Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- A Presidential Decision That Could Change the World: The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
Popular content
Today's Top News
2012 Is the Year to Finally Bury Nuke Power
The year 2012 has opened with news that Fukushima's radioactive cloud may already have killed some 14,000 Americans, according to a major study just published in the International Journal of Health Services.
Some 100 million tons of tsunami trash---much of it radiated by Fukushima fallout---has begun contaminating the beaches of our west coast.
Germany and Japan, the world's third and fourth largest economies, along with numerous others countries, have definitively turned away from the "Peaceful Atom."
"Fukushima," writes Wasserman, "has taught us that as long as reactors operate, the apocalyptic clock is ticking."
But it hasn't yet been buried. That's up to us. And 2012 is the year to do it.
We are already very close. The mythical "Nuclear Renaissance" has been gutted by Fukushima, low gas prices and the escalating Solartopian revolution in green energy. Solar panels, wind turbines, sustainable bio-fuels, geo-thermal, ocean thermal, increased efficiency and much more have simply priced atomic energy out of the market.
There is virtually no private money to build new reactors---except where there are huge government subsidies and guarantees. In 2012 we must make those all go away.
Likewise, there are increasingly powerful grassroots movements focused on shutting reactors that still operate. Germany has shut 7, and the rest will be gone by 2022, if not earlier. In Japan, just 11 of more than 50 reactors now operate. Because local governments can prevent reactors from re-opening once they go down for refueling, Japan could emerge from 2012 without a single nuke on line.
The biggest US battle is at Vermont Yankee. March 21 is D-Day for forcing a nuclear corporation to honor a solemn contract it signed with a sovereign state, agreeing to shut down if the state doesn't approve continued operations. The legislature wants the reactor shut, which Entergy now refuses to do.
But with some 430 reactors still operating worldwide, and with several score ostensibly on order, here are some of 2012's keys to finally ridding the planet of this radioactive curse:
- The switch to green power has become definitive and is clearly unstoppable. Last year renewables generated more US electricity than nukes. Far more private capital is now being invested in renewables than in nuclear or fossil fuels. General Electric says its photovoltaic solar cells will generate electricity cheaper than coal within five years. Well-funded opponents are making it more difficult to spread green technologies, but they can be beaten.
- The breakdowns in the solar business are far fewer and further between than in the fossil/nuke world. The lead in this technology has shifted to Asia. The much hyped Solyndra failure came not from technological issues, but because the Chinese are underselling its American competitors---and its own costs---by 30-40%. Returning at least some of the business to the US is essential to our economic survival.
- A dollar invested in increased efficiency---powered by accelerating breakthroughs such as LED lighting---has long since produced more jobs and saved more energy than one invested in nuclear power.
- In-depth studies from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rocky Mountain Institute, and a host of others make it clear that investments in solar and wind energy yield better returns than nuclear.
- It takes at very least and optimistic five years to bring a nuclear plant on line assuming all permits are in order, but large-scale wind and solar facilities regularly come on line in half that or less.
- The decisions by Japan and Germany to abandon nuclear power have come from countries long at the core of the industry. Japan manufactures many key reactor components, and maintains ownership stakes in General Electric and Westinghouse, which have designed and/or built most of the world's commercial reactors. Germany's corporate giant Siemens, an industry mainstay, has abandoned the technology to focus on renewables. As other major countries and corporations follow suit, the nuke industry will waste away.
- Those who "support nuclear power" cannot guarantee the reactors they want built will be properly regulated or monitored. The world at large may not hear about the next Fukushimas until long after the radioactive fallout spreads around the planet. Given the dismal state of regulation even in "advanced" countries like Japan and the US, will those who support the "Renaissance" be there to monitor the Korean nukes sold to the United Arab Emirates et. al.?
- The US Department of Energy still has some $10 billion in designated loan guarantees for new reactors. Two reactors are technically under construction in South Carolina, and two more at Georgia's Vogtle. Despite $8.33 billion in loan guarantees, Georgia's rates are already soaring. Attempts to get Congress to kick in more money have been blocked by the grassroots No Nukes movement.
- Local resistance to reactor projects has raged wherever reactors operate or are proposed, and has been extremely effective. Richard Nixon promised 1000 US reactors by the year 2000, but the operable number was 104. Those nearly 900 reactors that went missing were mostly stopped by local grassroots movements. Every proposed or operating reactor not killed financially can be ultimately stopped by local opposition movements geared toward a long, hard struggle against "impossible" odds that ultimately prove beatable.
- As it has been from the start, nuclear power is a ward of the state. Nowhere on Earth are the builders held fully responsible for their mess. The Japanese government has just coughed up a tip-of-the-iceberg $13 billion bailout for Fukushima's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Hundreds of billions are yet to come. Either the company goes bankrupt, or the government takes it over beforehand. Either way, the public pays financially, and with its health and that of its children. So it will be everywhere nukes are built, including the US, where the 1957 Price-Anderson Act still limits owner liability in the wake of a catastrophe.
- Cost estimates for new reactors have already soared 200-300% and more over original prices just a few years ago, and will continue go ever higher. By contrast, renewable technology prices continue their rapid, steep decline.
- France's nuclear industry has all but given up on the US market. A reactor under construction in Finland is years behind schedule and billions of Euros over budget, as is another at Flamanville, in France itself. French public opinion has turned strongly toward renewables.
- US war hawks now want an attack on Iran for allegedly using commercial technology to build a Bomb. But it's instructive to remember that the west once tried to sell 36 reactors to the Shah, who was overthrown by religious fundamentalists in 1979, leading to the current crisis. Does the "Renaissance" blueprint mean pushing reactors everywhere, then launching preemptive wars following the inevitable regime changes?
- After more than 50 years, the radioactive waste problem has been nowhere solved. Nevada's Yucca Mountain is not revivable, and there are no usable high-level storage sites anywhere else on the planet.
- Nuclear power makes global warming worse. Greenhouse gases pour out of the mining, milling, enrichment and waste management process. Massive quantities of direct heat threaten our rivers, lakes and oceans. Thus more and more reactors must shut during hot summer months, when they are supposedly fighting global warming.
- The calculations on how much climate changing heat and steam have spewed into the atmosphere during the explosions at Chernobyl and Fukushima remain to be done. Likewise the heat impacts of the liquid emissions into the ocean at Fukushima remain unknown.
- By wasting huge amounts of social capital, nuclear construction slows the conversion to renewables, which are at the real core of defeating global warming.
- Fukushima is not over. Three melted cores remain problematic, and the entire complex is vulnerable to aftershocks which could bring spent fuel pools crashing to the ground and cause other disasters impossible to foresee.
- Nuclear power is killing people in ever-greater numbers. The industry continues to mount its usual personal assaults on those who prove that. But the killing power of radiation has been known since "mountain sickness"---lung cancer---began surfacing among Czech uranium miners in the 1500s. The continuum is unbroken through the introduction of x-rays, the work of the Curies, radium watch dial painting, definitive links to childhood leukemia, and more. The Hiroshima-based "science" used to establish a "safe" dose of radiation has been thoroughly debunked. The medical consensus that there is no such thing is quite firm.
- The nuclear industry never accepted the burden of proving this technology to be safe before being deployed amidst a civilian population. For a half-century reactor backers have done a superb job of simply refusing to maintain or study reliable epidemiological data bases around commercial reactors (as well as weapons production facilities). But as early as 1970 the chief medical officer of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. John Gofman, branded commercial atomic power as a form of "premeditated mass murder."
- The largest study so far of the health impacts of Chernobyl, conducted by three Russian scientists, indicates upwards of a million casualties over the past quarter-century. That first study of the US health impacts from Fukushima, indicates that many thousands more deaths are likely to be suffered in the US above what's already apparent.
Does all this add up to the end of nuke power?
Worldwide, the industry is crumbling. The collapse of its private investment base, and the shutdowns in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Mexico, Israel and elsewhere are rapidly shrinking the technology's credible reach.
In the US, we can cut off all subsidies for new reactors, and shut down the old ones in Vermont, New York, Ohio and wherever else they sit. Fierce no nukes campaigns in the UK, India and even China, as massive demonstrations there are starting to erupt. None of these fights will be easy, but all are winnable, especially as the full impacts of Fukushima become known, and as the Solartopian green power revolution renders the nuclear option increasingly uneconomic.
The movement to shut the old reactors is hitting critical mass. The Vermont Yankee case will go to the US Supreme Court, which must decide if corporations are above even the contracts they sign with the public. Some two dozen Fukushima clones now operate in the US. They are old, rickety, cracked and dangerous. Other designs, like Ohio''s Davis-Besse, with a cracked containment and an infamous hole eaten through its head, aren't faring much better. Nebraska's Cooper has been flooded. Indian Point, New York, is also under attack from the state. Once the first of these are forced shut, the dam will break and the American fleet of 104 licensed reactors will rapidly shrink, along with others around the world.
Far more money is being invested in renewables worldwide than in nukes or even fossil fuels. Green energy will soon constitute the world's largest industry, financially and in terms of employment. The conversion to a post-fossil/nuclear Solartopian economy based entirely on renewables and efficiency will mark the most important industrial transition in human history.
Fukushima has taught us that as long as reactors operate, the apocalyptic clock is ticking.
With that in mind, and with the flow of green money turning into a financial tsunami, we can make 2012 the year nuke power finally dies.
It will require a serious push from the grassroots.
But we are ready to win a green-powered earth.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


118 Comments so far
Show AllOf course you MAY inquire Finston, but you don't have to ask permission.
I posted it because I thought it was a very interesting story and gives some idea of how dangerous cesium 137 is.
The second article I postsed I cut and pasted some paragraphs and if anyone was interested they could open the link and read every single word. I didn't want to cut and pate the entire article. That okay with you sonny? Do you advise everyone of what they should write here?
Did you like the Chiquita Bannana song? __ She has a nice pear too.
Yeah, "Pops", I just noticed that you chose to leave out something that contradicted one of your favorite theories (that 'isotopes' stay in the body forever). Maybe you just didn't happen to notice that point. Glad you recalled the Chaquita jingle, but you are dating yourself. And the sexist remark won't sit too well here at CD.
Best regards,
"sonny"
WayneWR wrote:
'And Chiquita Bannana sang,,, "When they are flecked with brown and have a golden hue,,,, bannanas taste the best and are the best for you,,, you cn put the in a salad, cha-cha-cha,,, you can put them in a pie,eye,,, any way you want to eat them,,, it's impossible to beat them,,, but bannanas have the flavor of a very, very tropical equator,,, so never ever put bananassss,, in the refrigerator,, cha-cha-cha da-da- da.... I didn't write that one'
I believe that the jingle started with:
I'm Chiquita Banana and I've come to say
Bananas have to ripen in a certain way
and ended with:
Now bananas like the climate of the very very tropical equator
So you should never put bananas
In the refrigerator
John
Yeah Lannetta I know how it started. and the way I wrote it ended is how my video plays it... And she has a pear in her big fruit basket hat in mine.
Jesseze Cripes Lannetta,,, you will try to correct anything I post.. LMAOff.
If I wrote how to forcefully eject ice from an aircraft stalling engine's carb intake duct in zero, zero freezing weather over Altoona, Penna,,,,, you would tell me it was wrong.
Harvey Wasserman wrote: "Some 100 million tons of tsunami trash---much of it radiated by Fukushima fallout---has begun contaminating the beaches of our west coast."
Of course this is an unsubstantiated claim. The tsunami trash is clearly an issue to islanders across the Pacific, as trash. But I have heard of no measurements corroborating the trash being significantly 'radiated' by Fukushima fallout nor of it contaminating our west coast beaches. Being exposed to the ionizing rays emitted by the fallout will not cause any material to be contaminated with radioactivity.
But trust the scare-mongers to add this claim to their supply of baloney.
After reading all of ~FRinstons's~ and ~John Lannetta's~ posted comments here, it is clearly obvious that the 100,000+ people eveacuated from the Fukushia area were not in any danger from radiation and all except those who had homes which are very near the nuclear plant, within a mile radius, should be allowed to return to their homes.
There in Japan most of the refugees are now liviing in school gyms and class rooms with an alloted space of on averae,, 6 feet by 3 feet,, for their Futon mat and personl belongings...They are fed military style meals three times a day. Some have managed to move in with family members and or friends, some have chosen to drive far south and live in their vehicles and obviously all of that is for no reason at all.
According to these two experts on radiation hazards, injested or inhaled cesium and or Pu and other radioactive isotopes emitted from a nuclear power plant, are no more harmful than all natural radiation which we all live with all of our lives.
Based upon that new found medical findings from the two CD experts, the Chernobyl area should also be re-opened and allow the farming to begin... I am sure Finston and Lannetta shoue be recognized for their research and hard word to spread this new found good news and perhap be nominated for Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics.
Harvey,,, shut it down... Finston and Lannetta have proven that you are a Raving Fool... It has been well proven by these two highly qualified experts that you are a fear monger and we must start immediately to build at least 1,200 new nuclear reactors in the United States alone for clean and inexpensive electrical energy... The Fukushima GE designed reactors are good enough, they lasted near 40 years with no trouble. .... Ya got all of that Harvey? __ Just shut up .. You too ~Thomas Jefferson~, you are just as stupid as I obviously am.
I couldn't have said it better myself, WR! Just look at the radiation level maps of the Fukushima prefecture where you will find the the majority of the land area is contaminated below the limits set by the government for rehabitation and so that appears to be in the offing for those low-contamination lands. Areas with higher levels are to be reduced in contamination using a Toshiba-designed unit. You can be glib as much as you like, but the Japanese people are addressing the situation, thank you.
Well, well,,, finally Finston fully agrees with something I posted... I mean damn, no matter what others post who aren't pro-nukers, Finston and Lannetta will show they were flat out wrong... For example: I didn't bother to post all of Chiquita's lyrics and Lannetta bothered to corrected me... Thank you Johnny, but I had remembered all of the words
But now when I post some hard sarcasm, Finstion agrees with it and explains that indeed,, most of the Japanese refugees should be able to go home again,,, now.. He didn't mention Chernobyl though... But he probably will now. I can almost read the words.
And Finston doesn't know what a "pear" is... Look at her hat dummy,,, and I do believe we are all adults here anyway. Work on your habitual lying problem before you play your phony prude card.
So I will leave it at this... As the one link I posted, which Finston questioned why did I post it,,, it explained that cesium destroyed the patient's immune systems among oher things..
Finston and Lannetta say inhaled cesium 137 or Pu is a serious problem,,, IF a lot is injested or inhaled,,, but it has to be a large amount, whatever they mean by a large amount... They seem to confuse external radiation levels with internal, which are galaxies apart.
So if a person should inhale a few hundred or thousands or more isotopes of cesium 137 which enter the person's blood stream via absorbsion from the lungs, it is a problem. It is a problem because each isotope of cesium 137 is identical and each radiates the same amount of radiation on internal body cells.
But if it is only one or maybe two radioactive isotopes of cesium or Pu in the blood stream, that single one or two isotopes won't radiate body cells and cause cells to become cancerous... That is Finston's and Lannetta's proven fact.
That is really amazing. There has to be a large number of radioactive isotopes of cesium 137 or Pu in the body to radiate body cells and cause body cells to become cancerous.
One important thing I have not mentioned on this thread is,,, if a person is in an area where cesium 137 or Pu is present in the soil on on trees, roof tops, etc. and the isotopes become airborne every time there is a breeze, it is very unlikey that a person will inhale only one single isotope of cesium or Pu,, but that is possible
The longer a person is in sucah a contaminated area, the more apt the person will be to inhale isotopes of cesium 137 or Pu... So if only there for a few hours there would be less risk of inhaling any, compared to being in a contaminated area for days, weeks, or months.
And the Japanese are going to de-contaminate the heavily contaminated areas... Uh-huh, We'll see... The high level of cancer cases won't begin to show up for a few years, maybe two or more,,, probably five or more years is more likely.... Millions of cancer victems from Fukushima,,, all over the world.
Getting back to something substantive, no matter how many different ways you claim it to be not true, WR, the biological effects of radioactivity on a tissue or cell in the body depends only upon how much ionizing energy it absorbs per gram, i.e. the dose. Those physicists who evaluate dose in medicine know how to determine the dose from external and internal sources of radioactivity. The overall radiation effect is the sum of the two kinds of dose. That is a fact no matter what your beliefs are: such as they being "galaxies apart". They are treated as equivalently effective doses in units of rad/rem/gray/sievert regardless of the source's location. But it appears you will rave on forever trying to foist your malarky on CD readers. Fortunately you have no access to a wider audience to spread this crackpot science.
Of course it is possible to be exposed to internal radioactivity sufficient to do acute damage. In fact it is done purposely all the time in medicine where internal radioactivity is used to obliterate unhealthy or cancerous tissues. But an enormous number of atoms (your term isotopes) are required, not just one.or a small number. The same thing is true of inducing cancer. A trivial dose carries a trivial risk, a large dose a large risk based upon the conservative linear dose/effect model.
Those are the facts whether you want to believe them or not.
As to the hazard of occupying an area contaminated with cesium-137 is concerned, of course it depends upon the activity per unit area and where the activity is located, for example on the surface of the ground or mixed in and mostly below the surface, and what kinds of human and weather activitities are going on. Fresh fallout is more likely to be resuspended in the air compared to weathered fallout. But there is no fixed certainty as to whether the doses will predominantly be from external exposure or internal exposure. Fallout of cesium-137 from nuclear weapons testing in point of fact produced more dose from external than from internal radioactivity in most situations, but not all. So you can't draw any preconceived picture of what will be the experience in Fukushima prefecture. It will need to be evaluated on an on-going basis by the health authorities as re-occupation occurs. I know this is not so simple as your model, but these are the complexities that have to be considered..
Number one... If we Google cesium 137 dangers,,, there will be hundreds of articles availabee.. All term cesium 137 as ISOTOPES of cesium 137.. Therefore Finston,,, I have no problem of termng (isotopes) of cesium137, as isotopes of cesium 137... You may term them hotcakes, rabbit turds or atoms if that is your desire.
Number two... When a single isotope or thousands of isotopes of cesium 137 are lodged in any part of the body, brain, bome marrow, liver, lung, a bone, the spleen, muscle tissue, eyeball, etc, the isotope, or isotopes, will radiate nearby cells for near 300 years, if the person lives that long.. The neaby radiated cells may become cancerous. .
It is not a chest X-ray type of raiation which lasts for seconds or minutes, or bombardment from cosmic rays, or medical treatment... It is a single cesium 137 isotopes,, or many cesium 137 isotopes radiating internal body cells for as long as the person lives.
You cannot tell me that cesium 137 in large amounts is the (only) reason cesium 137 can cause cancer.... Each single individual isotope can cause body cell damage, one or a thousand, or a million.... Naturally the more isotopes in the body, the more likely cancers will develop.
Internal radiaton is not at all the same as external radiation... And you know it... So does Lantanna......And just how many people here at CD do you honestly believe give you a smidgen of credibility? __ I lost count long ago of how many here have told you off ,,,derided you,,, and scorned your comments.... You are not worth your salt RFinsot, you really are very pitiful.
So as for "raving" Finston,,, you may do so,,, and again,,, someday do find a link for an article which states that a single isotope of Cesium 137 or Pu, (will not) radiate a person's internal body cells once it has entered the person's blood stream and or has lodged in a body organ... You have not done that, because you cannot find such an article... No sane doctor would write it.
No, WR. you misquote me. I said that no qualified radiobiologist would claim that a single cesium-137 atom can cause cancer, which is what you continue to do, ad infinitum.
I see this item is off the home page, so 'so long' until we meet again.
I didn't mis-quote you blabbermouth... I asked you to give us a link for an article which states a single isotope of cesium 137 or Pu will not radiate internal body cells, as you continually have claimed is not possible but you offer no proof of your claims.
The things you do post do not address that fair question, which is.... Will a single isotpe of cesium 137 or Pu radiate internal body cells if it enters the blood stream. Prove it won't sonnyboy.
There you go again misquoting. I never said a single isotope will not radiate internal body cells, I said that it would have no risk of causing cancer.
Hey "Pops", if you merely look at the number of ionizing events received by the cells of each member of a study population of people exposed to excess radiation sufficient that it experiences a statistically detectable increase in cancer, you would find that the odds of one ionizing event is so vanishingly low that one ionization more or less is immaterial and without risk. So it must be either impossible (as is the understanding of the multi-step process that finally ends in a turmor) or so unlikely as to not be a
meaningful risk to have one extra ionizing "isotope" in the body. So you can claim that it is, but tell us exactly what is the likelihood of that. What is the risk of one isotope of Cs-137 by a number, such as one chance in X. Prove your crackpot theory, it is not my responsibility to disprove it!
Well now sonnyboy, we are getting someplace... You say a single isotope of a radioactive element, or an "atom", as you choose to term it, will radiate internal body cells ,,, butttttt,,, it will not cause the body cells to become cancerous.
You got a reference for that incredible stupidity?
Thank you so very, very much... I'll save that beauty.... Throw ya later wizard.
Here is what I said, "So it must be either impossible (as is the understanding of the multi-step process that finally ends in a turmor) or so unlikely as to not be a
meaningful risk to have one extra ionizing "isotope" in the body." Who has the reading disability????
Nope, dope,, your first sentence in that posted comment of yours is,,, cut and pasted word for word,, no mis-quotes,,,, > (" I never said a single isotope will not radiate internal body cells, I said that it would have no risk of causing cancer.").
"NO" risk of cancer, and you called it an (*isotope*).. LMA-Off!
And the rest of what you wrote is repeating the same thing with a lot of words..
Now what I am asking you to do Finston, is to cite a reference for what you wrote and you refuse to do that, naturally, becaues such a reference does not exist..What you write is just your lies.
By the way gabblegut, the very (*first time*) you ever replied to me, and I had never replied to you at that time, or had ever even seen your name here at CD, you termed me a ("foolish idiot and a scare monger.").. You cast the first insults, not I Mr. whineass lyiing nuker shill twerp.
That is what I said, no risk of causing cancer...and I explained why in a clear manner which anyone with intelligence would understand. I don't need a reference, you need a reference for your crackpot science theory that one ionizing particle can cause cancer, by itself. Given how many such particles a person is exposed to in order to cause a detectable increase in cancer rates in an exposed population, and given that cancer induction is a multi-step process, the result is that there is no risk that one ionizing particle emitted by one radioactive atom (or to use your term "isotope", LMA-Off!) will cause cancer..
As to your quotation about me calling you a "foolish idiot and a scare monger" in my very first reply to you when you had never replied to me... May I know of the date/time of my comment and also the news item's name and date that was under discussion? Show me where exactly because that is not my recollection. You have always exhibited a propensity for foul-mouthing those who disagreed with you politely. It is not my habit of so-doing and thus I believe that you can't show me. If you can't then that claim is another example of your fabricating quotations, which is habitual.
It was not I who termed you a rat or an Azz-hole Finey... Your definition of foul is your definition.. blathergut, dimwit, ect are not foul in my opinion. And it was you who initiated the insults, not I.... I have never used vulgar terms against anyone here at CD or any other website
You say (large) amonts of "atoms" of cesium 137 or Pu isotops will radiate internal organs and can cause cancer to develop... How many Finey?
Do ALL of the cesium 137 and Pu isotope's "atoms" produced at the same time do the same thing, radiate the same or almost the same amount of radiation? __ Or do those raioactive "atoms" ALL act differently?
Which individual "atoms" (do not) cause caners to develop with body cells they are radiating? __ Are they called imitation radioactive isotope's atoms?
Or as you previously wrote Finston, don't those "atoms" begin to radiate internal body cells until they choose to decay,,, AFTER,,, on average,,, 43 years?
So where is that citation that you claim shows that I started the insults and name-calling? You can't find it, can you. So much for that lie.
Why don't you just give it up, WR. We've gone through your ridiculous 'atom/isotope' questions a dozen times, your re-hashing of old misquotes over and over again, and the new questions here are totally facitious and without relevance. You don't really want to know, do you? Anyone who might read these questions that you ask won't care either. You are simply fishing for something you can misquote to then try to use to discredit me.
However, I will continue to respond to your comments until you give it up, "Pops". Go to bed and get some sleep.
Those are very fair questions Finston.. You say cesium atoms do radiate cell and can cause cancer if there are (many) of them in a person's body... How many? __ Do they all radiate internal body cells? __ Which ones do not? __ You say any single one will radiate cells but won't make the cells cancerous.. Why not?.
Prove what (*you wrote*) or just shut up.
You will not answer the questions because you cannot do it without having to back off of everything you have posted on that issue for the past 9 months... You aren't fooling anyone Finston.
We each absorb 6,000 ionizing particles every second of our lives from natural radiation and radioactivity. And yet only a small fraction of cancer cases are thought to be due to all that. Only a fool would then think that one extra ionizing particle from one cesium atom would cause cancer with any probabililty other than zero. If you do then...
Tell me the number of cesium atoms in the body of the average U.S, citizen and I'll tell you the odds of them causing cancer, if you really want to know. In any case, the odds of getting a cancer from Fukushima are near zero. That is why no U.S. public health agency has suggested that any action is needed to reduce the cesium on the ground, or in the air, water or food.. So give up WR, no one with common sense is taking your scare-mongering seriously, and your bloviations here are not going to change that. But rave on!
Once again Finston, you won't answer the fair questions.
You have acknowledged that cesium or Pu in the body will cause cells to become cancerous, but you clamin it has to be a great deal of the "atoms" to do so.
Therefore; my fair question is: If any one of those atoms can radiated cells and cause cells to become cancerous, which ones do that? Just any single one, or all of them?
Tell us Finston, which radioactive isotopes injested in the body cause cells to become cancerous.. You say that they will if there are a lot of them in a person's body.. How many is a lot Finston?
Is ten a lot? A hundred, fifty thousand, a million? And do they only radiated body cells if their is a lage group? Com-on Finston, give us the correct scientific data.
Do isotopes of cesium or Pu kill white blood cells Finston?__ LOL, you pitiful blathering shill.
Keep wasting your time, fool. I'm not going to waste my time answering your phoney questions that you don't really care to know the answers to.
Oh but you are horribly mistaken gabblegut, I already do know the correct answers. So do you.
I just want you to write em for us, but I know you will not. That's
the point shill.
Why do you keep calling me a fool? I'm not in your arena.
It takes one to know one.
As to answering your foolish ad nauseum questions, I have done that but you don't comprehend. So give it up, you never will.
Hey Finey the Flagger,,, you wrote,,, > (" Prove your crackpot theory, it is not my responsibility to disprove it!")...
I didn't ask you to disprove my comments' Dimwit.... I asked you (*to prove yours*)... But then you have a reading comprehension disabilty first class.
Hey; btw stumblemouth,,, if you can call me a Raving Fool and other gems and initiate the insults here,,, "Gabblegut" or "Dimwit", etc seem to fair enough retorts... nothing vulgar... Sorta fun too,, right wizard?
Only after so many insults from you, with no comeback, did I take you on in your game. Play on, "Pops".
What is "yours" theory? The only one you asked me to prove is: " I asked you to give us a link for an article which states a single isotope of cesium 137 or Pu will not radiate internal body cells, as you continually have claimed is not possible but you offer no proof of your claims....Will a single isotpe of cesium 137 or Pu radiate internal body cells if it enters the blood stream. "
As usual you misquote what I have written, put words in my finger tips that I haven't entered, etc. in order to play your usual derisive, insulting games. I will not try to prove to you what I have never argued. Play your stupid games as long as you choose to. But I won't partake in such childish behavior, "Pops".
WayneWR wrote:
'Number two... When a single isotope or thousands of isotopes of cesium 137 are lodged in any part of the body, brain, bome marrow, liver, lung, a bone, the spleen, muscle tissue, eyeball, etc, the isotope, or isotopes, will radiate nearby cells for near 300 years, if the person lives that long.. The neaby radiated cells may become cancerous. .'
First of all, isotopes do NOT become lodged in the body. The body continually excretes them at a rate proportional to the amount in the body. That's just the way the body works.
'It is not a chest X-ray type of raiation which lasts for seconds or minutes, or bombardment from cosmic rays, or medical treatment... It is a single cesium 137 isotopes,, or many cesium 137 isotopes radiating internal body cells for as long as the person lives.'
Or until the isotope has been excreted by the body.
'Internal radiaton is not at all the same as external radiation... And you know it... So does Lantanna...'
The radiation is EXACTLY the same, but the effects on the body are quite different.
For example, alpha rays from external sources are not hazardous, but are quite hazardous when the source is ingested/inhaled. Terrestrial and cosmic radiation is distributed uniformly throughout the body, whereas internal radiation to the various organs is in general different. So if 14 joules of energy from some Iodine-131 were uniformly absorbed by the body, the dose would be 14 joule/70 kg (for standard man), or 200 milligray. But if 14 joules were absorbed by the thyroid gland, the dose would be 14 joule/20 g (for standard man), or 700 gray.
John
Well I have quoted several scientists/doctors who say radioactive isotopes such as cesium 137 and Pu do lodge in internal body organs... So I'll accept their educated words and not the words or writings of pro nukers.
Again you claim external radiation is the same as internal radiation, just different results.... Okay; the "different results" are exactly what I have always been talking about.
Not "different results" but a different dose calculation. The bottom line is the resulting dose, and the numerical resultant doses, between an atom in the body and an atom near but outside the body are similar, though not identical, depending upon the type of particles/rays it emits and exactly where the two atoms are positioned relative to the body. It is not 'galaxies apart' as you said. If it were so, why not just ignore the radiation coming from outside the body?
If you ever went through the calculations you would understand this point. But obviously you haven't so you are just an uniformed (as you called me a few moments ago) blabbermouth. By the way, at your ripe old age I am surprised that you have such a foul mouth.
Respectfully,
"Sonny"
While I was celebrating News Years Holiday, apparently there was a bad Earthquake off shore Fukushima; and another 4.9 hit it just today. Radiation has soared in the area. Of course the governments credibility in reporting anything on time concerning the stricken triple meltdown is Mudd. Fortunately others are doing it for them:
http://enenews.com/cesium-fallout-rises-sharply-fukushima-after-new-years-quake-chiba
"Radiation has soared in the area'?
I don't think so, TJ.
Absent from the link you posted was any quantitative comparisons. Over the 2 day period following the recent quake the total amount of fallout was 558 Bq/m2. But if you go back to the days following the accident the amount was 3.4 Million Bq/m2. The level that requires evacuation is 1.4 Million Bq/m2. So as usual, ENE news is hyping statistical "noise" compared to the accumulated levels of radioactivity in Fukushima prefecture and the amount that poses an immediate risk. You swallowed it 'hook, line, and sinker".
As to the Japanese government's credibility and timeliness, did you happen to notice that the ENE data listed was in the Japanese language? While no specific credit was given, I suspect this is official data.
Thanks for the link ~TJ~... We read the article in the news last week but it didn't have the graphs or the excellent comments from readers... Scary.
As one commenter noted, normally there is one large aftershock near the epic center of an earthquake that is one magnitude below the initial quake magnitude, normally anytime within a year...The magnitude 8 aftershock hasn't occurred yet and let's all hope the average doesn't occur. .
No; the data was written in a Japanese newspaper, not data from the Japanese government, but from Japanese scientists who are scared shitless.
You see this thread is off of the front page... Yeah gabblegut, for about a week it has been... I'm sure we will meet again.
Gabblegut? How creative! A new derisive term. You must have an encyclopediacal quanity of such terminology. I look forward to reading the rest of them.
Which Japanese scientists, and are you sure they weren't affiliated with the government. It is obvious these were published, but identify the source please. Can you show where that is indicated at ENE news? Or are you just being supportive of TJ's skepticism?
"Shitless"... that is getting close to flagable.
I finally did make a mistake, the thread has only been off page one for two days... Saying scientists are scared shitless is near flagable? __ Wow,,, glad I didnt go too far for Finey the flagger.
Shout it from the rooftops! WayneWR admits: " I finally did make a mistake..."
Lord o' mercy, I never thought I would see the day!
Actually RFinston; you should "bray" it" from the rooftops,,, like a jackasss,,, as I have posted mistakes many times when posting comments over the years and have always acknowledged my errors whenever I realize it, or it has been brought to my attention.
I don't try to lie my way out of it like you always do... Ya got that sonnyboy? You need help Finey, but I do believe you are far past the stage of such... Pitiful.
~Rfinston~ attempts to discredit Harvey Wasserman, saying he is not credible due to some of his published opinions, which he wrote citing the words of scientists.
Indeed we do have a lot of deadly radiation here in North America from the Fukushima disaster. I don't know if 14,000 Americans have already died due to that world wide disaster, that opinion by scientists is debatable. ,p>
I'm sure however that many millions, perhaps billions of people in North America and beyond have inhaled deadly isotopes of cesium 137 emitted from Fukushima and many will in later yeas have cancers or altered DNA or both develop because of it.
http://radiationfears.com/fukushima/11500-tons-of-nuclear-waste/
From the article,,,, .. (“Watching ocean current models, you’ll see that quite a bit of debris from the tsunami should reach the west coast of the U.S. within 18-24 months. Of course most of the debris will be broken down into smaller particles, but it’s on the way.
That is water borne radioactive poisons, much more has already arrived via the Jet Stream air currents and the Fuku disaster is far from over... The "cold" shutdown at Fukushima is a damn lie, one which RFinton claimed is a fact.
The very name of that website tells us what it is in business to dispense. Any one who is interested can go there and see for themself. You don't happen to be the owner of that "radiationfears.com" site, WR?
Yeah Finston, anyone who is honest and has any common sense can see they are giving the flip side to the Nuker lies and they cite credible doctors and scientists. But the only ones here now are you and I and any sock puppets you have at hand.
I se you are righ there on top of it to reply... Good shill, attaboy Finey!
And no, muddlebrain, I don't own any websites, wish that I did.... ~TJ~ once suggested that we start our own website together but he doesn't reply to me anymore,, maybe due to his New Year's Resolution to not reply to others here.
That photo of the nuker cooling towers with this article is impressive... Wish they'd paint some huge day glow yellow smiley faces on each side of them... Or maybe black skull and crossbones?
Wayne,
Did not mean to ignore you. I probably just missed your posts. I don't read all the post in the threads. I usually just look for the posts of the people I like. Also I've had a lot of family activities over the holidays which are still ongoing in these islands.
I don't read Japanese, but have read that the locals don't trust government radiation readings since the detector is held one meter off the ground. No wipes, no film badge readouts, nothing. It's the Bush Hati scam all over again: Billions are raised for relief and then that money is never seen again. But contamination this bad can't be hidden forever.
Cheers
Hi ~TJ~.. Figured you were tiered of the trolls and shills.... I quit for a week or so every so often, but still reply to them although I thnk you may be correct not to .
If we don't reply to their replies to us, it may look like they are correct to others, so It's difficult to ignore them... Been pulling the shills Mr, N and his partner the oilman chains on a GW thread... They are still at it but have toned it down a bit.
Take good care,,, stay out of taxi cabs and watch out for the dang snakes... ~WR~
Yeah Wayne,
I'm not suggesting anybody do like I'm doing. But in my case I've been repeatedly ratted-on and flagged for minor "CD policy violations" that the boiler-room trolls themselves violate constantly. So it's impossible for me to have any kind of a normal relationship with people who are so underhanded and dishonest all the time. I'll gladly reply to you, but not a long post with the Reply button since the boiler room will flag themselves somewhere in the leg to get all the "children" posts on that leg that they don't like removed. I've just never seen such uncivilized on-line behavior in my entire life. You however Wayne, handle these paid-shills extremely well. And you're right: we have to respond to their subterfuge.
Here's some great charts showing radiation soaring from Jan 1 to Jan 6 after the New Year's earthquake:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2012/01/mysterious-spike-in-cesium-fallout-in.html
And we just killed a spitting cobra a few days ago! Guess I should have mailed him alive to the President of Tepco for radiation analysis!
Cheers WR,
TJ
But notice two things about the "radiation soaring from Jan 1 to Jan 6". The data comes from the much-maligned (by you and WR) Japanese Government. The amounts shown are miniscule compared to what fellout during the first months following the accident and so do not change the situation in any meaningful way, public health-wise.
I am re-assured to know that the authorities in Japan are doing the measurements and reporting them to the public.
The new PM of Japan has publically acknowledged that their government has not been giving proper information to the public about the nuclear disaster.. He says they are working on improving it.
No emitted raditions from a nuclear power plant is safe Finston,,,, NONE.. Any inhaled or injested cesium or Pu can enter a person's blood stream and cause internal body cells to become cancerous and or alter a person's DNA.
Internal radiation from inhaled or injested radioactive isotopes like cesium 137 or Pu are not the same as external radiation, such as that from cosmic rays or sitting on a block of lead, etc... Check it out Finston,,,, Google it. You might learn something... You might not. But who cares if you do or don't? __ Not me.
From RFinston,,,, "cesium 137 or Pu in the body will not begin to decay until it chooses to do so,, on average,, "after" 43 years."___ Yep, not a problem, cancer is not a major issue, radioactive isotopes emitted from nucler power plants are not dangerous,, cosmic rays give us more radiation than any inhaled cesium or Pu will.... Yep,, learned a lot here on this thread.... A lot!
Same old, same old: mis-quotes and crackpot science you spewed out weeks ago. You never give up. Amazing!
When/Where was that PM of Japan qoute found? Just like I said, I am re-assured.
Don't you have anything better to do, Wayne?