The Environmental Spectator
Let the People of Fukushima Go Home and Get Back to Work
The science does not support the panic.
The front-page story in the Washington Post on Sunday November 20 vividly portrayed the horrors of the evacuated zones around Fukushima with unforgettable imagery. A natural reaction is to call for more restrictive safety measures. But one point was not made clear: No one, not one single person, has received a life-altering injury from radiation since the disaster started unfolding last March. The atrocities described are caused by the application of international radiation standards that are set at levels far below where science shows adverse health effects occur, and by the fear of radiation that policy creates and nurtures. Once again, fear of radiation does more harm that the radiation itself.
The reality is that, while some people in the Fukushima housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, and putting the same on their children, other people are living carefree in places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than the forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.
The use of inappropriate radiation standards is not an abstract issue. People around Fukushima are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period — perhaps years. And efforts to decontaminate their home sites to these standards may include stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste. People who were evacuated have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.
There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening. The current restrictions are based on a misguided desire to be “prudent.” No matter how well intended, this “prudence” is cruelly destructive. Many radiation protectionists, such as Myron Pollycove, MD, former special assistant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Jerry Cuttler, former President of the Canadian Nuclear Society, and Abel Gonzales of Brazil, vice-chair of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, are beginning to feel unhappy about the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into winter.
In 2002, U.S. Regulatory Report NCRP-136 examined the question of establishing permissible radiation limits. After looking at the data, it concluded that most people who get a small dose of nuclear radiation are not harmed by it, and in fact are benefited. That’s what the science said: Most people would benefit by receiving more radiation, within the hormetic range. “Benefit” means the incidence of cancer and genetic damage would be less than it would be without the additional radiation.
But curiously, the report’s final conclusion was just the opposite. It recommended that our regulations should be based on the unsupported premise that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, should be considered harmful. It justified that recommendation as “conservative” or “prudent.” Let’s think about that. Why is it prudent do just the opposite of what the science indicates? Why is exaggerating a panicky situation considered prudent? I’ve never seen a good answer to that.
Last month, British radiation expert Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, addressed the people on Japanese television. He proposed that radiation limits be set the same way other such limits are set — not by seeing how little we can obtain, but what is the maximum we can tolerate, including a generous safety factor. The answer he gets is about 1,000 times the current “permissible limit.”
Who gave the radiation police the right to give their particular concern priority over all other considerations? That question is not limited to Japan. A proposed European Community directive dated 17 Oct 2011 notes that the doses of radiation being regulated are small compared to doses people receive in the normal course of living. Instead of reaching the common-sense conclusion that they should therefore stop trying to regulate harmless doses of radiation, they decided they have to regulate Nature! They want us to wage an endless war against our naturally radioactive planet, when there is good evidence that without radiation, Life withers and dies.
Few if any people decide where to live, or how to live, on the basis of radiation level. There is no reason that they should start doing so now. Let the good people of Fukushima return home and get on with their lives!
About the Author
Dr. Theodore Rockwell is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, editor of the 1956 handbook, The Reactor Shielding Design Manual, now available on the Department of Energy’s website, and the first recipient of the American Nuclear Society’s Lifetime Achievement Award, now called Rockwell Award.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The Environmental Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/06/let-the-people-of-fukushima-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 12.6.11 @ 6:53AM
Alar, DDT, Pthalalates(sp?), Radiation... the list goes on and on. Once again I have to ask, as I did yesterday on the subject of Global Warming, how can we continue to trust science when the practitioners resort to data manipulation an fraud, or make recommendations based not on data but politics? The backlash is gonna be fierce, especially because so much of what passes for science is done on the taxpayers' tab.
Al| 12.6.11 @ 7:30AM
Dr Rockwell,
the director of the Fukushima Daiichi plant is stepping down for health reasons "to undergo treatment" (news of last week). You are welcome to do your homework and find out why.
Please do your homwork.
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 7:44AM
Al,
Don't keep us in suspense, please. I can only imagine that he must have gallstones. If it's cancer, its onset must certainly have predated the tsunami.
Cromulent| 12.7.11 @ 10:17AM
You did read Dr Rockwell's short bio, didn't you?
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 7:42AM
Years ago, as a college student, I watched the local evening news (I grew out of that habit) and heard a woman, named and identified as a homemaker, lecturing the audience that irradiated foods (in this case, tomatoes) were radioactive and would kill you. She was wrong on so many levels.
Purpleguy| 12.6.11 @ 10:24AM
Irradiated food is not the same as irradiated humans. BTW - did you know why irradiated foods were irradiated? The tomato was already dead when irradiated. Not so the humans. Hmmm, do you see a difference?
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 10:52AM
Purpleguy,
If you actually read my post, I said "irradiated foods". I do know why the food was irradiated (shh! it was to kill bacteria and other living things in the tomatoe). So just whom did I suggest was irradiated?
Just, for the record, you do know that humans are purposely irradiated for the treatment of tumors, don't you? Do they glow? Will they kill you if you get too close?
And I'm sure you also know that you are constantly being irradiated by alpha particles from the sheetrock in your home. Better get that tin-foil hat back on.
Hmmm, was I as patronizing as you were?
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 11:07AM
What he is saying is that radiation doesn't harm, dead tissues, it does in fact kill living, dividing cells. You could leave a can of spam out in a 100 rad's per hour dose level for hours, no problem, wash the can off and eat it, do that with a person and well...
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 11:16AM
Kingofthenet,
Better to say: ...CAN kill living, dividing cells. It's the principal distinction being made in the article.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 11:34AM
Sure, but alot of people in NJ and Pennsylvania need to do real expensive remedial work, just to get rid of radon a 'natural' radioactive gas. It most likely is like cigarette smoking, some can smoke their whole lives like chimneys and never get cancer or whatnot, others will die. If the author and his family want to be a 'test subject' fine, but I am not sure that is a good way to find out.
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 12:59PM
Kingofthenet,
We, in the south, with our sealed houses to keep our expensive refrigerated air inside, are exposed to the same natural Radon gas. People are dropping dead, but it isn't from the Radon.
Alert1201| 12.6.11 @ 7:53AM
I remember reading an article a number of years ago about an apartment building in Tiawian that was built with steel that had been exposed to higher then average levels of radiation. They did not did discover the mistake until years later and began monitoring the prople in the complex. What they found was they were actually healther then people living in other buildings without the contaminated steel.
JimH| 12.6.11 @ 9:21AM
There is a theory that low levels of radiation are good for you. It is called hormesis. From the little I've seen this may be true.
c. j. acworth| 12.6.11 @ 1:11PM
Hormesis is actually referred to in Dr. Navratil's article, where he referes to regulatory Report NCRP-136 and the benefits of radiation within the "hormetic range". The effect is not just seen with radiation, but has been observed with just about every substance studied. The dose is what makes the poison.
chuck| 12.6.11 @ 1:16PM
There was an article, years ago in The AmSpec that addressed the statistic between cancer deaths and proximity to the nuclear blast in Hiroshima. There was actually a level of radiation received that statistically LOWERED the rate of cancer.
POST American| 12.6.11 @ 8:00AM
"Every nation, every brilliant engineering
mind, every major military in the world
should be rushing to that poor country
and working on this problem."
-----------AS we gaze up at the CHEM-trail
scarred skies, and consider the fallout
REALITY---------a whisper in our ears
-----------------------'DEPOP OP'-------------------------
Negro X| 12.6.11 @ 8:06AM
The article is misguided, the real estate around the powerplant has been coveted by TEPCO for years, they want to build a larger plant. The disaster is an opportunity to pick up the land at bargain basement prices. I worked there many years the health hazard is a facade. TEPCO is trying to avoid the pain that when along with building Narita airport because of farmers who refused to sell.
MikeBee| 12.6.11 @ 9:46AM
If radiation is so bad, then why is every U.S. citizen required to receive a dose of radiation from the airport scan, every time (s)he flies? The way I see it, low levels of radiation can help to fight tumors which develop early in humans, just to grow and kill them later.....
Purpleguy| 12.6.11 @ 10:29AM
Actually, you aren't "required" to be irradiated, unless you're foolish enough to submit to it. Most people seem to go along to avoid the pat down. I never go through those d* machines at the airport. Who knows what level of radiation you're getting? In any case, the amount of radiation from airport scanning is miniscule compared to a nuclear disaster, but it can add up for frequent fliers.
BTW - The land around Chernobyl is still not inhabitable almost 30 yrs later. Radiation IS bad, very bad. Especially for pregnant women, children and the egg and sperm cells of adult women and men. If you want a child born with an arm where his foot should be, go ahead irradiate yourself.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 11:10AM
You can say that again, although as a man I would PREFER a women doing the 'feel up'....to bad they never honor my request.
Purpleguy| 12.6.11 @ 10:35AM
This article is stupid, but worse it's dangerous. To try and counter decades of research and evidence of the effect of radiation, even in low amount exposures, to make a point, is not only dangerous it's downright irresponsible. There is a reason workers in nuclear facilities have their personal radiation counters checked daily for what exposure they may have had. There was a reason so many Japanese died months and years later from radiation poisoning after Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. There's a reason the workers at Chernobyl died within a few months or years after exposure to Chernobyl.
Irradiating a non-living plant, fruit, or rock is not the same as irradiating any living thing, whether a bug, a dog or a human.
This whole article is such trash, so easily refuted by doing just a little homework (and you can do your own, im NOT doing it for you) I can't believe AS doesn't fire this writer for irresponsible reporting.
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 11:03AM
Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye! Purpleguy has spoken!
dc| 12.6.11 @ 12:26PM
The only homework "purpleguy" and his Union of Concerned Scientists' accomplice today (kingofthenet) have done is to "research" Greenpeace's website. Of course, an actual physicist is a nuclear industry shill (though he has no reason to be, for a Japanese utility company), whereas these blatantly un-scientific ignorami have all the facts and knowledge, which we idiots should accept at face value.
Here's the deal: the commercial nuclear industry worldwide is, by far, the safest industrial enterprise every undertaken by the human species, even if you include the Soviet outlier of Chernobyl (and of course, the Purpleguys of the world would love us to all submit to the Soviet-style system that their heroes in this monkey president's administration are busy fashioning). Where as hundreds (maybe thousands) die every year in mineral extracting industries that deliver most of the world's power (which is fine with me, by the way), and tens (maybe hundreds) die in this country every year from accidents with household appliances, the death toll from the commercial nuclear industry in this country is exactly 1. One. Due to a hydrogen fluoride tank leak in a processing plant in the (I think) 70s or early 80s. In Fukushima, I remind you, the score is still: Ted Kennedy's car: 1 death, Fukushima (due to nuclear radiation): zero.
You can't even measure the radiation above background in most places where EPA has set the exposure standards. Leftist scientific illiterates are perfectly willing to take EPA's word for what is "safe," but apparently are scared of airport security. Odd--it's the same big government, jackasses. And you probably get more radiation on the flight itself than if you'd have been roasting marshmallows outside Fukushima.
If you want to go back to burning dung to heat your homes and try to live like a third world dirt-eater, feel free. Don't lie, obfuscate, and display your ignorance and then try to foist it on the rest of us.
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 1:11PM
dc,
I presume your last sentence was not intended for me, but rather for Purpleguy. I'll stick with my natural gas, forced air heating.
dc| 12.6.11 @ 1:51PM
John, correct...and I have nothing against natural gas. Plenty of it in the U.S., and plenty cheap. Also feedstock for chemical manufacturing. Carry on...
ItsAbouttheKids| 12.8.11 @ 1:52PM
dc - Sounds like you're a bit threatened by this subject. Unfortunately for us all, you are misguided. Survival instincts and common sense do not indicate leftist tendencies. This entire Fukushima debacle stinks of cover-ups and obfuscation of scientific data. You don't believe the Greenpeace data? www(dot)greenpeace(dot)org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/living-with-fukushima-citys-radiation-problem/blog/38305/
Then how about the California Department of Health's epidemiology study on health effects from Rocketdyne workers?
www(dot)cdph.ca(dot)gov/programs/ohsep/Documents/radiation(dot)pdf
How about Tim Mousseau, Chernobyl effects researcher from the University of South Carolina?http://www.bbc(dot)co(dot)uk/nature/14277053
How about the Tondel 1996 Swedish epidemiological research indicating a significant cancer increase associated with a linear increase in soils contamination with Cs137 from Chernobyl?www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(d0t)gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732641/pdf/v058p01011(dot)pdf
How about an on-the-ground Japanese blogger's compilation of Japanese government data showing "terribly high" contamination levels (keeping in mind the Japanese government's track record of deceit and understatement throughout this debacle:
onioni2(d0t)blogspot(dot)com/2011/05/summary-of-detected-radioactive(dot)html
How about the EPA's own website, including a link where you can order your very own copy of their current Blue Book, which indicates, "A large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data support the risk models. In general, results from these data are consistent with a linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in tissue irradiated by low doses of radiation is proportional to the dose received."
www(dot)epa(dot)gov/radiation/assessment/blue-book/index(d0t)html#copies
So dc, what's it going to take for you, and the other group-thinkers who take comfort in following their nuclear-industry bought & paid for political and business leaders, who keep telling the "all is well," to ensure the cash keeps flowing for one more day, while the world (including your family) is poisoned and we're all robbed to pay for it? The science PROVES that the nuclear industry (the whole deal: the mining, "routine" radioactive emissions, need to store poisonous spent fuel for thousands of years, not to mention the devastation caused by plant accidents) creates dangerous radioisotope pollution that will harm the health of all living beings. Spare us the cross-country flight comparisons, that is a conscious choice (kind of like the health care argument - you can choose not to participate, remember?), and the internal/external contamination health effects are not comparable.
I put solar panels on my home 7 years ago. It's saved us a fortune in e-bills, and I can sleep knowing I'm not complicit in this crime against humanity. You and everyone else who continue to buy electricity from utilities sourcing nuclear power, however, enable the dangerous, economically non-viable, scientifically unsound, polluting, publicly financed nuke industry to continue to operate at nearly 100% profit, since the public foots the construction, operating and catastrophic insurance bill. Look a little deeper my fellow Conservative. Follow the money. Nukes are not an example of free-market operations. Pretty much the opposite.
(Note: I deleted "http://" and substituted "dot" for all the "." in the links ... site would not allow multiple links.)
TrueBlue| 12.6.11 @ 3:04PM
The amount of radiation people recieve during cancer treatments is FAR FAR less than the radiation levels around Fukushima. Most of those people live, and the ones who don't are killed by the cancer, not the radiation. Denying the scientific EVIDENCE that certain levels of radiation at the least do not do any harm to a human (even if you want to ignore the truth that a little is good for you, like so many other things) is what is irresponsible.
In the cases of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl those were all massive nuclear explosions, not just leaks. The entire disaster is being used by anti-nuclear folks to kill the use of any nuclear facilities, thus crippling our supply of power. Many of those same idiots then turn around and scream about how evil coal and hydroelectric is because they hurt the environment without realizing how much of each of those items is used to provide power to their computers and iPhones. Bunch of environment whackjobs that refuse scientific EVIDENCE to believe reports put out with twisted evidence (man-made global warming) or opinion (the 2002 Regulatory Report).
Facts are nasty things, no matter how much you wish for it, they don't change.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 12:13PM
This type of 'take it to the people' type science advocacy by Dr. Theodore Rockwell is borderline irresponsible. I have no idea what a 'safe' radiation dose is, in the short term much less 24/7/365. The Govt. is supposed to be the ones doing this kind of work, and setting standards. If the Dr. believes the standard is too stringent than do some work on mice or whatever and produce your findings. Get it published and peer reviewed. Another problem with this is although the standard is for ALL Man-Made radiation, what it REALLY is limiting is not already occurred accidents, but the Nuclear Power Industry. While NO system is 'airtight' and radiation can/will escape from ALL plants in miniscule levels, any HIGH level is indicative of a leak or failure, allowing a 1000X dose at say the main gate of a plant, just allows a malfunctioning system to spew out far more radioactive material than what would be there if the allowable level is lower. While 'slightly' higher than background radiation level might be normal for a plant, 1000X currently allowed dose most certainly indicates a BIG problem.
dc| 12.6.11 @ 12:33PM
Idiot, the dose makes the poison. 1000 times a ridiculously low value is still ridiculously low. For example, in the mid-1990s EPA set a radiation exposure standard for Yucca Mountain, at (I'll be conservative) 15 mrem. Background radiation atop the same mountain was roughly 300mrem. So the standard was not even measurable...which was the whole point. In your and your eco-communist cohorts' view, no exposure is "safe," therefore, the industry must be shut down. And even you must know that experiments with mice aren't reliably transferable to human exposure. Much like nobody here has suggested irradiating humans (safe/harmless at some levels) is the same as irradiating food (safe/harmless at much higher and not comparable levels). Chernobyl--very high levels of "dirty" radiation, caused by a real (not imagined) meltdown--was a "BIG" problem. Fukushima was not, despite the fact that the latter was caused by a Biblical-level natural disaster, and the former by incompetent socialist tools--like you.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 1:41PM
That's BS ALL reactors produce the same 'dirt' and in case you aren't aware we had THREE Full meltdowns at Fukushima vs one at Chernobyl, granted the one at Chernobyl was far worse as the reactor basically exploded, but it's still the same stuff. As far as measurements EVERYTHING is Tare, you take the reading subtract background that is your allowable dose.The fact that background is 10X is meaningless, you don't want background times two but background times 1.10 or less
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 6:25PM
Kingofthenet,
You may wish to define "full meltdown". Nothing I have read has suggested that. While the steel container was breached, the concrete container was not. The fuel didn't reach the basements and certainly did not melt through to the surrounding earth.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 9:53PM
OK, it isn't the 'China Syndrome' (or is it USA Syndrome) if you catch my drift, but in the basement of the reactor buildings they have reading in excess of 1,000 rad's an hour at some points that is indicative of pretty bad loss of containment...Obviously
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 10:16PM
Kingofthenet,
Obviously, I would not wish to build my photo lab in the basement, nor would I wish to take a nap there. Back to irradiating SPAM... What is the problem?
Kingofthenet| 12.7.11 @ 12:10AM
Well we really don't know what the reading is in the basement, most meters only read to a MAX of 1,000 rad/hr than peg. For all practical purposes it doesn't matter 1K Rad's/hr is almost instantly lethal and is definitely in the 'drop meter and run for your life' territory.
ItsAbouttheKids| 12.8.11 @ 3:34PM
From Woods-Hole Oceanographic Study,
"137Cs continues to discharge to the oceans at least through the end of July at this site. With reports of highly contaminated cooling waters at the NPPs and complete melt through of at least one of the reactors, this is not surprising."
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es202816c
cicero| 12.6.11 @ 1:39PM
Shut down the coal industry because coal adds carbon to the atmosphere.
Shut down the nuclear industry because we are all going to die of radiation poisoning.
Shut down the oil industry because it adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
Shut down the natural gas industry because fracking for natural gas will pollute the ground water.
That leaves us with only the so-called renewables. But we can't possibly heat, cool, transport, manufacture, etc., with the renewables. Oh, well, we will just have to muddle along.
I would suggest that all of the Greens save the planet one Green at a time. They should getg rid of their cars; disconnect their furnaces and air conditioners, shut down their offices and turn off all of their electric lights and appliances. Once the rest of us see how wonderful they are, and how they are enhancing livability for all of us, I am sure that we will join them in their efforts.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 1:43PM
Well we BETTER figure out 'Renewables' because whether you like it or no 'Fossil-Fuels' are just that something that takes millions of years to form. I Don't know if we have reached 'Peak' Oil yet, but the other side of it isn't going to be pretty if we don't.
dc| 12.6.11 @ 1:58PM
You first, genius. Stop using all products made from fossil fuels. Do your part before advocating imposing your totalitarian green paradise on the rest of us. Now go outside and hand crank your windmill so you can keep posting your illiterate yammerings.
By the way, nuclear fuel can be (and in France--check your stats on how many deaths the nuclear industry has caused there in 50+ years) recycled, 95+% by volume. But I'm sure you "reduce reuse recycle" clowns can't abide that, right? Because it's sooooo dangerous. The U.S. wouldn't have to import one gram of uranium, either, if blindered hypocrites like you would allow mining domestically (Virginia, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah....) without strangling every potential permit in a blizzard of "citizen suits" funded by Maobama's EPA.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 2:26PM
Whoa, hold your horses, I didn't advocate ANY policy changes or say I was anti-nuclear . I have NO problem with the newest generation of Nuclear Power Reactors, not with the Tech at least. I do know that here in NJ, Oyster Creek Power Station is contaminating the land,water and killing fish by the millions.This has more to do with the Power Company trying to keep the OLDEST plant in the world running with jury rigging, rather than replace it with a modern safe plant.They even refuse to put in a cooling tower to save the fish, and would rather shut the plant down before spending the cash.
TrueBlue| 12.6.11 @ 3:09PM
Also thanks to an Executive Order made by Jimmy Carter the US is not allowed to make use of breeder reactors (the ones that reuse spent fuel rods). So sadly that option is not left to us, thus the vast amount of nuclear "waste" our plants produce.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 4:46PM
That most likely has something to do with the START Treaties, breeders produce ALOT of Weapons Grade Plutonium.
Foxfier | 12.8.11 @ 12:33AM
Two articles on it:
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....y-cant-oui
http://the-american-catholic.c.....ment-89997
Two main points: France does it for themselves /and other countries/ (other EU countries do it, too) is the first, and the second explains why it's not a weapons issue.
Rich D| 12.6.11 @ 2:48PM
You keep trying to outdo yourself with your speculations and assertions. Talk about borderline irresponsible!
TrueBlue| 12.6.11 @ 3:07PM
Best part is those same people don't recognize hydroelectric as renewable either. So that leaves wind and solar.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 4:47PM
Why not will the Rain stop?
Foxfier | 12.8.11 @ 12:34AM
Politics. They don't want to give the dams the same subsidies that they're giving wind and solar-- sort of understandable in a twisted way, seeing as it's so efficient that it'd send the programs broke.
Wes in ND| 12.6.11 @ 2:51PM
KOTN, what you describe as renewables are not, they are basically "re-occurables". They are parasitic technologies that will never, I repeat, NEVER be commercially viable to the point of replacing carbon based fuels. They are not fossil fuels and here's the reason why: it does not pass the absurd test. Just because some pointy head says, " hey, I think, because we have found fossils in some of this coal and tar beds, carbon fuels must come from dead dinos". No matter that there simply could not have been that much dead plant and animal matter to make the oil that we have already extracted and the oil that we know is there and have yet to extract- furthermore, where did all the overburden come from? Our wells are 10,000+ feet deep! Did you know that there are places all over the world and in our oceans where oild flows out of the ground on its own? For more than 60 years, the russians have explored the alternative theories on oil's origin and have taken that new theory and looked for oil where conventional western wisdom said none could possibly be (below bedrock) and wonders of wonders, they are now 2nd only to the saudis for known reserves. In a nutshell, the theory is this: hydrocarbon chains are formed under heat and pressure within the earth (remember algore telling us how hot the core is -sarc) and forced up into fissures and voids in the earth's crust, where it is deposited. I happen to work in the Bakken field in North Dakota, the one place in the country that has unemployment below 3.9%. The USGS estimates that there are 5billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken Basin while Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources- one of the largest private oil companies in the U.S.- says that based on his company's research, he believes that the number is more like 25BILLION BARRELS of recoverable oil. Hamm's estimates are closer to the truth. At our current rate of consumption, that's about 150 years worth for the U.S., just from that one field alone! (One barrel = 42 gallons) This does not even take into account the reserves in the other midwest states. Peak Oil coincides with the birth of the EPA and pushes the same old meme that oil comes from dinosaurs and carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
While wind and solar and trains have a place in the mix, they are hundred year old, passive technolgies that will never replace oil. Nuclear should be the premier source for electricity, with virtually no emmisions, and a smaller footprint and better safety record than most other industries. Sadly, the knownothings on the left want to take us back past horse and buggy days. When you are cold and hungry and living in a cave, curse an environmentalist and all leftists.
Kingofthenet| 12.6.11 @ 4:36PM
What are these Miracle Hydrocarbon chains?From WHAT do they come from?Most of the inner Earth is Rock and Metals, not much hydrocarbons there.Most of the oil is from long dead Plankton, and other microscopic ancient life, believe it or not but the Bio-mass of those creatures TODAY dwarf any other living creatures. So you think there is going to be a fresh supply in what a few hundred years?The world wide usage is currently a little less than 100 MILLION barrels a day,and it's only going to go up...by a lot going forward, that 5-25 billion doesn't look so big now does it?
John Navratil| 12.6.11 @ 6:16PM
Kingofthenet,
You may find this interesting.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/25/8537.abstract
Kingofthenet| 12.7.11 @ 12:35AM
BTW: you CAN see alot of these 'transitional' steps, for example for coal, 'Peat Bogs' are a precursor, but even them take 10,000 of years to form.
Kiwi| 12.6.11 @ 8:21PM
Dr Rockwell,
Some questions about the idea that the areas in Fukushima radiation are safe?
Readings in the areas in Fukushima have been from 1 microserviet in Fukushima City to in the 50-60 microserviets per hour in areas outside the 20km zone. What is your evaluation of the risks based on the readings?
You say that natural radiation in some areas are higher than Fukushima. Which areas? And what are the levels of each area?
Thank you.
aiban| 12.6.11 @ 11:34PM
Comparing natural background radiation, which is primarily caused by the noble gas Radon (that results in no biological concentration and has a short biological half-life ), to the over thirty unique isotopes known to have been released by Fukushima is dishonest and grossly irresponsible.
kintaman| 12.6.11 @ 11:44PM
Dr. Theodore Rockwell, please back up your claims by moving yourself and your entire family to Fukushima. I am sure you would have no problems with this if there is no impact to human health. If you protest they you need to step off your soapbox and give the nuclear industry back their money.
KTM| 12.7.11 @ 12:23AM
Radiation is variable. Alpha Beta and Gamma. It causes DNA to mutate. And it is clearly demonstrated with the case of Chernobyl to be damaging to human beings in both the short term and in the long term. The evidence is clear and cannot be disputed. Japan has sadly become a big experiment and the people are all guinea pigs for the government. It's extremely dishartening to read this author telling people to go back to Fukushima, when anyone who has done any research realizes that radiation isn't a good thing for living cells. Genetic mutations are already starting to occur in Japan's plants and animals. Like I started there are several forms of radiation and the type coming out of this nuclear disaster isn't the good kind. Just look up some information about plutonium and educate yourselves out there folks.
kintaman| 12.7.11 @ 12:44AM
Agreed. So as I proposed, why doesn't Dr. Rockwell pack his bags (and his family's) for Fukushima to settle down enjoy the beautiful scenery, eat the delicious produce and succulent fish. I am sure his health insurance will be more than happy to cover him.
If he will not go then he should simply not be proposing that others do.
tez| 12.7.11 @ 4:11AM
its just tiresome shooting these trolls down
the same old argument from the nuclear lobby -
you get x radiation from sleeping with your partner, flying to NY, brazil nuts, x-ray, cat scan and on and on...
soil in fukushima is about 30,000 beq/kg thats about 151 curie per sqr km - chenobil was 1.
wedding dresses | 12.7.11 @ 4:18AM
http://www.weddingdressesstore.com.au/
kintaman| 12.8.11 @ 3:21AM
Nuclear holocaust? Well that puts me in the mood for a wedding dress!
David| 12.7.11 @ 8:18AM
This is truly an article without any scientific basis or understanding of what is happening in Fukushima. If you, Dr. Rockwell, believe it is safe, please move yourself and family (including young grandchildren) to Fukushima and take up residence for an extended period of time. The government will happily give you a visa to show how "safe" Fukushima is! Eat the local vegetables, fish from the sea, etc., etc. Once you and your grandchildren have lived there without falling ill, perhaps the world will listen. Your act will speak much louder than these words. Like the old cliche, "put your money where your mouth is!"
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 11:38AM
David,
Does this pass for a logical argument: "If you think socialism is so good, move to China"? How about: "If you think government education is so good, why do you send your kids to private schools?" Or: "If you and your grandchildren can drive a car without killing yourself, perhaps the world will listen"?
So what, other than your assertion that the article was "without scientific basis or understanding" did you have to say?
Leon Kapp| 12.7.11 @ 11:19AM
The Japanese govt set the public exposure limit after Fukushima at 1 msievert/yr. Nuclear workers can get 250. The public limit seems unrealistically low and unreasonable. Hence as the article points out, many people cannot go home near Fukushima yet.
Tom| 12.7.11 @ 11:54AM
John Navratil. You sure seem to sure of yourself about the lack of danger from all radiation. Yet you seem to know absolutely nothing. Why don't you stop attacking people's concerns. Are you willing to go and live in Fukushima (with your kids if you have any)? There are plenty of jobs there teaching English right now. You should have no trouble getting a job. You can easily enroll your kids in the local school. They can play in the dirt next to the piles of radiated dirt that have been left in the schoolyards. Well?
If you are not willing to go there, shut up!
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 4:16PM
Tom,
Please educate me. What is the nothing I don't know? I never have said that radiation in not dangerous but, as has been observed elsewhere in this discussion, the dose makes the poison. Drink too much pure water - necessary for life - and you die. The purpose of discussion IS to challenge other ideas. You don't seem to like that - sorry. What I see is what I call the irrational fear of small numbers.
You might find this graphic interesting. It shows that radiation levels WITHIN THE PLANT peaked at 1,000 times the internationally established safety limit for nuclear workers and, within three weeks, dropping to 10 times the limit.
http://www.rchoetzlein.com/the.....shima7.jpg
You are, I'm sure, aware that almost all of the U.S. and Western Canada has received Cesium-137 fallout from this event. Yet, somehow, you remain willing to live here (perhaps you live elsewhere, I don't know). Are you concerned? Why, or why not? If I had any reason to live in Fukishima, I would. Of course, I have neither the need, nor inclination and the Japanese government, so far, will not let me or anyone else do so. This challenge you find so compelling as a scientific argument is moot.
If you want to be concerned, please be concerned. If you want to educate me as to why I should be concerned, please do so. If you are not willing to make a cogent argument, then I invite you to take the advice you gave me in your final statement.
kintaman| 12.7.11 @ 4:56PM
Well, you may not have any reason to live in Fukushima but would you be averse to me sending you fruit, veggies and meat grown in Fukushima? Would you be happy to eat it?
Please understand that there are far too many unknowns for anyone, scientific background or not, to make any final judgements as to the exact risk to human lives. Suffice to say though that what has transpired in Fukushima Japan is a science experiment that no human should want to be subjected to.
Cesium-137 is just one of many various types of radionuclide materials that have been ejected and scattered far and wide from the Fukushima Daiichi reactors. Others being: americium, cesium, iodine, tritium, plutonium, uranium, etc. You do NOT want any of these materials on or especially IN your body. The risks of living in this area are not limited to walking near contaminated areas and being temporarily exposed. The biggest risk is the internal contamination caused by inhalation and ingestion (consuming contaminated food and water). Once you are internally contaminated you are continuously irradiated as opposed to temporary external exposure which you can walk away from.
Such exposure over a period of time, depending on intensity and the body's ability to maintain itself, will damage the cells and DNA which will then cause cancer and then also affect any offspring.
The immensity of this disaster is beyond anything humanity has seen and the media has truly shown itself to be purely a corporate mouthpiece due to its lack of clear reporting on this disaster. Most people outside of Japan are not even aware of this ongoing tragedy. Heck, even in Japan many people are not aware of the dangers to themselves due to government propaganda and media censorship.
A time will come, however, in the near future when the consequences of Fukushima will be seen by all and it can no longer be hidden. This is not Chernobyl, this is way beyond and the impact will be immense. When this time comes those who played down the scale of this disaster and the possible impact will meet their destiny for the people will not be merciful. To all in the media: enjoy your time of deceit now for it will come to an end and the people will know who said what.
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 5:39PM
kintaman,
You are quite correct that these nucleotides are not to be ingested at some dangerous level. Cesium and Iodine are particularly susceptible to being metabolised. I believe I did note that elsewhere.
You are joking when you say that Fukishima is worse that Chernobyl. Even the repected scientific journal NPR has stated the opposite.
Two people died at Chernobyl. Twenty-eight succumbed to radiation poisoning in the following weeks. Thyroid cancers appeared post-Chernobyl because the population was not warned not to drink contaminated milk and a few thousand more were put at increased risk of cancer. Ten times as much radiation was emitted from Chernobyl as it had no containment. The carbon reactor core, itself burned. Downwind was lots of Russian land (Fukishima was upstream of the Pacific ocean).
However even the fallout which hit Europe and caused widespread fear for the food supply was, ultimately, not a serious problem. You do not see a Chernobyl cancer effect in Europe.
I would be most interested to see some support for your assertion: "This is not Chernobyl, this is way beyond and the impact will be immense." I'm no shill for the media but your allegations of a media coverup could use some supporting evidence.
kintaman| 12.7.11 @ 6:13PM
You speak as those Fukushima is over and that the long term health effects have already taken place. It has only just begun. You are aware, no doubt, that reactors #1, 2 and 3 have melted down and through with the core fuel now burrowing down through concrete. We can only imagine what the outcome of this will be - very large explosion or at the very least greater releases of radioactive materials than what we have already had (not fully reported of course). Also, if/once these many tons of melted fuel hit the water table it will be in the water supply far and wide within Japan.
The health impact for Fukushima will be much greater than it should have been due to the government's mis-steps - deceiving the public (Edano proclaiming "no IMMEDIATE impact to human health" over and over on TV) and the intentional sale of contaminated food to the public.
I have lived a great portion of my life in Japan but packed up and left shortly after this disaster began as I knew this is exactly what the government and TEPCO would do: deceive the public. We need not look to far back into history to see other examples of this - Minamata. My main concern at the early stage was the food contamination as I knew they would intentionally sell contaminated food and mislabel it. This type of thing happens very often in Japan - mislabelling of expiration dates and country of origin. In corporate Japan the almighty yen is more important than honor or human life. Sadly, the same holds true in most countries of the modern world.
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 6:35PM
kintaman,
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra
"It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you." - Woody Allen
The core temperatures in the reactors are reported below 100C. If true, there will be no burrowing through the basement into the ground water. The are no Cesium emissions being reported any longer.
You may believe this to be false and you may be correct. That isn't an argument. As you say, we will see.
KTM| 12.7.11 @ 9:29PM
12/4/2011 11:30AM, a sub-contractor worker found highly radioactive water was leaking from water purifying system. It was from the water conversion section.
The worker reported that 45 tons of contaminated water leaked but potentially 220 tons of polluted water had leaked out.
It contains 45,000 Bq/L of cesium, which is 300 times much as some kind of a “safety limit”, and it contains 1 million times much strontium as some kind of a “safety limit”.
As to Strontium, Tepco does not announce the actual amount contained in the water.
The water purifying system can not filter out strontium, which is water soluble.
The tank contains over 10,000 tons in total.
The leaked water flowed into a gutter which is connected to the sea at 500 meters away.
They could not do anything more than put sandbags.
The leaked water is more contaminated than the water that Tepco leaked in April on purpose.
The surface emits 110 mSv/h of beta radiation, mostly from Strontium etc., and 1.8 mSv/h of gamma radiation, mostly from Cesium.
Too much normalcy bias. Go watch TV and forget about it. I'm sorry but all the sensors measuring temperatures in the reactors have magically broken so we have no idea what the temps actually are. And it is far too dangerous for human beings to go anywhere near them to fix them or check and see what is actually going on with the melted down reactors. If it is so dangerous what does that really tell you? Do you realize that 150 Trillion Bqls of Strontium which they are not filtering out of the water used to cool the reactors just leaked out of the plant into the ocean this past weekend. You can't argue with numbers. The levels of radiation are simply accumulating and growing larger and you think the people of Fukushima should just go back home and live there? We should all be concerned about the increased amount of radiation that is not just there but is spreading across on the entire earth. I guess you're not the sharpest tool in the shed there John.
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 11:10PM
KTM,
Perhaps you could cite a more credible source than a YouTube video.
I'm sharp enough for that.
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 11:11PM
KTM,
At least credit the comments from which you shamelessly copied.
kintaman| 12.7.11 @ 11:15PM
Hey, we all hope for the best but I am only expecting the worst. Regarding the core temperatures of the reactors, the reason they are below 100C is because the fuel is no longer there...it is well below the reactors as it has melted through already. So for TEPCO (lying monsters that they are) to be claiming this as some kind of improvement is yet another deception to the public.
Regarding my choice of leaving Japan. I made up my mind rather quickly about leaving but to this day still feel conflicted. My rationale for the decision I mad was simple:
Option #1 - Stay in Japan.
Best case scenario - situation improves at Fukushima Daiichi, contaminated food is fully quarantined and no major health impact to populace. We made a risky choice but it worked out in the end and we are able to have a semblance of our previous life in Japan with a future for our children.
Worst case scenario - situation devolves resulting in medium to major health impact to populace of Japan (by means of fallout and food contamination). Future is bleak and health is a major concern at best. If we stayed in Japan and the worst case scenario occurs there is no option. Checkmate. This is the scenario I dread most as I could not accept it nor bear the responsibility for having made the choice (even if it was made with my family).
Option #2 - Leave Japan.
Best case scenario - situation improves at Fukushima Daiichi, contaminated food is fully quarantined and no major health impact to populace. I unnecessarily left Japan at great financial expense with some frayed relations to my in-laws and great remorse for leaving but we are able to live a healthy life and a semblance of our previous life. We can still come back to Japan in the future if we want.
Worst case scenario - situation devolves resulting in medium to major health impact to populace of Japan (by means of fallout and food contamination). Relieved we left but with great sorrow for those directly affected. Still very strong feelings of remorse and guilt for having left but will do our best to live our lives as best we can.
The above was essentially what I boiled my options and their possible outcomes to. When I was able to visualize this it made the difficult choice simple to see yet still difficult to carry out.
I, of course, wish for the best case scenario for all but I am not very optimistic given the secrecy and lies of the Japanese government and TEPCO. I remain hopeful however, very hopeful. All the best to you and the rest of us.
John Navratil| 12.7.11 @ 11:36PM
kintaman,
We all have to make our own choices. All the best to you to, as well.
Tom| 12.7.11 @ 8:26PM
John. You seem to be buying into the lies that very few people died from the Chernobyl accident.
The Russians have done over 5000 studies and found that close to a million have died. And your reference to the manager at Fukushima, he could have any number of illnesses from the radiation, not only cancer. Heart attacks were one of the most common illnesses after Chernobyl.
I had lived in Fukushima for 13 years until the accident.I have seen and met many people who had nose bleeds and kids whose urine samples tested high for radiation. The cancer may take some time to come, but they will most likely come.
Many people I know in Fukushima would like to relocate but cannot afford to do so. That is why I get angry when idiots like Rockwell and Allison make irresponsible comments like the ones above. Many people do not want to return and many others want to leave. These arguments do not help their cause. Would you be happy if you wanted to leave a potentially life-threatening situation and could not? From what I have heard, quite a few workers have already died at the Fukushima reactors it is just not being put in the press. My sister in law works at a big hospital here in Canada. She saw lots of kids from the Chernobyl area that were brought to Canada for treatment (mostly leukemia). And that is just one hospital. So your numbers (above) are so far off it is shocking. So do you not think it is best to err on the side of caution? Would it not be a decent and human thing to do to let people who want to evacuate, do so? The fears are not irrational as you so condescendingly put, they are real and justified. Many of the people in the place I lived are buying cancer insurance because they are unable to leave and they know only too well what happened after Chernobyl. And for the record, you seem to be the one who cannot accept other opinions, not me. All you do is attack other people.
John Navratil| 12.8.11 @ 8:40AM
Tom,
I have attacked no one. Period. I attack their ideas. I'll attack your ideas. I'll quote you on me: "You seem to be buying into the lies...", and you on others "That is why I get angry when IDIOTS like Rockwell and Allison...' What are those comments supposed to mean? Then you say all I do is attack other people and that I am the one who cannot accept other opinions. Please! I'm not doubting your sincerity, but I am questioning your arguments. Even your arguments about my arguments.
I'll say to you what I've said to 'kintaman'. You may be right, but all I hear from either of you is reports that I've not seen elsewhere. The Russians have done 5,000 studies... People in Fukishima have bloody noses and high radiation levels in urine... What I've heard is... My sister works in a hospital in Canada and... Your (meaning my) numbers are so far off it is shocking.
If there are 5000 Russian studies would it be too much trouble to point me to one? Are bloody noses more likely under the circumstances to be a result of stress rather than radiation exposure? What is a high level of radiation in urine and to what is it compared? What source to you have to support the allegation that workers at Fukishima have died but it is being withheld from the press? If you know, why doesn't everyone? I wouldn't be a bit surprised that cancer sufferers would likely come from Chernobyl. What numbers would you like to present in your case that mine are so wrong?
As I said, you may be right but you ask me to take your word for it. I'm more skeptical than that.
Marc Jeric| 12.7.11 @ 8:30PM
Anybody remember the Delaney Amendment? It dictated that anything fed to rats in whatever quantities that results in cancer must be forbidden. So they fed huge quantities of distilled water to rats - and the rats developed cancer in their pissing tract. There is nothing as dangerous as a stupid Congressman. The same happened with radiation - ant amount id deadly, said our congress. Zero radiation = death; radiation between 200-3000 millirem is necessary for life.
Tom| 12.7.11 @ 8:50PM
Here is a report by the ECRR that will interest soeme of you. http://www.llrc.org/health/sub.....nopsis.htm
So, no. There is nothing to worry about.
John Navratil| 12.8.11 @ 8:43AM
Tom,
Were we or were we not discussing Fukishima? Chernobyl was a different beast as I mentioned to 'kintaman' in my post of 12.7.11 @ 5:39PM.
POST American| 12.8.11 @ 3:42AM
----------------------FINAL WORD--------------------------
"understand folks, form all the big NATO
and NGO think tanks, the forecast is calling
for ---THIRTY YEARS--- of MASSIVE rioting
all across the West. Now, just what exactly
would be making people everywhere do
that? ----think about it. ---WHAT?"
Well, how about being , one day soon,
being blandly informed the ENTIRE population has
been stealth sterilized from decades long,
full spectrum assault on fertility via GMO food, water,
air, weaponized injections ----AND RADIATION.
"Ain't nothin' fries n' destroys DNA like
radiation."
-ALEX JONES
NOT ONLY that, but the fact that the power
grid, along with ALLLLL the sports, n porn
and wampum that goes with it ---is SHUT DOWN.
--------SO ---keep followin' those USURERS
-------------------------those TECK-KNOW--crats
-----------------------Globalists n' EUGENISTS
---------------------KEEP A GOIN'-----------------------
-----------Rectum worship n' 'A--bore--shun'--------
------------------JUST KEEP A GOIN'-------------------
Al| 12.8.11 @ 6:56AM
Congratulations to the rockwell scientist for having reached pinnacles of stupidity which have made him a celebrity in Japan LOL:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
DO YOUR HOMEWORK. And you editors of the Spectators, such a faux pas from you. In the Fukushima crisis we need rigourous arguments, unforgiving logic, evidence..and you are publishing such empty pub talk.
Best regards from Japan.
Dave| 12.8.11 @ 11:20AM
One of the most irresponsible articles I have read in a long time. No research and no clue. John the Apologist just keeps defending the indefensible article and either likes hearing himself talk the opposing side or really believes what he is saying. The problem with that is there is a country that is being destroyed by this, an ocean that is being polluted and the world wide effects will be with us all for a long time. This is the largest industrial accident in history with effects far beyond Chernobyl. All this is know but not reviewed by Rockwell and John or they just chose to ignore. And shame on the American Spectator for letting this be published. The magazine is much better than this example.
Tom| 12.8.11 @ 4:10PM
John. I think it is obvious that Chernobyl is a reference point upon which safety measures for Fukushima should be based. I have no idea what you are talking about. I just gave you several concrete examples. I was in Fukushima. That is how I know. Deaths are being covered up. There have been close to a million deaths from Chernobyl. Not 28 or some other absurd number as you said. If you are so skeptical, you should not trust the Japanese government or the nuclear industry. All they care about is the bottom line in terms of dollars. You are saying that it is safe to go and live in Fukushima. I know that it is not. I lived there. I had a Geiger counter in my house, in my garden and in many other areas around my city. The stats from Chernobyl proves that this amount of radiation can kill. Clear enough for you?
Jerry| 12.8.11 @ 4:32PM
If there is nothing to fear, what about the tenfold increase in northeastern Japan in acute leukemia? What about the birth defects that are starting to appear, now that we are past day 270 of the disaster? It's been my experience that nuclear engineers don't know squat about nuclear medicine. It's not irradiation, it's ingestion of the radioactive particles that makes it so dangerous.
JT| 12.9.11 @ 5:00PM
Hey guy, Tepco already admitted 3 meltdowns. Fuel mass(es) have left the building.
You're a liar.
JT| 12.9.11 @ 5:04PM
By the way, its coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Not just the ongoing Fukushima fallout, which is orginating not from 20 pounds in a nuclear warhead, but from thousands of tons in a 6 reactor complex: the reactors in your locale stand a certainty of melting down from a coming solar flare, sooner or later. Your progeny will not be able to live in the world after that, for very long at least.
Rex Chapman| 12.9.11 @ 11:40PM
I cant think of anything that is as irresponsible or stupid that I have read as this article. To argue that background radiation is the same as a nuclear disaster as massive and wide spread as Fukushima is insane. If it so safe then Mr. Rockwell should move there himself and eat the produce and breath the air and write his articles about how radiation is great for his health. Never mind the noose bleeds, the diarrhea, the bruises the respiratory problems, nor the sore joints and darken eyes, and the leukemia; just keep repeating radiation is good for me. You must being getting a kick back from the nuclear industry, as its hard to imagine being this horrible of a shill for free. Shame on you and the American Spectator, how irresponsible!