Russia Unveils Detailed Plans To Build 21 New Nuclear Power Units By 2030

[PamW]

105. Reference to facts not in evidence...

intaglio states
How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer because of Fukushima? 10 years? 50 years?

This is one of the questions that is like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The "question" also makes an ASSUMPTION of "fact" ( "wife beating" above ) that may NOT be true.

If intaglio had read Professor Muller's article:

The Panic Over Fukushima

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332

he could have asked the question, "How long will there be a raised incidence of cancer in Denver, Colorado?"

Intaglio makes an UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION that there is an increased cancer rate in Fukushima.

As per Professor Muller's article; the radiation levels in Denver, Colorado are THREE TIMES that of Fukushima, and we don't see increased cancer rates in Denver, and as Professor Muller points out, the actual measured cancer rates in Denver are BELOW the national average.

Too many people are uneducated in the fact that radiation exposure doesn't automatically equate to higher cancers. The human body, and other organisms on this planet have radiation damage repair mechanisms. We had to evolve them just as we had to evolve an immunity system. The environment is not "germ-free"; there are many common pathogens in the environment that have the potential to do great damage. Ever see the ravages that AIDS takes on one of it victims? But the AIDS virus itself doesn't do that. The AIDS virus destroys the immune system. The pathogens that actually ravage and kill the AIDS victim are the every day pathogens that we all have around us. So the only way for us to live on this planet was to evolve an immune system that combats those pathogens.

Likewise with radiation. The bulk of the radiation you get is NOT from nuclear power, or nuclear weapons tests, or medical X-rays...or any of the other man-made radiation sources. The bulk of your radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature. So you have a radiation damage repair mechanism; and recently scientists have found that mechanism even more effective that originally believed:

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/

“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”

So Bissel and her colleagues have DISPROVEN the old LNT ( Linear No Threshold ) theory which was only a hypothesis, an assumption; from the beginning. So radiation exposure does NOT automatically mean increased cancer.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW