra både højre- og venstrefløjen til at kræve en handlingsplan.
…”

Kommer visse radioaktive stoffer (selv i lave koncentrationer) først ind i kroppen er det for sent – det skader, minsker livskvaliteten drastisk i fx årtier – eller dræber:

August 6, 2012, Fukushima’s Children Facing High Rate of Thyroid Irregularities:
Citat: “…
According to government research released in Japan, 36 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture — the area around the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown — who were exposed to radiation now have abnormal growths on their thyroid glands.

The survey examined more than 38,000 local children, and found that more than 13,000 had thyroid cysts or nodules, a rate that is much higher than the average population, where an estimated 0.5-1.0% of children have thyroid cysts. According to Japanese authorities, while they don’t know that the radiation exposure is the cause, they will be monitoring the effects on the area’s children in upcoming years.

The Japanese authorities’ downplaying of the risks to children is controversial, and is being covered by the English-language Fukushima Voice website, the Fukushima Voice site.
…”

July 20, 2012, Fukushima Watch: Study Suggests up to 1,300 Could Die From Radiation Effects:
Citat: “…
The radiation toll from last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could eventually result in anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths, according to a study by Stanford University scientists.
[ http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso… ]
The researchers also calculate that about 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer illnesses could someday be attributed to the accident. Plant workers who were exposed to radiation on-site may account for another two to 12 cancer cases.

About 27% of the health effects expected in Japan will occur sometime in the next 50 years, the study said.

they mapped out the spread and concentration of the radioactive nuclides — iodine-131, cesium-137 and cesium-134.
…”

July 16, 2012, Fukushima: West Coast cesium slam ahead, hair falling out, Tepco data flaw:
Citat: “…
As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim’s head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an “order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data.

“I didn’t know still some people remained in the town. “One of them told me, ‘My hair fell off,’ with tears in her eyes.

Hair falling out is one of the most common of the eight signs of radiation poisoning.
…”

August 09, 2012, Lead shields masked radiation readings up to 30%:
Citat: “…
Lead radiation shields forced on workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to cover their dosimeters masked radiation readings by about 30 percent.
…”

Jul. 25, 2012, Exec admits falsifying N-data / Lead-shielded dosimeters carried by workers in high-radiation areas:
Citat: “…
“I came up with the idea to use covers because the dosimeters’ alarm repeatedly sounded” when he first entered the site, said Teruo Sagara, a director at the subcontractor, Build-up, during a press conference Monday at its office in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.
…”

Erfaringer fra Chernobyl. Bl.a. virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet radioaktivt nedfald fra Chernobyl:

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher.
The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science.
The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases.
…”

Federation Of European Cancer Societies (2001, October 26). Cutting The Cost Of Fall-Out From Chernobyl 15 Years After The World’s Worst Nuclear Accident. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
Nearly 2000 cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the world’s worst nuclear accident which occurred in Ukrainian city 15 years ago – and the number is still rising.
Professor Dillwyn Williams, of The Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge University, told the meeting: “Four years after the accident, an excess of thyroid cancers was noted among children who had been exposed to fall-out from the disaster. That increase has continued and new cases are still being seen in those who were children at the time of the accident”.
…”

JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, April 24). Radiation Exposure Associated With More Aggressive Thyroid Cancer, Worse Outcomes. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
[ Lang “latenstid”: ]
The average age at first exposure to radiation was 19.4 years, and cancers were diagnosed an average of 28.7 years later.
…”

Følgende er virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet Chernobyl radioaktivt nedfald:

Aug. 17, 2007 Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants:
Citat: “…
The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday.

The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability.
…”

Man kan også være turist i dele af Tjernobylområdet – men det er strengt forbudt at grave i jorden. Den slags forbud har Fukushima også:

In Chernobyl town. All pipes must run above ground – no digging is allowed.

7 July 2012, Chernobyl’s radioactive trees and the forest fire risk.
Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.
Citat: “…
Having said this, the berries are not uniformly harmful. In an average pint of them, perhaps only a quarter will be contaminated. The main thing is to make sure you do not put them on your cereal every day.

Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent.

Their equipment is very basic. They believe they know when they are fighting a radioactive fire – they experience a tingling, metallic sensation in their skin – but they do not fully understand the serious dangers of being exposed to superheated radioactive particles.

Sergiy says more big wildfires in Chernobyl like the one in 1992 would be catastrophic for Ukraine’s image, and potentially devastating for farmland right across Europe.
…”

Chernobyl: A tourist guide to the death zone.
45000 people used to live here before the catastrophe. They were evacuated in less than 2 hours. Now this is a ghost town:
Citat: “…
When the ground is more severely contaminated a bulldozer removes up to 80 cm of soil, which is buried as well to “get rid” of the Caesium 137. Even though the sun has been shining for days, all the streets in the contaminated area are wet. Tank trucks are driving around spraying water non-stop to keep the radioactive dust on the ground so it won’t reach the lungs where it would probably cause cancer.

On our trip we pass by empty villages. Furniture can be spotted through the windows. The people who used to live here had to leave everything behind. Everything is contaminated!

The levels of radioactive radiation vary immensely in this maze of tunnels. There are tunnels you can stroll through – with protective clothing on – while there are others you have to sprint through. Suddenly there is a board that blocks the way down a staircase. It says, “Stop! 200 X-ray an hour!” Not even the workers are allowed to go there.
…”

07.17.2012, Chernobyl Now. Are nuclear disasters the new normal?:
Citat: “…
Although Chernobyl contaminated half the planet with fallout, memory of the disaster had almost faded into obscurity when a tsunami swamped Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant last year. At the time, many observers resurrected the specter of Chernobyl as a reassuring example of what wasn’t happening at Fukushima—a nuclear meltdown. We know now, though, that three of Fukushima’s reactors did melt down, spewing radioactive contamination over parts of Japan and into the sea.

In fact, the global rate is about five times the baseline goal of U.S. regulators. If the rate of partial core melts holds true for the 353 light-water reactors currently operating, we can expect a nuclear meltdown to occur every six years on average.
…”

Link virker ikke mere:

20 years after Chernobyl – The ongoing health effects -:
Citat: “…
Here you can see a picture from the Otto-Hug thyroid clinic in Gomel. Until 2002, 70.000 patients received extensive thyroid treatment at this clinic alone. For many children and adolescents, this means the removal of their thyroid glands and the lifelong dependence on medication and medical supervision.

Thyroid cancer can in fact be treated in most cases, but only under Western medical standards, which cannot be taken for granted in the region. In many cases, the only hope lies with private donations from the West. Nobody cares for the mental effects of cancer on the affected children.

Thyroid cancer is a very rare form of cancer – under normal circumstances it constitutes less than one percent of all cancer forms. That’s also why this increase is so remarkable.

The cancer rates increase with the rate of contamination in the soil: In the most heavily affected region of Belarus, in Gomel, the rate rose up to 55.9 percent. One can also observe a doubling of the rate of breast cancer in regions with notably high Cesium contamination. On average, women developed breast cancer 15 years earlier than usual – a similar phenomenon as with thyroid cancer.

The risk of leukemia in children in the affected regions is also three times higher than usual.

But the health consequences are not restricted to the Chernobyl region. Surveys in several European countries showed a significant increase in infant mortality in the year 1987 – probably as a result of a “Cesium-effect” – and in the beginning of the 1990s probably as a result of a “Strontium-effect”. It would take too much time to go into detail on these effects at this point. For the record, studies come to the conclusion that fatalities under infants in Europe related to Chernobyl are in the magnitude of 5,000. Because of different reasons, the actual effects could be much higher.

Numerous studies also document a significant increase in malformations in many European countries. According to a German survey, 1,000 to 3,000 additional cases of malformation were registered in the contaminated region of Bavaria alone. IPPNW scientists estimate a Europe-wide number of malformations of at least 10,000.

Children are also strongly affected. In 1996 in Ukraine, 70 percent of the children of afflicted parents were officially registered as sick. In comparison: in 1987, the figure was 20 percent. Children in the region of Gomel in Belarus are also very sick. From 100,000 children, 83,000 suffer from respiratory diseases, 7,000 from diseases of the nervous system and sensory organs, 7,000 from skin diseases and subcutaneous adipose tissue diseases, and 5.500 from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. In total, the number of infant illnesses diagnosed for the first time rose by a factor of thirteen.

These are the results:

Until today, several hundred thousand liquidators have become sick.

Several ten thousand liquidators have died as a result of radiation exposure.

In total, there must be far more than of 10,000 cases.

In the future, more than 50,000 children will suffer from thyroid cancer.

These are very conservative estimates. The Russian Environmental Ministry states that the number of Chernobyl-induced cases of diseases amounted to 1,3 million persons before the beginning of the 1990s.
Until today, 10,000 cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in Belarus alone.

Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. This represents an increase by a factor of 5.8 since Chernobyl and can certainly not be attributed to bad lifestyle or poor nutrition. Children which were breast fed were affected in particular. This study was ignored by the IAEA and WHO.

Just as they did with other, more up to date and unquestionable pieces of research. The IAEA/WHO study relies almost exclusively on studies from 1990 to 1998. Newer, more alarming studies were completely disregarded.

But there is further criticism of the IAEA/WHO study:

Several hundred thousand people were simply overlooked: Merely 200,000 of the 600,000 to 860,000 of the liquidators were considered in the surveys.

In the study, non-cancer afflictions were left out of the computation base for the fatality figures.

Of the 9,000 cases of cancer deaths forecast in the study, the IAEA only mentioned 4,000 in its abridged report. This means that 5,000 fatalities were simply left out of the report presented to the press and the public.

This lecture actively resists being taken in by these arguments. The Chernobyl case can not and must not be closed. Chernobyl began to kill 20 years ago – and has been killing ever since – slowly and unobtrusively. It’s an accident without an end. Nobody knows exactly what burdens will befall the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victims. A technology which has such consequences is irresponsible. Taking into account a study of the German Society for Reactor Security, the risk of a nuclear meltdown in the EU in the next 40 years lies at 16 percent.
…”

Rapport:
April 2011, Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 years after the reactor catastrophe:
Executive Summary
Citat: “…
This paper evaluates studies that contain plausible indications of health damage caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The authors of this paper attach importance to the selection of methodically accurate and comprehensible analyses. Due to the already mentioned methodical difficulties, it is not our aim to present the “right” statistics in contrast to the obviously wrong ones given by the IAEA, since these can never be found. They can only supply us with indications as to the diversity and extent of the health effects we should be dealing with when we talk about the health effects of Chernobyl.

Disease/health damage is to be expected as a result of additional exposure to radiation because of Chernobyl

.a. Cancer. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 – 30 years. At present we are only just seeing cases of thyroid cancers, breast cancers and brain tumours In the population. But liquidators have also developed cancer in numerous other organs: the prostate gland, stomach, cancer of the blood, thyroid cancer

.b. Genetic changes: malformations, stillbirths, the lack of children

.c. Non-cancerous diseases. Many organ systems could be affected; brain disorders; accelerated aging process; psychological disorders

Despite this, the ICRP continues to give a dose limit of 100 mSv for teratogenic damage. This claim has been invalidated by numerous studies.

The lower the radiation level, the longer the latency period before the outbreak of cancer (established as early as 2000 by Pierce and Preston in the context of the RERF studies).

It was found that the incidence of non-cancerous disease had increased; mainly cardiovascular and stomach diseases, and cases of neurological-psychiatric illness were found to be a somatic effect of low-level radiation. The latter was observed mainly during research on liquidators and their children.

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 ?

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.
_____________________________________________________________________
When the discussions turn in the direction of radiation and the effects on the health of people, several obstacles are seen:
First, of course, lack of reliable information on the effect of low-level radiation.
But another major problem is the many unfamiliar units used and the confusion caused by ignorance and sometimes wishes to deny facts.
Even the aspirations from some organizations, to turn everything related to radioactivity into a major hazard.

Near the end of this post you will find an evaluation of the ridiculous claims and unrealistic ‘safe limits’ in relation to the Fukushima disaster.

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.
Other Units
Several other units are still used in different literature:
1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1Gy = 100 rad = 100 rem = 100 Roentgen
Becquerel to Sievert
There is no clear-cut relation between Becquerel and Sievert.
The only guide found is in a paper from Luckey fig. 10.
Here you will deduct: 1mSv = 1.7 kBq/litter.
Without having checked and fearing being wrong, I quote:
1000 Bq/m^3 = 4.45 mJ*hour/m^3 = 6.3 mSv

Radon

Now and then radon comes up in the media and people living in “radon houses” may be scared and will often have difficulties selling their house.
At Wikipedia you can find a very comprehensive paper on radon.
From this paper and other sources the following is a short summary.

Origin

Radon originates from decay of uranium, mainly found in the granite in the earth’s crust.
The only isotope of interest is 222Rn having a half live about four days.
It is a heavy noble gas and will only harm if it decays within the lungs.
The concentration is measured in Bq/m^3

Concentrations can vary greatly from place to place.
In the open air, it ranges from 1 to 100 Bq/m^3, even less (0.1 Bq/m^3) above the ocean.
In caves, aerated mines, or in poorly ventilated dwellings, its concentration can climb to 2,000 Bq/m^3.
Typical domestic exposures are about 100 Bq/m^3 indoors and 10-20 Bq/m^3 outdoors.

Exposure to radon

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 are 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 andRadioactive Water 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
The human body contains some 65 Bq/kg
Extremes
High levels of radon are found at several locations.
Best known is what originally was named “The Rasmar Paradox”:
A relatively small population at Rasmar in Pakistan are exposed to very high levels of radiation from radon.
This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation.
However there has not been reports of ill health.
Several other locations have similar, but smaller exposure:
bla • Guarapari (Brazil)
bla • Cumuruxatiba (Brazil)
bla • Kerala (India)
bla • Karunagappall (India)
bla • Arkaroola (South Australia)
bla • Yangjiang (China)
bla • Black Beach (Brazil – Record but uninhabited)
Record high
Probably, the highest recorded level of exposure is the Watras Incident,
as described a little below.
Miners
The health effects of high exposure to radon in mines, where exposures reaching 1,000,000 Bq/m^3 can be found.
It was first recognized in 1530 by Paracelsus in his description of a wasting disease of miners.
It must be hoped, that this is “a thing of the past.”

Radiation Hormesis

A controversial epidemiological study, unexpectedly showing decreased cancer risk vs. radon domestic exposure at least up to 200 Bq/m^3.
These findings, first published by T. D. Luckey

Radon and Cancer

It is difficult to understand why it has been outright rejected by WHO and others.
It is even more difficult to understand why these observations have not been followed up.
I have tried to summarize some of the existing knowledge here.
Even more surprising are the findings that even very high doses of ionizing radiation have not caused harm to future generations.

Cigarette Unit

The many different units and the often conflicting “evidences” will lead to the following:
Cigaret Unit From the internet, I quote the following:
I still remember:
Long time ago an expert in radiation got the question:
“Why don’t you compare your results to something people can understand, as for instance Cigarette Unit?”
His answer was clear:
“I have tried. It is hopeless. People just accuse me of lying.”

From private correspondence with a Danish expert, I remember the similar.
(Unfortunately I have no records or references.)

Radon and smoking

It has long been known that the much trumpeted damage from radon has not been seen in the affected populations.
Around 2010 we see how the magician pulls a new rabbit out of the hat.
Now it is explained that only smokers need to be afraid of radiation from radon.
To my knowledge, the biological mechanism behind this penurious exception can not be explained.

Watras Incident

The only – hopefully reliable, but also rather confusing – information is found from The Guardian and Wikipedia.
The following is an extract:

  • Radon levels in particular dwellings can occasionally be orders of magnitude higher than typical.
    It was dramatized by the so-called Watras Incident, in which an employee at a U.S. nuclear plant triggered radiation monitors while leaving work over several days.
    Despite the fact that the plant had yet to be fuelled, and despite the employee being decontaminated and sent home “clean” each evening.
    This implied a source of contamination outside the plant, which turned out to be radon levels of 100,000 Bq/m^3  in the worker’s basement.

    [1000 times the limit in Denmark].
    The lung cancer risk associated with living in that house was compared to the extrapolated risk from smoking 135 packs of cigarettes daily.

It is difficult to accept these findings and even more difficult, when it is noted that the alarm was raised, not because he or any of his family had suffered from bad health.
A similar, but not so dramatic event occurred at a Swedish nuclear plant, which was closed for several days until it was realized, that one of the employees had taken his radiation monitor with him home.

What can not be avoided?

Where ever you are and whatever you do, all us – as well as our forefathers – have been exposed to some radiation.
This, together with ‘manmade exposure’, has been summarized here.

What is Allowed?

If the units and dozes are conflicting, it is probably nothing compared to existing regulations.
It has, of course, been necessary to neglect “information” from the many so-called green organizations specializing in scaremongering.
Further, different political statements and regulations may be highly influenced by the fear of being accused of not protecting the public.
It is easy to find a lot of obviously conflicting “facts” and regulations.
Much too much to go into details here.

A very comprehensive guide to definitions and regulations related to disposal of radioactive waste is given by The International Atomic Energy Agency.
These guidelines are apparently applied very differently in different countries and different situations, resulting in the following, which is an extract from World Nuclear.

  • Recycling materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities is constrained by the level of radioactivity in them.
    This is also true for materials from elsewhere, such as gas plants, but the levels specified can be very different.
    For example, scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (the exemption level).
    This level however, is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.
    – – Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards.

Even considering the public hysteria and the almost poisonous level of political lobbying, it is difficult to understand this.

Public interest

Often you will find statements from green organizations indicating that all levels of radiation is dangerous.
With the availability of cheap and very accurate Geiger Counters it has been the faction to find dangerous spots:
Of course help from the public should be appreciated, as for instance when a long time forgotten radioactive source was found in Tokyo.
However, at the same time it is necessary to relate real or conceived dangers to what we all of us are exposed to through all our lives.

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 was 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.
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.
Just 1000 times what is allowed in Denmark.
(Watras Incident, as discussed above.)
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 still 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.

Back to Fukushima.
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 ?

Radon DK

When the discussions turn in the direction of radiation and the effects on the health of people, several obstacles are seen:
First, of course, lack of reliable information on the effect of low-level radiation.
But another major problem is the many unfamiliar units used and the confusion caused by ignorance and sometimes wishes to deny facts.
Even the aspirations from some organizations, to turn everything related
to radioactivity into a major hazard.
__________________________________________________________________________

Near the end of this block you will find an evaluation of the ridiculous claims and unrealistic ‘safe limits’ in relation to the Fukushima disaster.

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.
Other Units
Several other units are still used in different literature:
1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1Gy = 100 rad = 100 rem = 100 Roentgen
Becquerel to Sievert
There is no clear-cut relation between Becquerel and Sievert.
The only guide found is in a paper from Luckey fig. 10. Here you will deduct: 1mSv = 1.7 kBq/litter.
Without having checked and fearing being wrong I quote:
1000 Bq/m^3 = 4.45 mJ*hour/m^3 = 6.3 mSv

Radon

Now and then radon comes up in the media and people living in “radon houses” may be scared and will often have difficulties selling their house.
At Wikipedia you can find a very comprehensive paper on radon.
From this paper and other sources the following is a short summary.

Origin

Radon originates from decay of uranium, mainly found in the granite in the earth’s crust.
The only isotope of interest is 222Rn having a half live about four days.
It is a heavy noble gas and will only harm if it decays within the lungs.
The concentration is measured in Bq/m^3

Concentrations can vary greatly from place to place. In the open air, it ranges from 1 to 100 Bq/m^3, even less (0.1 Bq/m^3) above the ocean.
In caves, aerated mines, or in poorly ventilated dwellings, its concentration can climb to 2,000 Bq/m^3.
Typical domestic exposures are about 100 Bq/m^3 indoors and 10-20 Bq/m^3 outdoors.

Exposure to radon

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
It should be noted that now, as well as
Radon Treatmenglong before radon and radioactivity was known, health seekers are 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
Extremes
High levels of radon are found at several locations.
Best known is what originally was named “The Rasmar Paradox”:
A relatively small population at Rasmar in Pakistan are exposed to very high levels of radiation from radon.
This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation.
However, there has not been reports of ill health.
Several other locations have similar, but smaller exposure:
bla– Guarapari (Brazil)
bla– Cumuruxatiba (Brazil)
bla– Kerala (India)
bla– Karunagappall (India)
bla– Arkaroola (South Australia)
bla– Yangjiang (China)
bla– Black Beach (Brazil – Record but uninhabited)
Record high
Probably the highest recorded level of exposure is the Watras Incident, as described a little below.
Miners
The health effects of high exposure to radon in mines, where exposures reaching 1,000,000 Bq/m^3 can be found.
It was first recognized in 1530 by Paracelsus in his description of a wasting disease of miners.
It must be hoped, that this is “a thing of the past.”

Radiation Hormesis

Radon and Cancer A controversial epidemiological study, unexpectedly showing decreased cancer risk vs. radon domestic exposure at least up to 200 Bq/m^3.
These findings, first published by T. D. Luckey is referred to in Wikipedia.
It is difficult to understand why it has been outright rejected by WHO and others.
It is even more difficult to understand why these observations have not been followed up.
I have tried to summarize existing knowledge here.
Even more surprising are the findings that even very high doses of ionizing radiation have not caused harm to future generations.

The many different units and the often conflicting “evidences” will lead to the following.

Cigarette Unit

Cigaret Unit From the internet, I quote the following:
I still remember: Long time ago an expert in radiation got the question:
“Why don’t you compare your results to something people can understand, as for instance Cigarette Unit?”
His answer was clear:
“I have tried. It is hopeless. People just accuse me of lying.”

From private correspondence with a Danish expert, I remember the similar.
(Unfortunately I have no records or references.)

Watras Incident

The only – hopefully reliable, but also rather confusing – information found from The Guardian and Wikipedia.
The following is an extract:

  • That radon levels in particular dwellings can occasionally be orders of magnitude higher than typical was dramatized by the so-called Watras Incident, in which an employee at a U.S. nuclear plant triggered radiation monitors while leaving work over several days.
    Despite the fact that the plant had yet to be fuelled, and despite the employee being decontaminated and sent home “clean” each evening.
    This implied a source of contamination outside the plant, which turned out to be radon levels of 100,000 Bq/m^3 in the worker’s basement.
    The lung cancer risk associated with living in that house was compared to the extrapolated risk from smoking 135 packs of cigarettes daily.

It is difficult to accept these findings and even more difficult, when it is noted that the alarm was raised, not because he or any of his family had suffered from bad health.
A similar, but not so dramatic event occurred at a Swedish nuclear plant, which was closed for several days until it was realized, that one of the employees had taken the radiation monitor home.

What can not be avoided?

Where ever you are and whatever you do, all us – as well as our forefathers – have been exposed to some radiation.
This, together with ‘manmade exposure’, has been summarized here.

What is Allowed?

If the units and dozes are conflicting, it is probably nothing compared to existing regulations.
It has, of course, been necessary to neglect “information” from the many so-called green organizations specializing in scaremongering.
Further, different political statements and regulations may be highly influenced by the fear of being accused of not protecting the public.
It is easy to find a lot of obviously conflicting “facts” and regulations – much too much to go into details here.
A very comprehensive guide to definitions and regulations related to disposal of radioactive waste is given by The International Atomic Energy Agency.
These guidelines are apparently applied very differently in different countries and different situations, resulting in the following, which is an extract from World Nuclear.

  • Recycling materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities is constrained by the level of radioactivity in them.
    This is also true for materials from elsewhere, such as gas plants, but the levels specified can be very different.
    For example, scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (the exemption level).
    This level however is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.
    Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards.

Even considering the public hysteria and the almost poisonous level of political lobbying, it is difficult to understand this.

Public interest

Often you will find statements from green organizations indicating that all levels of radiation is dangerous and with the availability of cheap and very accurate Geiger Counters it has been the faction to find dangerous spots:
Of course help from the public should be appreciated, as for instance when a long time forgotten radioactive source was found in Tokyo.
However, at the same time it is necessary to relate real or conceived dangers to what we all of us are exposed to through all our lives.

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 1.2 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 above.)
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.
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 ?

____________________________________________________________________________________

When the discussions turn in the direction of radiation and the effects on the health of people, several obstacles are seen:
First, of course, lack of reliable information on the effect of low-level radiation.
But another major problem is the many unfamiliar units used and the confusion caused by ignorance and sometimes even wishes to deny facts.
Sometimes even the wish, from some organizations, to turn everything related to radioactivity into a major hazard.

Units

Bq Becquerel
Becquerel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

View original post

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.

________________________________________________________________________
Greenpeace har set sig selv som det internationale talerør for det de selv betegner som beskyttelse af natur og mennesker.
Ofte har deres kamp været berettiget, men desværre må det konstateres at man tit har kæmpet mod selvopdyrkede spøgelser og til tider også brugt midler, der ikke er værdige for en organisation, der ønsker at fremstå som ærlig.
Her tænkes mest på kampen mod kernekraft og mod GMO-afgrøder.
I hvert fald her har denne nådesløse kamp været til stor skade både for klimaet og for fattige menneskers livsbetingelser.
I det følgende har jeg henvisninger til disse to mærkesager.

Derudover er der et afsnit om demonstrationer, der efter min opfattelse er ’løbet løbsk’.
Til sidst er der lidt om afhoppere: Ledende personer – også fra Greenpeace – der har set at det de oprindeligt troede på:
Det var forkert og til skade for menneskeheden.

Kampen mod atomkraft

Normalt er ‘oplysninger’ fra Greenpeace så vagt formulerede at det ikke er muligt at påpege faktuelt forkere oplysninger.

MEN
På hjemmesiden ”Sikker atomkraft er en myte” har Greenpeace
formentligt uforvarende – kommet til at skrive noget der får den opmærksomme læser til at påpege hvorledes faktuelt forkerte ’oplysninger’ bliver fremsat som værende ubestridelige kendsgerninger.

For detaljer henviser jeg til en anden post: Greenpeace og A-kraft. 

Hvis man går i detaljer og læser ovenstående link, er det nemt at se, at der hviler et tungt ansvar på skuldrene af Greenpeace og andre Nejsigere.

GMO

Det skal være usagt om Genetisk Modificerede Oroganismer eventuelt kan være skadeligt for miljøet.
Det afhænger naturligvis af hvilken GMO der er tale om.
Derfor vil det være helt uansvarligt at skære alt over en kam.
Indledningsvis kan det konstateres, at millioner af mennesker – måske en hel milliard – bruger GMO i deres daglige mad, tilsyneladende uden skader.
I den forbindelse vil jeg nævne at det ikke har været muligt at finde faktuelle oplysninger om konkrete tilfælde af (påståede) skader forårsaget ved brug af GMO
Naturligvis må det understreges på det kraftigste, at brug af GMO på intet tidspunkt har forhindret brug af andre afgrøder.

For detaljer henviser jeg til en anden blog: Greenpeace og GMO. 

Politikere

Tilsyneladende er det sådan at eksistensgrundlaget for flere ”grønne organisationer” afhænger af at de kan fremstå som dem der beskytter menneskeheden mod noget farligt.
Hvis der ikke kan findes en faktuel fare at beskytte imod, ja så kan en imaginær fare udmærket bruges – som uddybet i ovennævnte links.

Greenpeace er en meget magtfuld organisation, hvor deres kampagner mod udvalgte nyskabelser og fremskridt årligt indbringer over $ 200 millioner.

Det er således let at forstå at det vil være en politisk dødsdom for en politiker, hvis han “rager uklar” med Greenpeace og bliver beskyldt for at udsætte befolkningen for farer.
Så er det bedre at hyle med de ulve man er omgivet af.

Dette sidste ses tydeligt ved evakueringerne i Japan og, mere hjemligt, ved den latterlige diskussion om affaldet fra Risø.

På den måde kommer jeg til det brændende spørgsmål:
Er det muligt at tænke klart og slå koldt vand i blodet?

Demonstrationer

Greenpeace KlatreturRevne tegnet på Reaktor
Greenpeace demo
Mange af de demonstrationer, der officielt har været igangsat af Greenpeace, har været på kanten af det tilladelige og kan måske bedst betegnes som ulovlige drengestreger.

En stort anlagt demonstration i Peru udartede til begyndende ødelæggelse af et historisk minde, hvorefter Greenpeace først prøvede at forhindre et efterfølgende retsmæssigt efterspil.

Drabsforsøg på politiEfter alt at dømme har Greenpeace stået bag mange, næsten latterlige, forsøg på hærværk eller har stået bag demonstrationer der har udviklet sig til grove overgreb på fx forsøgsmarker for GM afgrøder.
I et enkelt tilfælde:
Drabsforsøg på politi.

Attak on Superphénix

Selv om Greenpeace næppe har været involveret som andet end “filosofiske bagmænd”, benytter jeg lejligheden til at henvise til en ”beskrivelse” af hændelsesforløbet som findes på den anti-nucleare hjemmeside Nuclear Free by 2045 ?

Det løber koldt ned af ryggen når det med slet skjult stolthed berettes hvorledes en repræsentant for ”De Grønne” (Chaïm Nissim) arrangerede et bazooka-angreb mod det stadigvæk ufærdige anlæg for Superphénix (1982 jan 18)

Derudover berettes om angreb af ”småtingsafdelingen” som ødelæggelse af højspændings-anlæg og anden sabotage.
Da tidsrammen for retsmæssig forfølgelse var udløbet kom Chaïm Nissim (pralende?) frem, men blev ekskluderet fra ”De Grønne”.

Samme steds berettes om 60.000 deltagere i en demonstration.
Måske kan det selv-oppiskede hysteri forklares ved at man havde bildt sig selv ind at et uheld på en reaktor med hurtige neutroner var specielt hurtig og specielt farlig og (naturligvis) at det ville resultere i en million døde.

Afhoppere

Det er meget sjældent at man ser hvorledes ihærdige aktivister i politiske eller miljømæssige organisationer ændrer deres mening, og har modet til at indse, at de har været med til at føre sig selv og andre bag lyset med en forkert ideologi.
Og det er meget svært for en præst at leve videre, hvis han “har tabt troen”

I politik har jeg kun to eksempler.

Axel Larsen Aksel Larsen var den ledende aktivist i den danske kommunistiske organisation og en af dem, der risikerede sit liv i kampen mod nazismen.
Senere brød han med ‘alt det gamle’ efter i 1956 at have forstået den sovjetiske invasion i Ungarn.
Efter at være næsten venneløs vendte han tilbage til politik under et demokratisk banner.

Mikhail Gorbatjov Grobachevvar næsten født, eller i hvert fald opdraget, til at tro på det sovjetiske system.
Senere havde han modet til at indlede en grundlæggende ændring.
Her er der tale om både det moralske og nok specielt det
.Indtil ere kan jeg kun henvise til tre fremtræpersonlige mod.

Indtil videre kan jeg kun henvise til tre fremtrædende medlemmer fra Greenpeace, som har forladt organisationen i protest.

Patric Moore var en af de medstifterne af Greenpeace og blev valgt til præsident af Greenpeace Foundation i begyndelsen af 1977.
Senere forlod han organisationen, for at kritisere dens anti-humane, agenda og udvikling med udtalelsen:Patric More
“I midten af 1980’erne har miljøbevægelsen forladt videnskab og logik til fordel for følelser og sensationsjournalistik.”
Moore var aktivt imod atomkraft i 1970’erne, da han troede, at
“Atomkraft var ensbetydende med atombomber og holocaust” og
“Alt med atom var af det onde”.
– – –  Siden kom han til at støtte atomkraft.

Stephen Tindale var Executive Director of Greenpeace i England indtil 2005.
Sammen med tre andre, der også var aktive i miljøorganisationer:
Chris Smith, Mark Lynas og Chris Goodall, er han nu en ihærdig fortaler både for kernekraft og GMO.

Paul Watson var aktiv som besætningsmedlem og skipper ombord flere af Greenpeace’s rejser i midt-1970 erne. Han mener selv at han var medstifter af Greenpeace.
I 1977 blev han bortvist fra Greenpeace og dannede Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, der kæmper for dyrs rettigheder, især beskyttelse af hvaler.

Flere andre fremtrædende miljøaktivister, der først var med i kampen mod alt der bare indeholder ordet ‘Atom’, har senere aktivt støttet kernekraft som en løsning på det menneskelige behov for energi og beskyttelse af miljøet.

Mark Lynas, der er en engelsk journalist og en kendt tidligere anti-GMO aktivist, har mest fokuseret på problemer vedrørende klimaændringer.
Han kritiserer Greenpeace og andre organisationer med hvilke han tidligere var associeret og beklager at have ledet ødelæggelse at forsøgs-marker for GM afgrøder.
Januar 2012 skriver han i forsvar af den kernekraft han tidligere havde kæmpet imod med ordene:
” – – – det er derfor jeg ønsker mere kernekraft, for at undgå yderligere udledning af CO2″

James Lovelock annoncerede i 2005 sin støtte til atomkraft, med udtalelsen:
“Jeg er en grøn, og jeg beder mine venner i de grønne bevægelser om at droppe deres hovedløse modstand mod kernekraft”.

Stewart Brand foreslog blandt andet, at miljøforkæmpere skulle omfavne kernekraft og GMO som teknologier, der yder flere fordele end risici.

George Monbiot er kendt for sit arbejde somGeorge Morbiot
miljøforkæmper og som politisk aktivist.
Han har bl.a. skrevet at klimaændringerne er
“The moral question of the 21st century”.
Monbiot udtrykte oprindeligt dyb modvilje mod kernekraft og den tilhørende industri.
Han har imidlertid haft andre tanker og advokaterer nu for dets brug.
Han blev overbevist om kernekraftens relative sikkerhed efter, hvad han betegner som de begrænsede skader ved reaktorerne efter jordskælvet og tsunamien i Japan.
Således har han senere i stærke vendinger fordømt anti-atom bevægelserne og skrevet:
“It has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health and made claims ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong”.

Hugh Montefiore virkede som trustee for Friends of the Earth i to årtier, men blev tvunget til at træde tilbage i 2004, efter at udtrykke støtte til kernekraft som et middel til at forebygge klimaændringer.


Pandoras Promise

Robert Stone, der oprindeligt var imod kernekraft, har siden produceret filmen Pandora’s Promise.
Denne film, der af mange affærdiges som propaganda, viser bl.a. billeder fra USA og den opblæste folkestemning mod kernekraft.
Filmen kan hentes her.
En diskusion mellem Robert Stone og
Michael Moore kan ses her.

Nedenfor nævnes enkelte af de mange andre, der oprindeligt var imod kernekraft og GM, men senere har set hvorledes disse teknologier burde have en fremtrædende rolle i arbejdet mod klimaændringer og fejlernæring.
Carol Browner
James Lovelock
Stewart Brand
Christine Todd Whitman
James Hansen
Baroness Worthington
Gwyneth Cravens
Richard Rhodes
Michael Shellenberger
Ben Heard

Efterskrift

På en måde er jeg været ked af at skrive denne ‘bandbulle’.
På den anden side kan jeg sige at efterhånden som tiden er gået og jeg har set så meget, der i bedste fald er oplagt vrøvl, ja så må der gøres noget.
Som det naturligvis kan ses af ovenstående, har jeg interesseret mig for kernekraft og har skrevet en lidt længere udredning på net-siden
Aatomkraft hvad er forkert?
Mest for at afvaske noget af det mudder, der er smidt på denne kraftkilde.

I forbindelse med mange modstridende oplysninger om radioaktivitet og specielt radon har jeg skrevet følgende: Radon and more.

Hvis du, min ukendte læser har, forhåbentligt konstruktive, kommentarer beder jeg dig skrive til mig
thorkilsoee@gmail.com
Selv har jeg haft et livsforløb, der i hvert fald kan siges at have været afvekslende. Se: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-2h