Almost anyone who has spent any time on the internet in blogs or chat rooms has run into this famous cartoon from XKCD:
Well now, the cartoonist has taken on a new subject – showing how wrong some the MSM radiation claims have been by trying to show the radiation issue as a matter of scale. This may help some people overcome their worst fears of radiation by helping them understand how much a part of normal everyday life it is.
Source: http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The story behind the chart here: http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
h/t to Ric Werme
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And – 350 mSv/lifetime – “Criterion for relocating people after Chernobyl accident”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435
“Lifetime doses from natural radiation range up to several thousand millisievert” in Ramsar Iran.
I hereby nominate Anthony for the Nobel Piece Prize. After all, he has done more for the education of the masses by exposing the fraud, deceit involved in any and all things to do with the earths atmospheric weather and how it effects everyday life then anyone one else. Anthony Watts has given the world the information it needs to justifiably end any and all investments into climate change, thus opening up the ability of the world to promote peace instead of strife.
One can only imagine the death toll that could have been reduced if America and other 1st world countries could have prevented if we did not make the Islamic nations of the Middle East so rich and powerful in their influence because of our incessant desire to by their oil instead of producing it ourselves. (long sentence I know, but I do get winded at times)
So that being said, I am right now in the process of working on a few letters that I will send to persons who qualify to ask them to officially nominate Anthony Watts for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. I think I will also attempt to get him nominated for the prize in Economics, Physics and Chemistry also. He really does qualify for all because when you consider the wide range of positive effects from his work in all four of those fields he you realize he is more qualified then the the vast majority of those who get nominated every year. I am sure everyone here remembers Al Gore winning one, so with that I rest my case.
One more thing, I first met Anthony when he used to come into the Pizza Hut I managed. He would purchase the personal pan pizza and a one trip salad bar for lunch back in the very early “90”s. Anthony was one of the most polite and quiet individuals who ever frequented my pizza parlor. Just thought I would share that with everyone. I still live in Chico, but I got out of the restaurant bushiness years ago.
REPLY: Thanks, I miss Pizza Hut. I don’t need prizes, but thanks for the thought – Anthony
Here is a repost from the previous bananas thread…
OK, “low dose” radiation, dangerous or not, what does the experimental published scientific literature tell us? Read on… (skip the bio bits and just read the summaries if ncessary)
(1) Int J Radiat Biol. 2011 Feb;87(2):202-12. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
Anti-neoplastic and immunostimulatory effects of low-dose X-ray fractions in mice.
Nowosielska EM, Cheda A, Wrembel-Wargocka J, Janiak MK.
PURPOSE: The exploration of immune mechanisms of the tumour-inhibitory effect of exposures to low-level fractions of X-rays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: BALB/c mice were exposed to whole-body daily irradiations with 0.01, 0.02, or 0.1 Gy X-rays per day for 5 days/week for two weeks. Then, mice were intravenously injected with L1 tumour cells, killed 14 days later, and neoplastic colonies were counted in the lungs. Natural killer (NK) cell-enriched splenocytes and activated peritoneal macrophages (Mϕ) were collected and cytotoxic activities of these cells against susceptible tumour targets were assayed. Concanamycin A (CMA) and antibody against the ligand for the Fas receptor (FasL) were used to inhibit the NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Production of nitric oxide (NO) was quantified using the Griess reagent. Secretion of interferon-γ (IFN-γ), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-12 (IL-12), and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) was measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.
RESULTS: All the exposures to X-rays significantly reduced the number of the induced tumour colonies and enhanced cytotoxic properties of the NK cell-enriched splenocytes and activated Mϕ.
CONCLUSION: Suppression of the growth of pulmonary tumour colonies by irradiations of mice with low-dose fractions of X-rays may result from stimulation of anti-tumour reactions mediated by NK cells and/or cytotoxic macrophages.
kinda speaks for itself to those intelligent and / or honest enough to listen. Note that low dose here means up to 100 mGy/mSv or 100,000 uGy/uSv
(2) Cheda A, Wrembel-Wargocka J, Lisiak E, Nowosielska EM, Marciniak M, Janiak MK (2004) Single low doses of X rays inhibit the development of experimental tumor metastases and trigger the activities of NK cells in mice. Radiat Res. 161(3): 335-40.
Here by “low” they mean 100 – 200 mGy (or for low LET photon ratiation, quality factor = 1, the same as 100-200 mSv) – this is MASSIVELY higher than anything being measured around Fukushima.
(3) Kojima S, Nakayama K, Ishida H (2004) Low dose gamma-rays activate immune functions via induction of glutathione and delay tumor growth. J Radiat Res (Tokyo). 2004 Mar;45(1):33-9. Department of Radiation Biosciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Chiba, Japan. kjma@rs.noda.tus.ac.jp
(4) Li W, Wang G, Cui J, Xue L, Cai L (2004) Low-dose radiation (LDR) induces hematopoietic hormesis: LDR-induced mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells into peripheral blood circulation. Exp Hematol. 32(11):1088-96.
Hormesis means a health-positive effect of radiation such as tumour supppression. The aim of this study was to investigate the stimulating effect of low-dose radiation (LDR) on bone marrow hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) proliferation and peripheral blood mobilization. Mice were exposed to 25- to 100-mGy x-rays. 75-mGy x-rays induced a maximal stimulation for bone marrow HPC proliferation. Marrow from pre-irradiated mice showed improved proliferation of HPCs when transplanted into mice with marrow ablated by high dose radiation. The authors suggest possible clinical application for marrow transplantation.
Short summary – transplanted bone marrow grows better in the recipient after being pre-irradiated in the donor. Again – think about it, IF YOU DARE.
The picture is the following:
(a) mammalian (that includes us) immune systems are constantly busy destroying pre-cancerous cells
(b) radiation exposure gives a chemical (e.g. free radical) insult which STIMULATES the immune systen to higher activity
(c) this stimulted activity results in increased effectiveness in removing cancer cells – LESS cancer, not more.
(d) This finding is highly repeatable – check for yourself at PubMed central (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)
(e) where radiation exposure becomes unambiguously dangerous is at higher levels (several hundred mGy) where tissue damage, critically blood capillary damage, occurs. This is much higher than the level needed to cause gene expression and cellular responses.
Yes, whenever something is complex, the MSM doesn’t explain it well. I suppose there are multiple reasons for this. Firstly, to explain something well, you have to understand it well, and that is not always easy. Secondly, the MSM writes as though their audience is 12 years old. Thirdly, the MSM loves controversy, and if you explain things well, there usually isn’t any controversy.
But then again, some award winning blog sites also let people post misleading articles….
TrueNorthist says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:47 am
You really ought to change browser. I use Firefox with the AdBlock Plus add-on and I have not seen a single advertisement on any web site for several years now. I highly recommend it!
A couple of comments. First, Bill DiPuccio (March 20, 2011 at 6:20 am) says:
I don’t think that this can be stressed enough. Many Japanese seem to wear surgical masks on a regular basis, but what the Japanese government should be doing (or should have done) is recommending that anyone that can be exposed to fallout wear proper respirators 24/7.
Second, fallout is not uniform. It is splotchy. Maps or reports of average radioactivity tend to miss this risk. So, although the fallout on average may be quite low, there will probably still be specific places where the levels will be so high that there can be serious harm to health. Until the radioactive emissions from Fukushima dai-ichi stop, it would be prudent to act as if the emissions were much higher than reported. Once the emissions stop and the situation due to the tsunami stabilizes, the government needs to do a thorough scan of the fallout region to identify (and, if possible, decontaminate) such pockets of dangerous radiation. After Chernobyl, there were many such places in Great Britain, where radiation levels were very high and farming or grazing was severely restricted. Some of those restricted areas still exist and it has been about 25 years. In fact, the fallout was so splotchy that one pasture might have virtually no contamination, while a neighboring pasture was not to be used.
The MSM have failed terribly. All they have provided is hype, with no suggestion of what practical steps could be taken by people potentially exposed to the radiation from Fukushima (and yes I believe it will be shown to be greater than TMI, which was very low), such as mandatory use of respirators.
However, any reasonable danger of exposure to date is probably confined to regions within the general vicinity of the affected power plants. Any suggestion that the radioactive fallout could reach the US or other countries is greatly exaggerated.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html
Ernest Sternglass studied low-level fallout extensively. His research is available online as a free book from ratical.org. He documents changes in New York public health records, falsifying essential information in order to defend the US bomb industry. He revealed that thousands of children died prematurely from TMI (Three Mile Island) and that this was not the worst US disaster. In the article above, Sternglass describes how they successfully covered up a worse one.
The nuclear industry itself is not told the truth about these things. They think 31 people died from Chernobyl, not thousands, which was the case. This is defense of their industry, but it causes flippancy such as storing the spent fuel rods on the roofs of the Fukushima reactors. They blew off in some cases, from the tsunami and explosions, and probably fell at sea not far from Japan. Long-lived radionuclides from them will probably contaminate Japan’s Eastern beaches for years.
Consequences will not include outright radiation sickness, but an increase in child mortality and cancer.
One medical fact I have seen in only one place–films of the Soviet scientist-heroes who cleaned up after Chernobyl. They died. They died of HEART failure. There has been extensive radionuclide contamination of the USA, and it is undoubtedly part of our high heart disease rates. Antioxidants probably have a protective effect. The general subject of low-level fallout and heart disease needs to be studied.
The press is wildly off-base on all nuclear disasters. They are off-base on almost everything, which is why I search for information online. WUWT is one of the finest sources of reliable information I know of.
Keith says:Many in the media quickly changed the headlines on Fukushima from crisis to catastrophe with comparisons to Chernobyl and TMI. Much of the media reporting has focused on Fukushima at the expense of reporting on the tsunami related 20,000 dead and missing, 340,000 homeless, and millions without heat, electricity, or running water.
CNN is the worst offender. The consistent image from their hysterical “news” was that of a cloud of radioactive material reaching North America within hours; the whole focus of the story dramatically shifted over the course of a few hours.
C.M. Carmichael says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:04 am
Going by this official source of information, there were were no deaths at 3-Mile Island.
As to ” How many people have died in the oil and gas fields in threee decades?” Here is some information on that.
Does anyone really believe anything that the MSM prints/reports any longer? Their business is drama generation and nothing more. They spin and over-react more than politicans and lawyers.
MSM credibility = 0
I took your banana post, and thought about how much the world is in a panic over the low doses to date (thank goodness, knock on wood) and decided that an entire blog should be posted on the hype and hysteria generated by much of the news today…
First post: http://herbegerenews.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/sunday-20-march-2011/
World News: In shocking news today the general public discover radiation can be deadly if exposed to in high amounts and much of our food supply is already highly radioactive.
B
Although I can view the chart at full resolution (1134×1333 pixels) on screen in MS Explorer, I can’t get the whole to print out at full resolution — all I get is one sheet containing only the upper 1/4 of the chart. Is there a trick to printing it?
Munroe’s source Ellen would be Ellen McManis at Reed Research Reactor:
http://reactor.reed.edu/staff.html .
Her B&W chart at http://people.reed.edu/~emcmanis/radiation.html is also useful.
I’ll be willing to bet that very few MSM reporters have ever heard of superoxide dismutase. Most of those living in areas with high levels of background radiation also show higher levels of SOM. I don’t have any information on flight crews, but my suspicion is that they also have elevated levels of SOM.
Phil says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:07 am
Why does that need to be stressed? I was in Tokyo in 1961, and the first thing that struck me was the large number of people wearing surgical masks that I saw. The explanation I received for that was that people wore those masks to protect themselves against possible allergies, virus infections and the possible harm done by breathing polluted polluted air. On the other hand, I saw that none of the people who were not wearing those masks were gasping for air. Most people, by far, were not wearing those masks.
I don’t know of any studies that ever compared the health status of people with masks vs. that of people without masks. However, I do know that dust masks do provide effective protection against me acquiring a serious allergic reaction when shovelling barley in my granaries during harvest time. Wheat and oats do not cause symptoms that are as severe, but I always wore a dustmask as well when shovelling those. I mostly wore a dust mask when shovelling BS, but only when it was dry and dusty. Be assured that not once did I wear a dustmask because I was scared about anything I breathed being radioactive.
You also stated that, “…fallout is not uniform…” that “there will probably still be specific places where the levels will be so high that there can be serious harm to health.”
Do you have sources of credible information on which that dire warning is based? I have not read anything yet from any such source that indicates that any of us are endangered at the level of risk the fear of which seems to have you firmly in its grip.
You further stated that,
Any back-up information you have for that would be much appreciated. Without a credible source, that statement of yours constitutes unsubstantiated alarmism.
I suggest that you begin by reading this:
It is worth noting that nearly 30 years ago, a paper by Luckey(Physiological Benefits from low levels of ionizing radiation- Health Physics Vol 43 No. 6 pp771-789, 1982) cited nearly nine pages of references to data (about 200 individual papers) indicating some degree of radiation hormesis. In a note at the end of the paper Luckey refers to correspondence with Dr H.F. Henry who, in the early 1960s, had presented the concept that low levels of radiation may be beneficial. (J. American Medical Soc, 176 671-675, 1961)
So far as I am aware, this work was never properly followed up, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
On the subject of the dangers of radiation, a recent book by Prof. Wade Allison,
(http://www.radiationandreason.com) argues that on the basis of extensive data from modern radiotherapy, the threshold of danger is about a thousand times higher than current regulations suppose.
@Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta:
“You really ought to change browser. I use Firefox with the AdBlock Plus add-on and I have not seen a single advertisement on any web site for several years now. I highly recommend it!”
Great idea! Just tried Adblocker Plus on my Firefox browser, found a version also for Chrome, and ads have vanished on both browsers. Thanks for the tip.
Lady Life Grows says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:19 am
>>The nuclear industry itself is not told the truth about these things. They think 31 >>people died from Chernobyl, not thousands, which was the case
Industrial accidents happen all the time. All things have risks. Some of those risks need to be mitigated for. I.E. If a dam breaks, one evacuates people down stream to limit loss of life. It took 36 hours for the Soviets to decide to evacuate a 10km radius, then 5 days to decide to decide to evacuate a 30 km radius. Then to top it all off, they didn’t do any testing on the local agricultural products.
Just when you think Greenpeace can’t sink any lower, I heard one of their shills tell a MSM bobblehead that the only safe place for a nuclear reactor is on the moon. Completely ignoring of course the thousands of people killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and the hundreds of thousands more who have had their lives wrecked. It’s all RADIATION. Riiiiight….
“Radiation schmadiation! The scar on my lip from the removal of a cancer was NOT caused by nuclear energy radiation. It was caused by the Sun. ”
Uh, Pamela…the Sun is nothing but nuclear energy radiation. It’s basically a continuous fusion explosion confined by its own gravity.
Still, it does put into context that our entire environment is bathed in “radiation”…just a large variety of doses, types, and outcomes. The lip cancer was likely caused by UV rays, true, but it could have easily been an energetic cosmic ray that knocked out a critical chunk of DNA in a couple of cells, too. We can manage radiation risk, but it’s pretty hard to eliminate it.
TomTurner in SF says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:20 am
Ann Coulter
I heard her on radio on Friday. Her case for safe radiation was poor. Her ‘study’ of an apartment building wasn’t thorough. There could have been other factors involved, like nutrition, the neighborhood, and other apartment buildings, that were not mentioned. Maybe she was not aware she was supposed to include those factors, as she said herself, she is not a scientist. Her argument using Chernobyl was poorer. She said the animals in the area of Chernobyl had only small mutations and shiny coats. It’s odd that someone like Ann Coulter, who has a very high IQ, 168, would use small mutations and shiny coats in animals around Chernobyl to make a case for radiation being safe, or, safer than people think. How in the world did she think that would sound good??
But hey, that’s just me. Someone will probably tell me there were only small issues in the animals, not big, and shiny coats are a sign they animals are actually healthier. To each their own.
And this thing about 50 people a day going down into a uranium shaft for ‘health benefits’—there’s billions of people a day not doing it.
Alchemy…duh
Michael Crichton on Chernobyl. He doesn’t say that the radiation was not bad, but that the stories about Chernobyl were exaggerated:
Other interesting statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health
This is a useful guide (eaoe) to help people not panic at each click of a geiger counter.
Since there seems to be some radiation expertise available maybe someone could help explain a detail I’m having trouble understanding.
the above chart shows this gives an annual auto-irradiation of about 390 uSv. So lets check some numbers.
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/284/2/E416.full
Potassium in the (fat-free) body :
TBK/FFM =68mmol K /kg = 2.65 g K/kg (0.068 x 39)
total K in body per kg body weight = 2.65g
ratio of K-40 in nature 0.012% of total K.
radioactivity of K-40 = 264 Bq /mg
http://www.sialme.com/getattachment/Conference—Workshops/Conference/Mabrouk-Allagi_K-40-in-dates-and-honey.pdf.aspx
max beta energy of K-40 decay = 1.3 MeV. (Typical decay is less, this is max)
[I’ve simplified a bit, there’s some (11% ) 1.5Mev gamma and not all the betas will have the max energy, so I’m counting on the large side.]
1 Mev = 1.6 e-13 J
seconds in one year 31.56e6
Rad = J/kg
for beta and gamma exposure Rad = rem
energy/s of radiation from potassium in the body, per kg TBW:
2.65 x 0.012% x 264e3 x 1.3e6 x 1.6e-19 = 17.5e-12 J/kg/s
dose per kg body mass in one year:
17.5e-12 x 31.56e6 = 5.511 mJ/kg/year (=mrem/yr)
=5.5 mrem/yr
=55 uSv/yr
390/55=7.1
Now unless I’ve made a silly error or there is some biological subtlety I’m missing that is not even one seventh of that shown above.