General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
Infants on the West Coast of the United States are showing increased incidents of thyroid abnormalities, which researchers are attributing to radiation released following the March 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
According to a new study (.pdf) published in the Open Journal of Pediatrics, children born in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington between one week and 16 weeks after the meltdown began are 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism (CH) than were kids born in those states during the same period one year earlier.
CH results from a build up of radioactive iodine in our thyroids and can result in stunted growth, lowered intelligence, deafness, and neurological abnormalities—though can be treated if detected early.
Because their small bodies are more vulnerable and their cells grow faster than adults', infants serve as the proverbial 'canary in the coal mine' for injurious environmental effects.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/02-1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Hiding all the deaths and deformities from Fukushima will be one of the biggest PR problems in history.
But look at it this way: Full employment for pro Nuclear Industry trolls.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and that line of thinking comes through load and clear. Mollifying a frightened and ignorant public.
Warpy
(114,590 posts)One of them was nasty enough that I had to put it on ignore, all caps, ranting nasty.
Anybody who looks at Fukushima and thinks it can't happen here is utterly delusional.
It's just sad that some of it has already happened here, apparently, and that little kids will pay the price.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It is possible you are not correct.
Warpy
(114,590 posts)I'm talking about a torrent of abuse.
That usually means it's a troll who doesn't know enough about a subject to argue it rationally.
Hell, if I'm not wrong about at least three things by lunch, it means I've slept in.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I don't have the stats but even to this day kids are being diagnosed with tyroid cancer due to Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear Power Plants are ticking time bomb. Shut them all down, and change to wind and solar energy while there is still time.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Good thing those studies can be eliminated with a wave of the "do you trust Eastern European scientists?" hand.
madokie
(51,076 posts)considering the subject and the known participants who like to wave their hands at things such as this.
Trust me, they will be along soon
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)
caraher
(6,359 posts)The fact is that there are informed principled scientific critics of nuclear power, and then there are figures like these whose work (and means of promoting it) are on par with those in the anti-vaccination movement.
But you're certainly under no obligations to vet the source of ideas congenial to the conclusions you've already drawn. Just be aware that these ideas lie decidedly outside the scientific mainstream.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)This isn't about the content of the paper
I think it's telling that the endorsements of his work Mangano features most prominently on his web site come not from scientists but Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley.
Your reaction is hardly objective and is clearly as emotional as that of those taking this as "alarmist nonsense".
caraher
(6,359 posts)It's about dismissing posts critical of the paper by ad hominem attacks.
The part you quoted back to me is clearly my own editorializing, but I also did read the paper and responded to just a few of the problems with it. The fact that I said other things too in no way erases my having tried to make some sense of their implausible claims.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your outrage is far too selective to support your claims of impartial analysis. This thread is filled with flagrant false statements attempting to undermine any negative impact the OP might have on public perception of nuclear power.
I know the difference between legitimate critique of a paper and a trumped up smear campaign; as much as I respect you, you are not participating in the former.
caraher
(6,359 posts)More like annoyance, really.
If I'm engaged in a "smear campaign" it's a horrifically disorganized, one-member movement. I really don't care overall about pushing public opinion in either direction regarding nuclear power as I'm highly ambivalent myself.
But I do care that people tell the difference between genuine concerns and implausible scare stories. There are plenty of people on DU ready to talk back to the "radiation is good for you" pro-nuclear propaganda. Fewer are equipped to critically examine claims that reinforce suspicion of nuclear power, the more common attitude among Democrats (as you've documented quite a few times).
The problem with attacking criticisms of shoddy work that supports your own views, especially in the case of nuclear power, is that it tends to reinforce the other side's false claim to have all the science on their side, and helps their efforts to portray opponents as scientifically ignorant (and thus unworthy of attention). The case against nuclear power should proceed along lines I know you're familiar with - economics, waste disposal, problems associated with various nuclear fuel cycles, possible nuclear weapon proliferation worries and yes, the very real effects of accidents. That should provide plenty of fodder for persuasion.
But when opponents of nuclear power run across the work of Mangano and Sherman or Busby, they need at least to be aware that their results are well outside the scientific mainstream. You can argue the merits of the research. You can claim the mainstream consensus is a byproduct of "regulatory capture" (I think a lot official figures for Chernobyl deaths, for instance, are indeed lowball estimates; I think the Union of Concerned Scientists get it about right). But DUers should advance these arguments knowing that most scientists who examine it find the work problematic, and they should do so knowing why those scientists are skeptical (short of simply claiming a vast scientific conspiracy).
I just want DUers to refer to these kinds of claims with some awareness of the pitfalls of citing them, rather than taking them as widely accepted science.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Especially when there are so many willing to exploit the vulnerabilities that it offers in order to distort the truth. Such behavior not only limits the opportunity for meaningful sharing by well intentioned people, but it I believe it goes so far as to subconsciously shift the line of what we consider acceptable behavior.
Your post is a great example of a personal objectivity we should all aspire to develop. Thanks.
Logical
(22,457 posts)you should be able to post ANY LINK and every one has to 100% agree with you.
This is a discussion board. Discuss!!
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)They knew that there were no end of suckers who would fall for their BS. More than enough to keep them in business.
I'm sure they appreciate you not letting them down.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
it's mr "do at least try to learn a little science... you're embarrassing yourself"
This crowd has played this game so many times... and you keep falling for it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)
FBaggins' arguments remind me of the way the climate deniers twist science.
But you have to feel a teeny bit sorry for him. The nuke industry, which he trusted so much, lied to him, too. And now, after the Fukushima cows have come home, he's got to be more than a little perturbed.
Of course, he's minor discomforts are nothing compared to what life as we know it is enduring.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)It sounds like an epidemic when you put it into a percentage. What it really means isinstead of 4 in 10,000 incidence of congenital hypothyroidism, which is the normal incidence of the disease, you have 5 in 10,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/pediatricgenetics/data.html
That's in a limited area of five states, not the US overall, and as far as you know from that article, in the US overall CH has gone down in the same period, thus balancing he increase out. There is that possibility.
The 28 percent rise means in a city of a million, you'd see 100 more cases. Now that's sad and significant, but it can't be confused with the death of every first born.
Moreover, the incidence of CH has been rising nationwide for the last decade, before Fukishima.
A fluctuation in a number that small in a restricted area can happen with normal variance. What has the variance of CH been year to year? Without knowing that, you definitely can't tell if this rise is even abnormal.
Oh, and correlation does not equal causation. An increase in CH does not mean Fukishima caused it.
This article's slant is unsupportable. The reporter did not understand the science she was reporting on. Neither do the people who are grabbing onto this as a nuclear catastrophe from the across the Pacific Ocean.
There's enough reason to hate the nuclear power, hate the nuclear industry, and hate the politicians that support it. We don't need to indulge in disreputable overkill.
The problem with this sort of panicky thinking is it might scare people against nukes until they realize that most children aren't going to die from this. In fact, they increase is imperceptible without surveys and statistics. Then, those same people are not going to believe the anti-nuke side again even when the science against it is sound. They'll remember the anti-nukes being deceitful, even when the deceit wasn't intended.
It's comparable to Fox news and Obama. After they've told us he's going send the storm troopers to kick down our doors and take all the White Women and then convert everybody else to Islam, they've lost credibility by the 2012 election when nothing of the sort has happened.
That's what the science actually tells you.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You sure are scared about this 28% rise. Why else would you come in and warn everyone DON'T PANIC! ?
Here's something to be really worried about... we still don't know where the corium in 3 of the reactors has settled. Corium of course being the many tons of nuclear material in the cores of the reactors that blew sky-high two years ago.
The science of radiation effecting thyroids is well known. Why does the publication of such elemental science scare so many nuke supporters? They are all over this thread telling everyone DON'T PANIC!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Seriously, are you actually a pronuclear person doing a parody of someone that opposes nuclear? That is how you come across to me.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Now what is your problem?
Why do you want to attack me like that?
You offer no evidence of your accusation.
What do you mean: "She's right"? WTF are you yammering about?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . on this thread?
Instead of making an ad hominem attack on me for panicking and being the butt-buddy to the nuclear industry, why don't you answer the science and math I've given you. Check the normal incidence of CH in the population with the CDC. It's 4 in 10,000.
True or false?
Now take out your calculator and check: a 28% increase of 4 in 10,000 cases of CH, the calculation is
4 x 1.28=5.12
True or false?
Round down in the conventional way, and that's 5 in 10,000.
True or false?
Since this is grade school math, I know you can check each step and tell me where I made the error due to my "panic."
I'm not a fan of nuclear power. If it went away tomorrow I would be relieved. I just have no tolerance for bullshit like this.
You chose the ad hominem fallacy when the simple math and science was there for you to critique. This tells people what mental processes you're trying to appeal to, and it's not the higher ones.
Corium is a different issue. You got to stop me from panicking before we go on to that. To do that, you have to either tell me I'm right or tell me where my science and calculation are wrong.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The numbers are right. Gold star for you.
What you did after that, saying that people were panicking is what I responded too. No one is panicking as far as i can tell. Except for those who are running around saying everyone is panicking.
Should people be worried about the contamination? Yes.
Is there science that says we were dosed with radiation? Yes.
So now we start looking for evidence of the effects and that's all this OP was about. No need for anyone to start attacking the concerned folks for being concerned, as you did.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Kris does also. Here is his response to you below on this thread.
""The "hysteria and suspicion" seen in this thread is largely a pushback that isn't inspired by the original article, but by the coordinated campaign that smears and attempts to discredit any and all criticism of nuclear power. The objective of this coordinated campaign is only partially to discredit the authors of the original study. It is also to create an acrimonious atmosphere where those in the middle are inclined to dismiss valid evidence because they haven't the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. ""
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607134#post186
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)
editing to correct bad math: 100 out of every million, a mere drop in the bucket? But there's 48,839,795 people living in Washington, Oregon and California alone. 4,883. That's what science tells me. To me the number is still unacceptibly high. And alarming.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)For the population you noted, that would be about 5,000 people.
The greatest threat by far is to the people of eastern Fukushima and, to a much lesser extent, some neighboring prefectures. The people living within a range of about 30-40 miles downwind (usually northwest) of the reactors face the greatest health risks.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)I still say too many people. But I will be blushing as I do.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)But if it's any consolation, I think your relatives in Ishioka are probably OK. The background radiation levels in that part of Japan have been in the normal range for more than a year now 
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)and his rockets.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)In the past, North Korea has kidnapped people in Japan and taken them back to North Korea, they've abandoned trash-filled ships in Japanese waters, and have fired at least two missiles over Japanese air space. So yeah, that seems to be a bigger concern in this part of the world right now.
I think the Japanese government should just give this guy a VIP tour of Tokyo Disneyland to get him to calm down.
That's flat untrue.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Belarus was hit the hardest. There are some significant and horrific birth defects there even today. Cancer rates are through the roof in certain areas. The long term effects are still not fully known.
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #15)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)Generic Other
(29,080 posts)Snopes and Wiki have info on her. But I still remember the pics anyway.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)what depleted uranium-tipped shells did to Iraqi and Afghani children.
Just sayin' - I appreciate two wrongs don't make a right.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)that it is hard to figure out how many millions of people are sick every year from the crap we eat, inhale, and take in through the earth/water.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)my opinion, only
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And the medical industry in this country just keeps getting more of the American people's dwindling wealth.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(52,301 posts)
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,598 posts)Pediatrician, nuclear radiation expert. She believes that the entire west coast up into Canada probably inhaled hot particles at a 1 in 5 ratio. That likely we will see an explosion of lung cancer in that area in the next 5 to 20 years.
Frightening.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1 to 5 compared to what?
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,598 posts)One in five people have inhaled a particle that is radioactive
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I found a talk by her on YouTube that seems to be on the same subject. It's an hour long, but I will listen to it to see if I can get some context to her observations. Should be very interesting.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)She is in no way a "radiation expert".
Far from it in fact.
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,598 posts)Tell me what you know of her. Have you ever read her books?
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)She's a quack selling snake oil to anti-nuclear suckers (note I'm not talking about everyone who opposes nuclear power... just the gullible ones).
Have you ever read her books?
Enough of the recent ones to get a belly laugh. They're ridiculous.
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,598 posts)I'd be interested in knowing exactly what?
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)She brings in the quacks from all around (e.g., Chris Busby) and pitches their nonsense as if it's reality.
A bunch of kids near Fukushima turned up with thyroid abnormalities and she pronounced that such issues were incredibly rare and that she had never (or perhaps it was once or twice) seen them in her pediatric practice - so these were obviously caused by Fukushima (which of course was nonsense).
Her manifold ridiculous claims about plutonium (both in terms of amount and danger) are legendary.
We could go on for days. Here's a response to some of her wild claims from just after Fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,598 posts)And why do you insist upon calling people names?
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)And the ability to count them.
Oh... it's more than that. But that's enough to refute her. And since this is the internet, why would anything I claim make me more or less credible? If there's a specific claim that you wonder about, feel free to ask and I'll try to link you to authoritative reference materials.
And why do you insist upon calling people names?
I don't normally. In fact... quite rarely. But she really takes it beyond the pale. And since she's making money doing it (while demonstrably harming people)... it's hard to talk around the issue.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)
What gives any defender of the nuclear industry the right to belittle or attack those who oppose it -- for any reason whatsoever? Rational or irrational -- whatever reason we have is reason enough that our views have more validity than yours. You are the one with the dangerous technology blowing your second-hand radiation contamination my way, not the other way around.
You have no right to tell any of us to go bleep ourselves because we express reasonable fear over the dangers of nuclear power. If we say we do not want to live under a nuclear cloud , that we do not accept the risks to our lives or the environment, that is the default position. You can characterize us as submoronic dingbats who have no understanding of science and thus have no right to express a view, but it does not change the fact that you seek to infringe on our space and environment with your questionable technology, not the other way around. And you don't have some inherent right to do that.
And you tell me to quit panicking because the increase in cancer is a mere 100 out of every million, a mere drop in the bucket. But that adds up to 48,839,795 in Washington, Oregon and California. 4883 will get sick. In one of the states where I live. The numbers don't sound so insignificant to me and my neighbors. I may be dumb but I am not so dumb I can't see for myself what is or isn't hazardous to me.
But you go on attacking the victims of your unconscionable technology. Because that is really all you have left.
edited to correct my bad math.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'm going to check out some of her material before dismissing her entirely.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Hardly an "expert" (since she's decades removed from practice)
And if she's been studying radiation for some time... she should try to get a refund. Because she constantly makes things up that have no basis whatsoever in actual science.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your constant shoot the messenger and other obvious logical fallacies are getting very, very old Baggins.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Except, of course, the common anti-nuke standard: "she says what I wish were true"
She had no ongoing formal education. No research in the field. No published peer-reviewed papers. No recognition in the field. Nothing.
She literally makes things up as she goes along and you have been forced on more than one occasion to distance yourself from her ridiculous pronouncements. I have no need to "attack the messenger" when the it's the message that falls off its own weight.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Not publications, just opinions. It would be interesting to know the response to those opinions.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...on this topic.
The ONLY thing you do is use smear and logical fallacies in an attempt to prop up nuclear. Every critical public person is subject to one of your smear campaigns.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)radiation is dangerous.
"Skin cancer comes from too much sun... therefore any other claim I make is valid"
That really seemed logical to you when you typed it?
You're surrounded by radiation all the time. Saying "radiation is dangerous" doesn't mean that a particular emission of radiation is worth noticing.
"Most laymen" (and all experts) don't worry about the radiation from the bricks in their homes yet that radiation is MUCH higher than what you'll detect from Fukushima here in the US.
roomtomove
(243 posts)I would say you were an apologist/shill for the nuclear industry, but I will give you the benefit of some leeway, and state that perhaps you just are not informed. As an architect I always recommend radon testing in homes. Do some research and reading on radiation and its effects (not just radon) and become enlightened. Every step of the uranium extraction process and utilization of nuclear material IS hazardous.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)I clearly said "from the bricks in their homes"
As an architect I always recommend radon testing in homes
Which is sound advice. But even tested homes that don't need remediation still have radon... and even those accepted levels are many times what anyone could possibly receive from Fukushima today in the US
As an architect... do you ever use granite?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
MAD Dave
(204 posts)Touch more credible too!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)the article would have a point.
MAD Dave
(204 posts)I'm a pragmatist. I believe that nuclear is an important part of the electrical pie. Renewables must be developed at an increasing rate and dirty coal must be taken offline. All the while using nuclear to bridge gaps in production.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)FAR too costly. What frightens me is how THAT problem may be addressed (i.e. massive relaxation in licensing and safety standards.)
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)it's the most expensive energy source.
Factor in the premature deaths of unranium miners and those suffering from diseases caused by this industry and the military and you have a long term black-death situation.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'd be curious to see the data you're using.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment.
“It’s really a gas and wind world today,” said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes “permanently cheap”.
“When I talk to the guys who run the oil companies they say look, they’re finding more gas all the time. It’s just hard to justify nuclear, really hard. Gas is so cheap and at some point, really, economics rule,” Mr Immelt told the Financial Times in an interview in London at the weekend. “So I think some combination of gas, and either wind or solar … that’s where we see most countries around the world going.”
...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60189878-d982-11e1-8529-00144feab49a.html
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)we need clean energy with no byproducts like nuke waste dumps. plus no more garbage dumps when we switch to gasification. Even the slag is a glasslike material that can be used as roadbed or building blocks.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Unless the analysis was prepared by the nuclear industry trying to make a sale. Then you can count on it being a lowball.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)I specialize in the transition to a carbon free economy.
Nuclear power has 4 problems that persist in spite of every policy and scientific effort to address them:
Cost
Safety
Waste
Proliferation
Junkdrawer's post specified the issue of cost, and was correct. The comment also went to the area of regulatory capture, which (globally) is a significant part of the problems with cost, safety, waste and proliferation.
What is you belief about the relative costs of nuclear?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He provided discourse but no numbers, which is fine. However, it is not the last word. I, too, have seen an economic analysis which shows nuclear as only slightly more expensive than about half the alternatives available.
Shall we compare numbers?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Which one?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)As I said, I specialize in this area, which means I have an extensive library of sources. You made the assertion that nuclear was not expensive and indicated a specific study that you based your opinion on.
If you'd like to share your source, we can discuss how that fits into a wider matrix if information and sources both historical and real world present.
The nuclear industry is engaged in a misinformation campaign targeting both policymakers and the public. It is similar to the type of campaign the tobacco industry waged a couple of decades ago and that the fossil fuel industry is waging now in its fight against knowledge on climate change.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... that using nuclear for energy needs was like using caviar to feed the starving. An exchange of data seems fair, but I spend a helluva lot of time at DU answering so-called experts who never produce anything but rotten attitudes.
Keep in mind several countries get big fractions of their energy from nuclear, and we are one of them.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)There is a reason cost is always listed first among the 4 intractable problems facing nuclear. It is as expensive as hell. While it is true that several countries get significant amounts of power from nuclear, that fact in isolation does little to support your view and I fail to see why you are raising it in this context.
The French are more opposed to nuclear power than the US.
The Japanese have an economic mountain on their backs that is built on over-reliance on nuclear power.
Even though they are largely paid off, plants in the US are facing economic pressure from not only cheap natural gas prices but from loss of market share to renewables. Many of them are facing pressure to close.
The idea of building new nuclear stares into a future of even greater competition as renewables continue their price declines.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) 
- Now we know who's backyard to put the waste in.womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)and deadly also
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You have no way of substantiating that, but I'd love to see you give it a try.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Perhaps you can give us a bit more than just blanket condemnation of the article, author, and journal.
You accusation is very specific.
roomtomove
(243 posts)Do some reasearch and reading. Start with 'No Nukes', which is somewhat dated but still applicable, and go from there. You may learn something.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That's research?
roomtomove
(243 posts)I have already detected your aversion to knowledge, and you answer was expected. To be truly objective, you need to know both sides of the argument. The book actually contain a lot of info (and facts, unfortunately for you) on the entire nuclear process.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Did you read the response calling the article industry propaganda?
I don't care about your book. At all. It's not the point of this discussion despite you wanting to make it so.
The focus here is the C&E News article in this subthread and the declaration that the author is merely carrying water for the industry. This subthread has destroyed that claim. Period.
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)who grew up in the four corners of NM.
http://epa.gov/region09/superfund/navajo-nation/index.html
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lcbhcsXcAlQJ:www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/pdf/NavajoUraniumReport2013.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiSdlBIXCYBVA1WwQ9E3hTABO1XdCyTqoqS5J0eeaMdXtCPjof11y8SzpRa6JdUD6Zh2AdcE_Rs7YWBe1y9j2DXu0fpAt1s3HiS-Cl2tF72vyBbSvrvY_bMOLBLNg1nF3GhCO7n&sig=AHIEtbQHds08ZXNmb-bON3IIQMquNp9gKA
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Please go to top of this subthread to trace the discussion.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
tblue37
(68,423 posts)it is a courtesy meant to signal the reader that the heading or title of the post is all there is---i. e., there's no message (or text) in the message box beyond the heading or title--so the reader won't waste time clicking open the message to find nothing there.
The "eom" or "nt" belongs in the title or heading part so the reader won't bother opening the message at all. Putting "eom" in the message box defeats its purpose altogether.
(Besides, once the reader has opened the message, he can see that there's no further message, so what's the point of announcing it?)
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Yes, that Jim Hansen.
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting the link.
Pay attention folks and don't do the Right Wing thing of immediately poo-pooing something based on the headline and because it might contradict cherished hopes and illusions.
We always call out the Right Wing and Republicans, especially teabaggers, for denying scientific studies and reality. Don't fall into the same trap.
Excerpt (emphasis added by me):
They next estimated the total number of deaths that could be prevented through nuclear power over the next four decades using available estimates of future nuclear use. Replacing all forecasted nuclear power use until 2050 with natural gas would cause an additional 420,000 deaths, whereas swapping it with coal, which produces significantly more pollution than gas, would mean about 7 million additional deaths. The study focused strictly on deaths, not long-term health issues that might shorten lives, and the authors did not attempt to estimate potential deaths tied to climate change.
Finally the pair compared carbon emissions from nuclear power to fossil fuel sources. They calculated that if coal or natural gas power had replaced nuclear energy from 1971 to 2009, the equivalent of an additional 64 gigatons of carbon would have reached the atmosphere. Looking forward, switching out nuclear for coal or natural gas power would lead to the release of 80 to 240 gigatons of additional carbon by 2050.
By comparison, previous climate studies suggest that the total allowable emissions between now and 2050 are about 500 gigatons of carbon. This level of emissions would keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 350 ppm, which would avoid detrimental warming.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Note: The study compares fossil fuels to nuclear. It does not compare non-carbon renewable energy. Nor does it compare carbon renewable energy (bio-fuels), which would allow some global warming compared to non-carbon energy, in the medium term, until the bio-fuel carbon sequestration cycle kicks in. Furthermore, carbon renewable energy systems are not perfect for health in all ways and would contribute deaths too.
Bottom line: Things would be much worse if nuclear hadn't come along.
Bottom bottom line: Fortunately switching out entirely to NG or coal ain't gonna happen and shouldn't happen, though more coal and NG plants will be built in parts of the world.
Bottom bottom bottom line: Renewable energy in the form of hydro, solar, and wind must be increased, and it will take investment and commitment the right wing will try to block, but renewable non-carbon is just not going to pick up all the slack in the next 37 years. Sorry.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Renewables can, indeed, "pick up the slack" - far more effectively than nuclear in fact.
Nuclear has an operational economic paradigm exactly like coal - it is suited to a centralized baseload system and the economics that support its operations are designed to perpetuate a the system built around COAL and nuclear.
We have to tear down that system and we are in the process of doing that. You can't keep nuclear and get rid of coal, it just doesn't work with a system built around distributed renewables.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)You seemingly wrote that renewables can't be ramped up rapidly enough and that we therefore need nuclear. If you'll note, another person read it in a way similar to me, so it would help if you clarified your message.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Renewable energy in the form of hydro, solar, and wind must be increased, and it will take investment and commitment the right wing will try to block
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It was the next part of the sentence that is generating comment:
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is as now more economics than policy. The Republicans do not control the world. The areas where electricity from wind and solar < or = to local electric prices is expanding at an amazing rate. That drives investment in manufacturing which pushes the prices down further.
To put it another way, the learning curve for renewables has been steadily declining for decades and cost is now at a point where it will not be obstructed.
The learning curve for nuclear has been on a steadily rising path for 50 years and shows no signs of abating. It has priced itself out of the market and can only be built by gaining control of government purse-strings - and then with only limited success.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You wrote to kristopher: ""You have your reading comprehension wrong & you don't grasp I said nothing in favour of nuclear.""
There is something about K's words and comprehension skills which calls into question his intentions.
roomtomove
(243 posts)Another energy expert. Look at what Denmark is doing.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)Mesothelioma! The only causes for this painful and fatal cancer are asbestos and high doses of radiation. A truly horrible death and there will be thousands of these in Japan! What a shame!
Thyroid problems will almost certainly be the limit of what can be detected and attributed to the radiation from Fukushima
The only causes for this painful and fatal cancer are asbestos and high doses of radiation
And there haven't been "thousands" of people in Japan who received anything that qualifies as "high doses of radiation". In fact there have only been a handful.
Response to dkf (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I highly doubt it.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If we can find a way to contain the waste, I would be a big supporter of nuclear despite potential hazards.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't happen because they couldn't contain the waste. Any problems with the cooling system can cause a meltdown. Anywhere and anytime.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The introduction of explosives at high speed will have a similar effect b
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Chernobyl was hardly the rule.
And Fukushima? Are you really putting that down to "anywhere and anytime"?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Japan is not some third world country, so you can't blame it on that. There is no doubt it will happen again. The only question is when and where.
roomtomove
(243 posts)You're kidding aren't you? Check out the half lives of the material we are trying to 'contain", and compare it to the time line of civilization.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why should he care? He won't be around to deal with it.
His kids will. His kids kids' will. Etc. Does he care?
Sometimes I wonder if Fukushima was not part of the plan to see how they could burn waste as an experiment and see what happens. And then I think, nah, they were just stupid thinking they could do nukes on the cheap. But really, can we trust the people telling us nukes are safe?
Oh, yeah, welcome to DU, roomtomove. Good to see you here.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... was that the waste was not contained.
You know that, right?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #42)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But, but, but I am just the Paranoid aunt.
I also got them, at my own expense, three months worth of shelf stable milk.
Debating sending that article to the non paranoid sister.
malaise
(295,829 posts)Ah well
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)it's junk science from "researchers" who have a history of misrepresenting and cherry-picking data.
Sid
caraher
(6,359 posts)Their analyses of radiation effects are as contrary to the consensus in the field of health physics as those of global warming skeptics are to mainstream climate science. Embrace of studies like this is driven mostly by confirmation bias, not the rigor and significance of the results.
I think it's telling that the endorsements of his work Mangano features most prominently on his web site come not from scientists but Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley.
There are lots of problems with the paper itself, not least of which is the disconnect between the putative mechanism for thyroid abnormalities and the correlation they report. The chief claim for a mechanism is that exposure to I-131 during early developmental stages causes these abnormalities (which is very likely true at high doses but, at best, surprising for any plausible exposure level to Fukushima fallout in the US). The authors discuss I-131 measurements across the US but then do not actually use I-131 fallout in their analysis, using instead airborne beta particle measurements. They make no effort to correlate this measure of gross beta activity in air with I-131 exposure, whether to pregnant women, fetuses or newborns. Their analysis does not even remotely consider the possible existence of any other environmental factors that might be different between their "exposed" states and the "control" states. And they admit they cannot say what is really happening in terms of rates of hypothyroidism: "Calculating CH rates of cases per live births is not possible at this time, as final birth totals are not yet available."
Even accepting the results at face value, the overall impact they're talking about is a "confirmed" rise from 281 to 327 cases, across 5 states, in one year, of a condition the authors say "can be effectively treated if detected early." In other words, even if you accept the dubious premise that Fukushima fallout is responsible for that increase, there is no demonstrable harm done beyond treating a few dozen newborns for the hypothyroidism.
None of this means that the Fukushima meltdowns are anything less than a disaster, or that we can simply trust the nuclear power industry. They are, and we shouldn't. But this alarmist nonsense only impedes clear understanding of the magnitude of the true risks.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)publishing in an open-source non peer reviewed journal.
Sounds exactly like what Sherman and Mangano did almost 2 years ago, when they tried to convince us of a "spike" in infant mortality in 8 Western cities following Fukushima.
SciAm blog here:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/
DU discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1275202&mesg_id=1275202
Let's not forget that critical thinking is a progressive value.
Sid
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)They produced an incredibly misleading bit of scaremongering last time, by cherry-picking their data, and would not respond publicly to criticism (eg adverse comments on Sherman blog were blocked). I don't trust any paper authored just by them. I'd need someone reliable to put their name to it publicly.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Here's a press release about a study recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. I added the underline in critical note #3. (FYI, Professor/Dr. John Walker-Smith is regarded as the co-founder of the field of pediatric gastroenterology with Harvard Professor/Dr. Allan Walker).
CryShame Press Release - 9 March 2013
http://www.cryshame.co.uk
Important new research ( http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0058058 ) reports similar findings to the work of Dr Andrew Wakefield in the 1998 Lancet and in subsequent paper in the early 2000s
Groundbreaking new research examines the molecular structure of inflammatory material taken from the bowels of autistic children. It compares the structure of diseased biopsies in the autistic children with biopsies from three groups of non-autistic children with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and histologically normal (the controls).
Previous research confirmed the pathological and immunological make-up of biopsies of autistic children, but had not to date identified its specific molecular structure. Children with the four different conditions have been found to have similar findings of inflammation. But it was not clear if this was the same condition shared by all four groups; or if a distinct condition was specific to autistic children alone; or if indeed there was no disease in the autistic group. A molecular analysis of the genetic structure found in the inflamed bowel tissue of children in each group would provide initial answers to these questions.
To date government and medical scientists continue to deny an association between autism and bowel disease. In the UK there is currently no research into the association between autism and chronic bowel disease. This has been the predicament since the government and medical profession waged a campaign to discredit research from the Royal Free Hospital led by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 and the early 2000s that first identified the presence of bowel disease in autistic children.
Following years of denial from government and the medical profession, new research published in the leading online journal PLOS ONE confirms the presence of intestinal disease in autistic children and supports reports from many parents of ongoing painful gastric problems in their autistic children.
The research studied bowel samples from 25 autistic, 8 Crohn's, 5 ulcerative colitis and 15 normal control children and found that inflammatory material obtained from the biopsies of autistic children had a distinct molecular structure that was different from the other three groups.
This is an important finding of the distinct genetic expression that has now been identified in autistic children as distinct from non-autistic children with Crohns, ulcerative colitis and normal bowels. It paves the way for future research into the specific molecular structure of the inflammation affecting autistic children and hopefully will lead to new interventions and treatment.
Background Notes
1. The first paper to bring to public attention the presence of bowel disease in autistic children was Wakefield AJ, (1998) 'Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children'.The Lancet published this paper in 1998 but subsequently retracted it in 2010 after the GMC found Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct.
2. Several former colleagues went on in the early 2000s to study the nature of the bowel disease in autistic children, focusing on the pathology of gut tissue and the presence of autoimmune features in the bowel (eg Furlano et al (2001) 'Colonic CD8 and γδ T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism', Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 138, 3).
3. The senior research leader of the Lancet and subsequent papers was Professor John Walker-Smith who in March 2012 had all the charges of professional misconduct made by the GMC quashed on appeal by Justice Mitting in the High Court.
4. Government Minister admits more needs to be done to research autism and bowel disease. Read letter here.
PLOS ONE Journal Information
PLOS ONE (eISSN-1932-6203) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
•Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
•Fast publication times
•Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
•Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
•Community-based dialogue on articles
•Worldwide media coverage
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)Wakefield was receiving money for a legal case trying to prove there was a link with the MMR vaccine, when he made the claims about MMR in his dubious study, but didn't disclose it. That's why he's dishonest.
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #98)
Post removed
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You know, the ones who prepared the 2003 nuclear assessment that said by 2010 nuclear power would be $1500/kw when it is, in fact, approaching $10,000/kw?
I find your outrage a touch selective.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)intentionally cherry-picking supporting data while hiding contradictory data is far more dishonest than predictive errors (which aren't dishonest at all)
Take your frequent predictive errors re: China's solar sales over the last few years. That wasn't dishonest... you were simply wrong. There's a huge difference.
Now... the claim that nuclear power is close to $10,000/kw could be either... but it certainly isn't correct.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It wasn't a "predictive error" it was a selling of academic credentials to boost an industry they have a stake in seeing the success of.
There was a large amount of data to indicate the industry predictions should be examined critically, why were those data not included in the analysis? Because the primary authors knew the document would be used to justify committing increased government support to build nuclear reactors.
Your ongoing strawman claims about what I wrote on China are as false now as the first time you wrote them.
If you don't think nuclear is approaching $10,000/kw you aren't paying attention.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)To quote you to you "Let's not forget that critical thinking is a progressive value"
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)"Did the author's cheque clear?"
It's a pay to publish vanity press.
Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Yes, the open journal Advances in Pure Mathematics is yet another of the fine journals published by Scientific Research and Publishing. Scientific Research Publishing also puts out the Open Journal of Pediatrics. Surprise, surprise.
Scientific Research Publishing is a Chinese journal factory that will accept any paper with a cheque attached. That's why dumbasses Mangano and Sherman get accepted. A real scientific journal would have rejected their research outright, as long as they could have stopped laughing long enough to write the rejection notice.
Junk science usually doesn't make it past real peer review.
Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)There is no Prof. Marcie Rathke and there is no University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople except as a creative tool for a comedic composer, Peter Schickele.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schickele
From Wikipedia
P. D. Q. Bach is a fictitious composer invented by musical satirist "Professor" Peter Schickele. In a gag that Schickele has developed over a five-decade-long career, he performs "discovered" works of the "only forgotten son" of the Bach family. Schickele's music combines parodies of musicological scholarship, the conventions of Baroque and classical music, and slapstick comedy.
The name "P. D. Q." is a parody of the three-part names given to some members of the Bach family that are commonly reduced to initials, such as C. P. E., for Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. PDQ is an initialism for "pretty damn quick".
On several recordings Schickele states that he is a professor at the fictitious University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. The town of Hoople, North Dakota, actually exists, but it is in the northeastern part of the state.
For years, Schickele regularly toured, and he has recorded on the Vanguard and Telarc labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Q._Bach
This is one to bookmark. Did you manufacture the webpage you linked to just for this discussion?
206. Peer review so judicious, the same company accepted a paper generated by a random text generator...
http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102
Yes, the open journal Advances in Pure Mathematics is yet another of the fine journals published by Scientific Research and Publishing. Scientific Research Publishing also puts out the Open Journal of Pediatrics. Surprise, surprise.
Scientific Research Publishing is a Chinese journal factory that will accept any paper with a cheque attached. That's why dumbasses Mangano and Sherman get accepted. A real scientific journal would have rejected their research outright, as long as they could have stopped laughing long enough to write the rejection notice.
Junk science usually doesn't make it past real peer review.
Sid
At least we know without a doubt who is a fraud. ETA: This comment from your link says it perfectly:
I feel like someone just told me, “I trolled wikipedia, and the wikipedians welcomed me to the community even as they reverted my edits for being stupid.”
If you read SciRP’s about us page, it is clear that they are making trade-offs with the goal of maximum accessibility. I think that’s laudable, even though we shouldn’t ignore the costs of this approach.
If you read Newton’s work from a modern perspective, personally I find it impenetrable. My knowledge of calculus and algebra doesn’t help me. He uses arcane-seeming triangle geometry trivia for every single proof. If I have the time, I could read the Descartes and unravel it. But if I didn’t, I would instead write “this doesn’t follow obviously from earlier statements” in red ink all over the paper. Newton’s work is fantastic, but without the time to research his (now arcane) background, it *does* come off as largely unsupported garbage. And he was relatively concrete compared to today’s pure mathematics.
So I find their criticisms are perfectly on point. Since they were providing a free service to you, they did not have the time to research your citations. In service of their goal of accessibility, they didn’t reject your paper merely because of their unfamiliarity with your citations. Instead, all they could tell you is that they would publish your paper if you edited it so that it made sense. You were unable or unwilling to edit it to make sense, so you were not published. Their system worked exactly as intended!
The $500 is a red herring. Most professional organizations that support peer reviewing charge more than $100 per year just to join the club. You wouldn’t have even been permitted a seat at the table, no matter your bona fides.
Unlike SciRP, which ultimately rejected your meaningless story because you were unable to meet their terms, slashdot has actually published your meaningless story. Congrats, you successfully trolled someone, but it’s not who you claim to have intended to.
And this
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Keep defending 'em. It's comedy gold.
Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You've made unsupported allegations based on a common practice among peer reviewed journals: charging for publication expenses.
You imply that Open Access is some sort of indictment when, in fact, all major universities are moving to a policy requiring faculty to sign agreements to use Open Access journals to the maximum extent possible.
Now you post a prank that is unvalidated. The prank submission did not get published, it was kicked back by initial review for revisions and was never distributed for peer review.
It did not, in other words, pass peer review.
The process working as described is not a point for your position no matter how you twist the logic for your amusement. You can tell yourself that it would have been published if the fee had been paid, but the fact is you have zero evidence to support that belief.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)How far are you going to go to defend Mangano, Sherman and Scientific Research Publishing?
You really should be careful about who you hitch your wagon to. You might damage your own credibility.
Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm not defending anyone in particular at all. I am, however shooting the idiotic proverbial ducks in the barrel that pass for criticism among those who tend to promote nuclear power.
I've seen the same crap used against academics with unimpeachable credentials and extremely solid journals and frankly, I'm sick of it. If you have a legitimate critique offer it. If all you have is further unsubstantiated slander and name calling I suggest you put it in an email and send it to Baggins. he trades mightily in that tripe and will certainly appreciate your gutter art for its lack of creativity and mindless banging of the drum.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)As soon as you get called on your defense of quack researchers publishing in a predatory open journal, you scurry away, trying to change the topic.
Mangano and Sherman have a history of junk science.
The Open Journal of Pediatrics is published by a shady, predatory Chinese journal factory.
Those are facts you can't dispute. But it's fun as hell to watch you keep trying.
Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...but reading your post reminds me of this photo.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)causation.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)very charitable of you.
In fact it's charitable to call them even "researchers".
Kali
(56,822 posts)too bad no one that needs to will read it
too me spewing bullshit is spewing bullshit, no matter what your ultimate position on something is
just because something sounds like it might back up your position (all sciency n stuff) doesn't mean it is something actually credible.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)They charge $600 to submit a paper for publication.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is a decided PLUS that the journal is OPEN ACCESS.
If you are going to play shoot the messenger, I'd suggest you get some bullets.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)It's really hard to come to hard conclusions when only a few scientists are claiming something. Let them present their information to their scientific peers and let them decide. Then I will listen.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They'd be fine.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Brother Buzz
(39,874 posts)Bummer, that whirling Dervish in front of them purchased every last box.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)ever undertaken by humankind.
Oh, yeah....other than giving Bush a second term, of course.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There has to be a mechanism and exposure in the US was so minimal that I don't think it exists. Correlation is so far from being causation that this is silly.
On the other hand, it is possible that a lot of people did take the iodide pills out of hysteria. That did cause some health problems.
My guess is that this is a realish trend but that the mechanism is low iodine in the diet. The anti-salt thing has cut some American's iodine levels too low.
I looked up and read the publication, and it notes that the study proves nothing but should perhaps be used as a basis for further study and evaluation.
And it doesn't prove anything, because you could use MMWR to also postulate that Fukushima caused a rise in CA serogroup virus disease, botulism, toxic shock, and tularemia.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp?mmwr_year=2013&mmwr_week=12&mmwr_table=1
I realize that most people don't have any training at all in probability and statistics, but this is worrisome. One should at least have basic levels of literacy among journalists.
The causes of CH vary but low iodine intake can cause it:
http://www.newbornwhocc.org/pdf/Hypothyroidism_100810_300810.pdf
If people were anxious enough to stop eating fish I assume it MIGHT have caused an increase.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)so you're right to not "flipping believe it". 
Their "research" about a 35% spike in infant mortality in the Western US in the weeks following Fukushima was atrocious junk science.
DU discussed it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1275202
If you're good with stats, you'll get a real kick out of that one.
Sid
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If you read the actual paper, they aren't claiming that their study proves anything.
A lot of time the articles written about papers totally misstate the actual conclusions of the paper.
DU can be pretty darned smart. Journalists, unfortunately, aren't racking up a lot of wins these days.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)mean that could be where she got her thyroid problems?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Radiation travels in the atmosphere. Germany and Ukraine are not that far from each other. The radiation traveled even to UK in dangereus amounts.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Comparatively little of the radioiodine from Chernobyl was found in Germany, and there are far more common causes of thyroid issues that would be more likely... but it's at least possible.
malaise
(295,829 posts)and became violently ill - vomiting for hours - which had never happened to her before.
She still worries about her exposure even from that distance
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to Chernobyl. My guess is heritage.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)is not surprised 
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Since there's never been a link between radiation and congenital hypothyroidism (the authors just made that up), I'd say they would be very surprised.
On the other hand... if the person has studied radiobiology, they may have heard of the "researchers" - who are well known in the field for their quackery. So perhaps they wouldn't be surprised after all. Just not in the way you seem to assume.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)between radiation exposure and thyroid disease. I was a radiographer for 20 years. Here are some additional articles to consider:
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3386771/
Congenital Hypothyroidism Due To Maternal Radioactive Iodine Exposure During Pregnancy
The use of I131 is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy principally because of the risk of damaging the fetal thyroid gland and thus leading to hypothyroidism or cretinism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935336/
Environmental Exposures and Autoimmune Thyroid Disease
(excerpt)
Factors that increase autoimmune thyroid disease risk include radiation exposure, both from nuclear fallout and medical radiation, increased iodine intake, as well as several contaminants in the environment that influence the thyroid. Although ~70% of the risk for developing autoimmune thyroid disease is attributable to genetic background, environmental triggers are thought to play a role in the development of autoimmune thyroid disease in susceptible individuals.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Nothing that would justify the OP.
Here are some additional articles to consider:
Those relate to maternal radioiodine therapy. If that was your field for so long, at least compare the normal dose for such therapy (millions of times what they could have received from Fukushima).
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)--and I realize that individual environmental exposure levels are difficult to measure for people on the West coast, but I am still--not surprised--to find there have been babies born with thyroid abnormalities.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)The claimed link is between (virtually nonexistant) environmental radioiodine exposure and congenital hypothyroidism.
No such link has been established.
but I am still--not surprised--to find there have been babies born with thyroid abnormalities.
Then you should ask for your money back on any training you received.
Forget "individual environmental exposure levels". The highest possible exposure on the West coast is thousands of times lower (at least) than any health physics has ever indicated should make you "no surprised".
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)I certainly hope that the public is kept accurately informed.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why are you so determined to promote nuclear energy and nuclear plants as safe when clearly that's not the case??
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Because I prefer people in my party to get the truth rather than fall for lies. It makes us look bad.
(On edit - never mind. That was you)
The authors of this study are the laughingstocks of the scientific community. I see no reason for DU members to fall for it... let alone try to sell it.
You can oppose nuclear power without being irrational about it like this. Many here do.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Lol!
Good luck spreading your "truth". Some of us prefer to think for ourselves.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)By purchasing a geiger counter because of your irrational fear of radiation from Fukushima... in the face of clear science.
I tell you again... you cannot detect anything in the US with that Geiger counter that will be from Fukushima. All it will do is feed your irrational fears. The highest possible readings from Fukushima are orders of magnitude below the everyday stuff that surrounds you 24/7.
Some of us prefer to think for ourselves.
You let me know when you're ready to start.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Copy and paste where I said such a thing!
Waiting....
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)It was the clear from the original title.
Or do you now claim that it's just a coincidnence that you "have" to buy one two years after Fukushima?
Seriously?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Are in general.
Fukushima is the last big disaster, that's why I mentioned it. So you're awefully wrong again.
Lol
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)So what's the connection to "two years after Fukushima"? (Not that paranoia about nuclear plants in general is any less nutty).
Better stop digging while you can still see sunlight.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Can you or anyone else guarantee that another Chernobyl or Fukushima won't take place?
"Better Better stop digging while you can still see sunlight."- your insults are childish.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Once again... what's your explanation for the start of that thread? Are we supposed to believe that you thought that two years after Fukushima there wouldn't be any nuclear plants here any longer? That you didn't see a need for a geiger counter five years ago (when presumably you still remembered Chernobyl) yet you do now... and it has nothing to do with the title of the thread?
Yeah. I'm sure there's someone here who would buy that.
Go ahead... keep deflecting to something else. They won't notice that either.
Or just prove me wrong. Make a clear statement on that thread that you don't believe that there's anything from Fukushima that you expect to detect with that unit.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)" Are we suppose to believe.." you are not a spoke person for DU.
All your replies have been nothing but silly insults. And you are the one deflecting the issue at hand, which is no one can guarantee another nuclear disaster won't happen in the future. You seem to think that by insulting and demeening those who want to be prepared for such situations gives you credibility. But it doesn't.
I honestly feel sorry for you.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)A deflection using the words "I'm not deflecting anything"
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)You're boring me.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)A perfect combination.
Now don't forget how easy it would be to prove me wrong. But don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.
I'll also promise to only chuckle quietly as I remind you that you were looking for a unit less than a year ago on similar threads specifically looking to test for Fukushima radiation.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Anybody who claims that there can not be found any particle radiation from Fukushima here in the US is just quacking.
Even the EPA found contamination from Fukushima here in the US.
Given the long lives of the radiating particles we know that we do have higher 'background radiation' in the US.
Were someone to not just be quacking, they would supply the science detailing that 1: The EPA was wrong, and 2: that the background radiation has not increased.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)What a shocker
Anybody who claims that there can not be found any particle radiation from Fukushima here in the US is just quacking.
And I never said that.
Given the long lives of the radiating particles we know that we do have higher 'background radiation' in the US.
Nope. Sorry if that's still beyond you, but the fact that we can detect something does not mean that it means anything. The normal variation in background levels is many times as large as anything we can now attribute to Fukushima. The weather makes more difference.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)When someone says that it can't be detected they are wrong. EPA says it is here and they detected the particles from Fukushima here, in the US on our soil. And it is still here and can be detected. Radiation can last long time.
Thing is it has just blended in to the background. Now, with a radiation meter, a person can be able to determine when the background is exceeded by the next nuclear release.
Having a radiation meter is an important part of being informed and I find it sorrowful that you or anyone else would try and steer someone away from being better informed.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)...if I made one that far wrong.
Did you go back and delete the ones from last year as well?
roomtomove
(243 posts)How do you get your data? Do you make it up?
In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to answer questions or to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California, the San Jose Mercury News reported.
On March 21, 2011, the EPA pulled 8 of 18 air monitors in California, Oregon and Washington state that track radiation from Japan’s nuclear reactors out of service for “quality reviews.”
By April, 2011 the EPA had temporarily raised limits for radiation exposure by rewriting its Protective Action Guides (PAGs) to radically increase the allowable levels of iodine-131 by 3,000 times, a 1,000-fold hike for exposure to strontium-90, and a 25,000-fold increase in exposure limits to radioactive Nikel-63.
Raise the allowable levels and all is ok.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)You ask if someone else "made it up" and then shift gears into wild conspiracy theories of the government hiding the truth?
Go ahead and pick the highest reading anywhere on the West coast and compare it to everyday sources. Tell me what you find.
caraher
(6,359 posts)There's a world of difference between the exposure resulting in a 20 mCi dose received by an expectant mother, as in the case study of the first link, and any plausible exposure resulting from Fukushima.
Note further that the authors of your second link say this:
I think it makes perfect sense to expect an effect at high exposures, but the kinds of exposures the study in the OP are looking at are very unlikely to have an effect detectable via sound epidemiological methods. (I'm not saying they don't exist at all, just that to the extent they might, they're not likely to be detectable.)
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You have a generalized idea formed from poorly collected data on emissions during the height of the accident. How that plays out on a square meter by square meter basis can vary widely due to factors specific to any given location.
You do not have the data to draw the conclusions you are stating.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Do you seriously think that the dose estimates are based on guesses of how much was released in total rather than actual readings taken throughout the area?
They must certainly "have the data" and, if anything, have been incredibly conservative in estimating dose rates (assuming, for instance, that the highest readings in a given area are the norm).
And that's before we even begin to talk about dose estimates based on actual whole-body scans of individuals.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)what happens to Japan will happen to us
nuclear power is dangerous to the whole world and needs to be abolished
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I have to say it sounds like complete nonsense.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There are three destroyed reactor buildings at Fukushima.
The buildings and the hardware and the pumps and everything that contains radiation were involved in the explosions that destroyed the massive reinforced concrete buildings.
Much reactor core material was exposed to the atmosphere in the explosions and resultant fires. Much of the material, due to the heat from the fission became aerosolised and was therefore lifted high, say 20 miles high, into the atmosphere.
The higher level winds around the planet move from west to east. From Japan to the US. The aerosol particulate matter from Fukushima was carried around the world is about 17 days dropping out more and more as it went.
That's how the west coast got dumped on.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The Fukushima disaster was very reassuring - it wasn't far off from a worst-case scenario, and the fact that it's done so little harm is a testament to how unfounded most of the fears about nuclear energy are.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So you are a nuclear expert and you have a crystal ball that you can see the future and can claim that against all the science that says radiation will cook your ass, that you know better than anyone?
Get over yourself. And if you feel so confident, go work at Fukushima. They are just dieing for help.
I understand they are in the trillion dollar budget range for the cleanup and it will take 40 years.
Not only that, you can tell the 160,000 people who have been forced to evacuate their lands that it's safe and so little harm is done.
You pro-nuke people are full of it. Get over yourself.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)No, I'm NOT gonna go all "Disney".
Instead, I will ask everyone to consider all the nukes that went off in the Southwest and then consider all of that strontium 90 going across the heartland's grain and dairy farms bonding with calcium coinciding with the TV and Saturday Morning Cartoons selling kids breakfast cereal. Captain Crunch, Lucky Charms, Sugar Pops and Fruit Loops with lots of milk. Is it any wonder that generation had a problem with breast cancer, bone cancer and leukaemia?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model was developed by NOAA to follow the transport and dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere. In HYSPLIT, the computation is composed of four components: transport by the mean wind, turbulent dispersion, scavenging and decay. A large number of pollutant particles, which by convention are called "particles" but are just computational "points" (particles or gases), are released at the source location and passively follow the wind.
The 2011 Tohuku East Japan earthquake and resulting tsunami caused a variety of failures at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant which resulted in radioactive emissions to the atmosphere. The earthquake occurred on March 11th at 14:26 Japan Standard Time (JST), the tsunami about one hour later at 15:41, and by 16:36 a nuclear emergency was reported. By the early morning hours of March 12th, radioactive emissions were occurring from the plant.
In this dataset, the simulation from NOAA's HYSPLIT model shows a continuous release of tracer particles from 12-31 March at a rate of 100 per hour representing the Cesium-137 emitted from Fukushima Daiichi. Each change in particle color represents a decrease in radioactivity by a factor of 10. Radioactivity decreases due to removal by rainfall and gravitational settling. Decay is not a factor for Cesium in this short duration simulation compared to its 30 year long-half life. The air concentration would be computed from the particle density so it is only partially related to the color scale. The released particles are followed through the end of April using meteorological data from the 1-degree resolution NOAA global analyses.
http://www.sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=332
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Your fearless battles against the pro-nuke types are some of my most rewarding reads. For all that you do for the Big DU, you have my sincere thanks.
chris 'chknltl' chick
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)There are now 5 in 10,000 births, in those states only.
And the incidence of Congenital Hypothyroidism has been rising anyway before Fukushima.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/pediatricgenetics/data.html
Such a fluctuation on a number so small in such a limited area could happen without any contamination, from Fukishima or anywhere else. Correlation is not causation.
I'm sorry to dismiss this as poor journalism, and a poor understanding by the reporter of science and statistics. I see it often on both sides of an issue. Never mind that it's on a site that's-- at least-- not yet known for its credibility.
I'd call this implausible overkill, since there's enough reason to stand against nuclear power, the industry that runs it, and the politicians who promote it, without bullshit like this. Especially when it creates the hysteria and suspicion seen in this thread.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Let me say that this isn't in any way an attack on you or the point about the significance of the article.
How many discussions have you read on the topic of climate change in the comments section of articles in the media?
Reread your post with those discussions in mind.
I take it you've read the thread - if you haven't, please do so.
The "hysteria and suspicion" seen in this thread is largely a pushback that isn't inspired by the original article, but by the coordinated campaign that smears and attempts to discredit any and all criticism of nuclear power. The objective of this coordinated campaign is only partially to discredit the authors of the original study. It is also to create an acrimonious atmosphere where those in the middle are inclined to dismiss valid evidence because they haven't the time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The journal article is a legitimate part of the scientific discussion. Pieces like that are produced all the time and serve to point the way to areas that are often overlooked but require greater investigation.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)when I used to fight on threads about Global Warming (saying that it's happening and it's likely to become the worst crisis in history), the critiques I faced were nothing like what I've written. They were full of invective, they were all out insulting. Moreover, when the deniers cited figures, they were incorrect, and when they described facts important details were wrong or missing.
For science, you don't go by how it sounds. That would be poetry, music and propaganda. Of course what I've written sounds like Global Warming deniers. One questioning of facts or figures or downright rejection of a proposition sounds pretty much like the other, except that has nothing to do with whether one is valid or not.
Now, I don't like nuclear power. One of the terrible things about nukes, though, is that they're very dangerous to run, and unsafe to shut down. Making plutonium should be declared a crime against humanity. The reason I addressed my post to the anti-nuke side is because we need to know the science and what it means. We need to know how to recognize phony statistics and facts, and in fact be able to track them down to see who's putting and who they're connected to.
And we need to know which facts or figures are most effective in making the argument.
The rate of CH is terrible if it keeps going up. The it gets indicative. A bad year or two
I saw enough of the thread to know I didn't want to see anymore. My flame-war days are over. The ones that I did see, some of the figures by the antinuke side were difficult to believe without extraordinary proof. The pro-nuke side doesn't have this problem, simply because they're telling you its okay, and that's not conducive to exaggeration.
No, the days of exaggerating the benefits of nuclear power are long over.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)What I'm trying to highlight is the presence in all public discussion venues of active propaganda efforts on behalf of the nuclear industry. They have an organized, well funded and well documented "outreach" that utilizes both industry employees and paid public relations firms to tamp down ANY negative news.
Part of that strategy is to create an atmosphere where the discussion of science cannot be carried out. The only hesitancy I had with your post was that you assigned the blame for this atmosphere to those who are concerned about nuclear power. My view is that part of the effort of the nuclear industry propagandists is to create that impression in order to paint any and all critics of nuclear as irrational.
Have you heard the term "strawman sockpuppet"?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
MzShellG
(1,047 posts)Though most people in my social circle have forgotten about this. And I bet its not just affecting newborns.