Researchers find few adverse health effects in wildlife exposed to low levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear accident

Peer-Reviewed Publication

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Rat snake
IMAGE: THE RESEARCH TEAM STUDIED RAT SNAKES AND WILD BOAR ACROSS A RANGE OF RADIATION EXPOSURES, EXAMINING BIOMARKERS OF DNA DAMAGE AND STRESS. view more  CREDIT: HANNAH GERKE/UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

More than 10 years ago, the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in a massive release of radioactive material into the environment. Radiation dose rates led to the evacuation of over 150,000 residents from an area estimated at 444 square miles. Although people were evacuated, wildlife remained within the Fukushima Exclusion Zone, as it is sometimes called, and generations of animals have since been exposed to radiation levels above the safety threshold for human occupancy.

Colorado State University and the University of Georgia launched graduate student programs in collaboration with Fukushima University’s Institute of Environmental Radioactivity to conduct research on the effects of life-long radiation exposures to wildlife. Their most recent results were published online in Environment International and appears in the October issue of the journal.

What health effects have researchers found for wildlife in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone?

Between 2016 and 2018, the multi-disciplinary team studied wild boar and rat snakes across a range of radiation exposures in Fukushima. The team examined biomarkers of DNA damage and stress and did not find any significant adverse health effects.

Dr. Kelly Cunningham, first author of the paper and a recent graduate of CSU’s Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program, said the biggest takeaway is that perhaps people do not need to be as fearful of moving back into the remediated areas – 10 years after the accident – following this type of chronic, low-dose environmental radiation exposure.

The wildlife study is relevant to humans because human physiology is not so dissimilar to wild boar, said co-author James Beasley, an associate professor from the University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Lab and Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.

While mice have traditionally been used as a radiation biology model from which human effects are extrapolated, pigs – which are descendants of wild boar – are physiologically more like humans than mice and thus a more appropriate biomedical model species, he said.

Researchers respond to local residents’ questions

Hiroko Ishiniwa, a co-author and project assistant professor at Fukushima University, said the research helped respond to questions from local residents. In Fukushima, there have been many unfounded rumors about health effects related to radioactivity, she said.

“With hopes of explaining the situation, many local people took part in research activities, including capturing wild boars,” she said.

Thomas Hinton, a co-author on the paper and retired professor from Fukushima University, said environmental radiation decreased precipitously after the accident.

By the time this research began in 2016 to 2018, cesium-134, one of the major radionuclides released from the accident, had decreased by as much as 90% because of its short half-life. Hinton received his bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from CSU.

What signs of stress did researchers see for wildlife?

CSU Professor Susan Bailey, senior author on the paper, is an expert on assessing markers of stress and DNA damage due to radiation exposure.

She was a principal investigator on the groundbreaking NASA Twins Study, which examined the effects of space on identical twin astronauts Scott and Mark Kelly while one of them remained on Earth during a space mission. Bailey studies telomeres, or the protective “caps” on the ends of human, as well as wildlife, chromosomes.

Bailey said the telomeres of the boar and snakes could provide clues as to whether the animals were stressed from radiation exposures. “If the boar were stressed, we would see telomeres shortening,” she explained. “We didn’t see any changes related to radiation dose, and we didn’t see it in the snakes either.”

The researchers thought that with wild boar rooting behavior and snakes living in contaminated soil they would have received large doses of radiation.

Hinton said they spent a great deal of time quantifying the dosimetry – how much of the radiation was absorbed by wildlife – as precisely as possible.

The researchers also found lower levels of the hormone cortisol, a primary indicator of stress, in wild boar living within the Exclusion Zone. Bailey said this finding is supported by the fact that animal populations are thriving in areas where humans have not returned.

“It’s similar to what they’re seeing in Chernobyl,” she said. “The animals are flourishing mostly because there aren’t people around, and they don’t experience the related stress that brings.”

Cunningham, now working as a veterinarian in New Zealand, said being able to conduct this research while pursuing a DVM degree at CSU was amazing.

“It taught me about this other world of science aside from veterinary medicine,” she explained. “I had an opportunity to work with some of the leading radiation scientists from all over the world, and I could contribute with my veterinary skill set.”

She said being a member of the research team also helped her develop an interest in public health and epidemiology, which she hopes to explore more as her career progresses.


JOURNAL

Environment International

DOI

10.1016/j.envint.2021.106675 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Evaluation of DNA damage and stress in wildlife chronically exposed to low-dose, low-dose rate radiation from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

1-Oct-2021

COI STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

From EurekAlert!

5 18 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Devils Tower
October 17, 2021 2:09 pm

I know this is way out of context, but do not know how else to get attention.

I donate thru PayPal to this site. PayPal just shutdown donations to FLCCC.

You need to take postal donations and advertise address as flccc and others

October 17, 2021 2:12 pm

Earth quake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown – sure Godzilla was just around the corner.

H.R.
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 17, 2021 9:18 pm

The researchers found that Godzilla apparently has suffered no ill effects from the Fukushima disaster, even though it was confirmed that Godzilla was in the area at the time.

Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2021 4:43 am

The tsunami was actually caused by little Gojira gorira (“gorilla”) + kujira (“whale”) son showing off his cannonball water entry, “Hey, ma Gojira, watch this!”

H.R.
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 18, 2021 10:09 am

Godzilla: “You call that a cannonball? Here. Hold my beer.”

😜

ozspeaksup
Reply to  H.R.
October 19, 2021 4:00 am

but wheres Mothra?

Davidf
October 17, 2021 2:17 pm

Another nail in the coffin of Linear No Threshold

MarkW
Reply to  Davidf
October 17, 2021 2:44 pm

The only reason why LNT was ever use was because it generated the results that the researchers wanted.
There was never a shred of evidence that it was valid and evidence that it overstated risk has been available since the beginning.

Tom Halla
Reply to  MarkW
October 17, 2021 3:02 pm

LNT is also fairly easy to calculate. Never overlook laziness as motivation.

Reply to  MarkW
October 17, 2021 3:02 pm

No, I thimk that was unfair. LNT was use because some sort of regulation was needful and the data on exposing people to chronic low level radiation simply wasn’t there.
All that could be said is that LNT drew a line whch was totallly safe on one side.

TonyL
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 17, 2021 5:10 pm

Wrong. LNT dictates that there is *no* safe dose of anything. That is the “No Threshold” part. LNT has been scientific and medical malpractice from the very start. And no, it was not “laziness”. It was deliberate. It was designed from the ground up to give regulators the pretext to regulate anything down to infinitesimal quantities. Which is to say, unlimited regulatory power.

commieBob
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 5:48 pm

It goes against the adage that the dose makes the poison.

George Friedman points out the fallibility of experts and their over-confidence. link I think, when things settle out sometime in the next decade, so called experts will lose their importance in policy making.

The problem is that folks with a PhD, and an ability to make up convincing bs from whole cloth, claim that they are experts just like airline pilots and brain surgeons. They’re not remotely the same. We need a word to describe those whose education currently qualifies them to be called experts. Expert should be a term limited to those who can demonstrate performance time after time after time.

TonyL
Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2021 6:04 pm

I do not believe it was the fallibility of experts which led to this. As above, malpractice. In this case, my understanding is that medical doctors (MDs) helped create LNT. These people would qualify as “expert” no matter how rigorous the definition.
In short, I think we need to talk rather less about the “fallibility of experts” and more about the malpractice and professional misconduct now rampant in various scientific fields.

commieBob
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 6:52 pm

Engineers are keenly aware of their limitations and govern their scope of practice accordingly. I have seen them shy away from problems that most lay people would assume they (ie. the engineers) should be able to handle. That’s because we insist that engineers never make a mistake.

Outside of the scope of practice where they have demonstrated performance, MDs are just over-confident idiots. The difference is that it’s not realistic to expect MDs to be 100% successful. The result is that nobody, including the MDs, is certain when they are full of crap. That makes it hard to hold them to account. Thus the over-confidence.

Reply to  commieBob
October 18, 2021 4:46 am

Medicine is NOT science, but an art and technology depending on verification for validation. Falsifiability is the boundary demarcation of science from nonsense (non-science).

Barbara Hamrick
Reply to  TonyL
October 18, 2021 11:51 am
PaulH
Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2021 6:13 pm

Indeed.

quote-science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts-richard-p-feynman-35-30-25.jpg
Duane
Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2021 6:59 pm

LNT is 100% consistent with the notion that “the dose makes the poison” as you put it.

That is what the “linear” part of “linear no threshold” means.

M Courtney
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 12:08 am

Let’s look at this from the other end.
In nature, what processes are linear and not exponential?
If no others, why this one?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  M Courtney
October 18, 2021 7:47 pm

There are many possible functions that describe processes. the relation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is logarithmic not linear nor exponential.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 10:39 am

The problem with your belief, is that there is evidence that low levels of many things, including radiation, are not harmful. Period. Indeed, in some cases there is evidence that they are helpfull.

LNT assumes that radiation is harmful, regardless of how little of it is present. That is 100% not consistent with “the dose makes the poison”.

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 6:05 pm

MarkW

A good example is the proven health benefits of “taking the (mildly radioactive) waters at Badgastein and Hofgastein in Austria. And I guess a number of other spas as well.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  MarkW
October 19, 2021 4:17 am

Exactly correct Mark.
Terse phrases such as, “The dose makes the poison” seem to be misunderstood readily.
What is meant to be said is that at some dosage level, nearly anything can be poisonous (a word which itself is easily misunderstood, and/or which has many connotations), and at a lesser dose, are not poisonous.
The number of examples is as long as the list of every chemical that exists.
Vitamin D is a necessary nutrient, but is toxic at a high dosage, and can be fatal in large dose levels.
Salt is something no one can live without, but too much will kill a person quickly.
Many elemental substances are either harmless or rapidly fatal, such as chlorine: At small concentration, it has made water safe to drink and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths, while at a higher level it is unsurvivable.
Methanol exists in many foods, such as apples, in low concentration, and it is harmless at such levels, but in large amounts it will cause blindness or death.
A small amount of carbon monoxide can be eliminated upon ingestion, and in fact there is some in the smoke from almost any combustion, cigarettes and marijuana being common examples, as is the smoke from burning wood or charcoal, but in large amount over a short time it is fatal.

“What does not kill us makes us stronger” is very close to 100% true. Becoming infected with a disease causing microorganism (or being exposed to a antigen by way of inoculation) leaves us immune to that infection going forward, and this immunity can be either complete or partial, permanent or temporary.
For all but the people with the fairest skin, exposure to sunlight for a period of time causes changes that makes our skin less easily damaged by sunlight.
Strap 500 pounds of weight to a person in a way which cannot be removed, and they are likely to die. Strap on 50 pounds, and a person will get very strong fairly quickly.

Some people will die from amounts of ethanol ingestion that other people can consume daily and live long healthy lives.
Some smokers get cancer or emphysema at a young age, while others smoke packs a day and live to a ripe old age with seemingly no particular ill effect.

At every level of our anatomy and physiology, there are repair and homeostatic and protective mechanism and processes that can be either dormant or highly active.
Among these are the ones in our liver that detoxify many chemicals, the ones inside our cells that eliminate toxins, and ones inside the nucleus of our cells that repair our DNA on an ongoing basis.
The evidence is overwhelming that we are well adapted to withstand a certain amount of ionizing radiation with no harm, as well as evidence that amounts of radiation somewhat above typical background levels stimulate cellular repair mechanisms above the usual level of activity, and thus have a protective and beneficial effect.

Besides for all of that, their exists tremendous individual variability in the ability to resist harms from all manner of toxins and challenges to our bodies. This is why the amount of any chemical that constitutes a fatal dose cannot be specified exactly as to amount for some particular person or animal, and instead are described by such quantities as LD50…the amount which will be lethal to 50% of subjects.
People used to drink something called radium water as a health tonic. Some people where killed by it, while most were unaffected. There are some fascinating accounts from medical history related to this specific substance, which I can link to if anyone is interested.

Radiation hormesis is a real thing, but it is only one example of a specific instance of the wide range of potentially harmful things that are either harmless, necessary, and/or beneficial at some level of exposure.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  MarkW
October 19, 2021 4:45 am

Exactly correct Mark.
Terse phrases such as, “The dose makes the poison” seem to be misunderstood readily.
What is meant to be said is that at some dosage level, nearly anything can be poisonous (a word which itself is easily misunderstood, and/or which has many connotations), and at a lesser dose, are not poisonous.
The number of examples is as long as the list of every chemical that exists.
Vitamin D is a necessary nutrient, but is toxic at a high dosage, and can be fatal in large dose levels.
Salt is something no one can live without, but too much will kill a person quickly.
Many elemental substances are either harmless or rapidly fatal, such as chlorine: At small concentration, it has made water safe to drink and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths, while at a higher level it is unsurvivable.
Methanol exists in many foods, such as apples, in low concentration, and it is harmless at such levels, but in large amounts it will cause blindness or death.
A small amount of carbon monoxide can be eliminated upon ingestion, and in fact there is some in the smoke from almost any combustion, cigarettes and marijuana being common examples, as is the smoke from burning wood or charcoal, but in large amount over a short time it is fatal.

“What does not kill us makes us stronger” is very close to 100% true. Becoming infected with a disease causing microorganism (or being exposed to a antigen by way of inoculation) leaves us immune to that infection going forward, and this immunity can be either complete or partial, permanent or temporary.
For all but the people with the fairest skin, exposure to sunlight for a period of time causes changes that makes our skin less easily damaged by sunlight.
Strap 500 pounds of weight to a person in a way which cannot be removed, and they are likely to die. Strap on 50 pounds, and a person will get very strong fairly quickly.

Some people will die from amounts of ethanol ingestion that other people can consume daily and live long healthy lives.
Some smokers get cancer or emphysema at a young age, while others smoke packs a day and live to a ripe old age with seemingly no particular ill effect.

At every level of our anatomy and physiology, there are repair and homeostatic and protective mechanism and processes that can be either dormant or highly active.
Among these are the ones in our liver that detoxify many chemicals, the ones inside our cells that eliminate toxins, and ones inside the nucleus of our cells that repair our DNA on an ongoing basis.
The evidence is overwhelming that we are well adapted to withstand a certain amount of ionizing radiation with no harm, as well as evidence that amounts of radiation somewhat above typical background levels stimulate cellular repair mechanisms above the usual level of activity, and thus have a protective and beneficial effect.

Besides for all of that, there exists tremendous individual variability in the ability to resist harms from all manner of toxins and challenges to our bodies. This is why the amount of any chemical that constitutes a fatal dose cannot be specified exactly as to amount for some particular person or animal, and instead are described by such quantities as LD50…the amount which will be lethal to 50% of subjects.

People used to drink something called radium water as a health tonic. Some people were killed by it, while most were unaffected. Those that were not able eliminate it from their bodies, but instead stored in in bones or various tissues for some unknown reason which was probably a simply variation in individual metabolism, died gruesome and lingering deaths in some cases. There are some fascinating accounts from medical history related to this specific substance, which I can link to if anyone is interested.
In one case I read about, some guy who was a wealthy socialite died horribly, over a long period of time, with parts of his face and limbs becoming necrotic…literally rotting away…and falling off over a period of years. Doctors were stumped as to the cause, which is actually common even now in cases of slow poisoning because people react very differently to many toxic substances. And throughout all of the years this guy was dying, he continued to drink his radium water. At the time, it never occurred to anyone that this was the cause of his medical problems. How can this be, one might wonder in astonishment knowing what we know now? But at that time and in that place, lots of people were consuming it with no such effects.

Large numbers of people live in places or have occupations that expose them to many times the average background levels of radiation, such as airline flight crews, or the people that live in the village or Kerala in India that was built on radioactive monzonite sand. These people get a dosage of radiation over their entire lives that has been documented in specific instances as being some 80 times what people get in some other places, and yet epidemiological studies have failed to find any increased risk of cancer in this population.
Numerous other examples exist, and many specific physiological mechanisms have been identified that explain why this is so.

Radiation hormesis is a real thing, but it is only one example of a specific instance of the wide range of potentially harmful things that are either harmless, necessary, and/or beneficial at some level of exposure.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 7:45 pm

No that is what linear does not mean. lnear means the response is a linear function of the dose. There is no threshold below which it is safe. I just finished drinking a glass of whiskey. If the response were linear I would be a little tipsy. It is not and i am not.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 19, 2021 9:43 am

More specifically, the idea behind LNT is that the effects of small amounts of radiation can be ascertained by extrapolation: Drawing a straight line on a graph obtained by examining excess death rates from events that released massive amounts of radiation in situations where large numbers of people were exposed to lethal doses, and then extending that line all the way down to zero radiation.
Another aspect is that a small dose over time is the same as a large dose all at once.
There has never been a time when people and especially scientists did not know that such a relationship was not at all what is observed when living things are exposed to toxins or stressors, IOW words, anything that causes bodily harm or damage.

We do not passively store up damage accrued in small amounts over time.
Our bodies, organs, tissues and our cells are constantly in a state of ongoing damage and repair, at every level.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
October 19, 2021 3:37 am

Wrong.
Low doses of many things are 100% harmless, and more commonly are beneficial, while high doses in a short time can be fatal.

Duane
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 6:49 pm

You have it half right and half wrong. Yes, LNT provides that there is no “safe exposure” to ionizing radiation, but not out of a pretext to control, but because a safe exposure could not be confirmed using available data. When human life and health are at stake, a conservative approach is always appropriate.

As someone who was trained and served as a radiation worker in both the military and private industry, I and all the people I worked with over the decades would never have wanted to work under anything but a conservative radiation control regime.

Duane
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 6:56 pm

Have you seen those Rocket Mortgage commercials where the wife asks “Can we really afford to buy this house?”, and the husband says, “Yeah, I’m pretty sure we can”. Then the sales guy brings up a scenario where the guy and his family are swimming in the ocean and are surrounded by sharks … and asks the husband if being “pretty sure” the sharks would not attack was “good enough”. Then the husband admits that being “pretty sure”, when it came to such risks, is NOT good enough.

Same thing with LNT.

TonyL
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 7:03 pm

“Yes, LNT provides that there is no “safe exposure” to ionizing radiation”

So far, so good.
Unfortunately, LNT has been adopted by the EPA and is applied to a vast number of environmental issues. Witness the absurdities of regulating VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) to below natural background levels in a pine forest. Then declaring the forest and communities around and within the forest as “Out Of Compliance”.
This was not by accident.

PCman999
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 11:11 pm

What is the EPA going to do, sue the trees? Or sue the humans to force them to cut down the trees? Incredible! Out of control bureaucracy at it’s comic worst.

TonyL
Reply to  PCman999
October 18, 2021 1:08 am

Here is the rest of the story. The region was the Southeast US, including areas such as the Great Smokey Mountains and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The region was the home of the American woodworking and furniture industry at the time.
The issue was expanded from VOCs to ozone which is a “priority pollutant”.
Ozone is produced naturally according to:
VOCs + UV (sunlight) –> ozone

One notes here that the “Great Smokeys” and the “Blue Ridge” mountains got their names from the naturally occurring ozone in the summer months. It is the ozone which produces the characteristic blue haze so visible in the summer.

When the EPA declared the region “Out Of Compliance”, they are granted powerful enforcement powers. {By controlling the “Out Of Compliance” edicts, the EPA effectively awards itself these police powers}
The EPA then asserted that the electric motors used in the woodworking and furniture industries were a “contributing factor” to the ozone “problem”. We note here that once an area is “Out Of Compliance”, any source, no matter how small or trivial is the subject of compliance actions.
The Industry complained that all electric motors were of the sealed and brushless variety, and electric motors have not been a source of ozone for decades. Therefor the EPA had no grounds for compliance actions against the industry.
The EPA responded by making the administrative determination that the motors were a source of ozone. Yes, the EPA can do that, an “administrative determination” is the final determination of what is true or not.
The EPA went forward with their ozone regulations and largely destroyed the US furniture and woodworking industry.

Not funny, not funny at all.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 10:40 am

So let’s ignore the evidence and assume something that is not true, because it makes you feel better about your job.

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 6:08 pm

And lines your pockets…

Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 8:39 pm

Do not forget that the goal of the UN is to pretend that everything is toxic, including too much water. They want to make vitamins and nutrients controlled by prescription as if they are dangerous substances that need to be controlled.

In high school, I did a paper examining the lowest and highest safe levels of our vitamins. Yes, there can be too little or too much, but the UN goal is to have us at just above too little.

Case in point: multivitamins only contain about 400 units of Vitamin D3, which thus prevents Ricketts. However, much higher doses, 4–9000 units are more healthy. That’s 10–45 times higher (and our good friend Dr. Fauci takes 8–9000 units a day, hmmm). When my 97-year-old father-in-law broke his leg this summer, one of the first things they did was give him 60,000 units of D3.

So, do not assume that your multivitamins are doing more than the minimum you might need. Investigate each constituent and decide for yourself.

I always have taken a multivitamin+minerals but I started supplementing when I was having a lot of muscle cramps (I am a runner) and a friend recommended supplemental magnesium, which indeed did the job.

For that matter, no one would need to take hydroxychloroquine and zinc if they were not already up on their zinc—in Italy they found that many of the dead were zinc (and vitamin D3) deficient. This treatment for the sick is simply a means of beefing up one’s cellular zinc. If it’s already up, no problem. I take 50 mg/d.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 17, 2021 6:34 pm

It’s been well known that there are places and occupations that cause an increase in exposure.
It’s also been well known that these places and occupations show no increase in cancers compared to other locations and occupations.
An honest attempt to regulate radiation exposure would have taken these well known facts into account when regulating low levels of exposure. They didn’t. They assumed from the start that LNT extended all the way down to zero.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 17, 2021 6:59 pm

Here’s a good link for anyone wanting to know more details on hormesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

Several studies have shown that the cancer rate is lower among populations with higher background radiation.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Dan DeLong
October 17, 2021 11:50 pm

I’ve seen references to that 2006 article from a pretty unknown journal many times before. I like the concept but is there no more recent study on this?

Last edited 1 month ago by Alastair Brickell
Robby
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
October 18, 2021 1:38 am

Try this book chapter entitled “Hormesis Through Low-Dose Radiation” from the book “The Science of Hormesis in Health and Longevity” (Elsevier 2019): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128142530000115?via%3Dihub

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Robby
October 19, 2021 4:36 am

Thanks, hadn’t seen that one.

Duane
Reply to  MarkW
October 17, 2021 6:41 pm

LNT was adopted not out of any attempt to manipulate the data, but rather because there were no reliable data at low levels of exposure, and therefor lacking data a conservative approach to setting standards made sense. We know much more now, but governments are loathe to loosen regulatory standards for obvious reasons.

The US Federal government adopted a standard maximum threshold probability of excess deaths at 1 x 10 -6 many decades ago. It’s used for regulating radiation exposures, chemical exposures, and as a safety design standard for most everything from highways to aircraft. It is an extremely conservative standard, but most people are very squeamish about setting any standard at all for an “acceptable” risk of human death.

TonyL
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 7:23 pm

“maximum threshold probability of excess deaths at 1 x 10 -6”
True, and absolute BS.
Here is how it works:
1) Determine LD50 for a toxin.
2) Divide by 1,000,000. Assume LNT(!), one person per million will be harmed.
3) Consider a country with a population of 340 million.
4) Rant on about 340 excess deaths/year.
The Sky Is Falling!

A) Tell me it is not total BS.
B) Tell me they did not know *exactly* what they were doing.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  TonyL
October 17, 2021 9:44 pm

That is why I find our overwhelming reliance on statistics troublesome. One in a million is undetectable, in reality, whereas most people react emotionally to somthing statistically insignificant. Oh dear, 340 people dead … and their simple minds conjure up visions of a pile of bodies.

Joao Martins
Reply to  TonyL
October 18, 2021 3:37 am

TonyL, it is worse than you have pointed out!

In your point 3) you are assuming that ALL the population of that country has been/will be exposed to the toxin, which is NEVER the case in localized pollution and high population numbers spreaad over large regions!

Your account is right up to that point. But the population to be consdered is NOT the total of the country but the number living close the accident, in a vicinity that MIGHT be exposed…

… AND …

… and in general the level of exposure decreases NOT LINEARLY with the distance to the local where the accident occurs.

So, that gross, demagogic calculation is exaggerated by IGNORING at least two very well established facts.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 10:41 am

The evidence that LNT was BS was available from the beginning.

Duane
Reply to  MarkW
October 17, 2021 7:04 pm

Bullshit. Your obvious ignorance betrays you.

How many years have you been trained, certified, and actually worked as a Radiation Worker, in either military or civilian life? Or d have any educational or work related credentials for working with ionizing radiation?

I’m betting your answer is “zero”.

commieBob
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 5:29 am

The data clearly indicates that your training was wrong with regard to LNT. If you disagree, you have to deal with the data, not what you were told at the time. You have to come up with reasons why the data doesn’t apply or shouldn’t be trusted.

On the other hand, LNT is just one thing. If there’s a radiation accident, nobody else here will have a clue of how to handle it. Similarly, even if my surgeon is wrong about one small thing, she’s still the one I want fixing my heart.

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Editor
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 7:21 am

I think I agree with Duane’s larger point. It was reasonable, and from a certain point of view, “necessary” to establish a limit for workers who were going to be exposed to ionizing radiation. Lacking data to specifically identify safe limits, LNT was the only option that a regulatory body could’ve reasonably adopted.

Does LNT hold true today? I don’t believe so, personally. If we can see a positive benefit to low levels of radiation, then obviously it counters the idea of LNT.

I don’t have the military experience so won’t comment there, but I would argue there’s still value for a “LNT-type” approach to safe limits for industry. It forces companies to treat ionizing radiation as a potentially dangerous environment for the workers and definitely helps minimize the dose we get. Just my $0.02.

rip

MarkW
Reply to  ripshin
October 18, 2021 10:43 am

The problem is that there wasn’t a lack of data.
It’s just that those who set the standards ignored any data that didn’t fit their agenda.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 10:42 am

It is not my ignorance that is on display, but yours.

So the lies made you feel better. Isn’t that special.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Davidf
October 17, 2021 3:14 pm

Careful, the Greentards will start calling you an LNT Den!er

Davidf
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 17, 2021 5:15 pm

Badge of honor, my friend

Dave Andrews
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 18, 2021 8:50 am

It’s always amused me that groups like Greenpeace, Foe etc accept without question everything the IPCC says but nothing that UNSCEAR (UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) says.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
commieBob
Reply to  Davidf
October 17, 2021 5:27 pm

Yep. Low dose radiation appears to be beneficial. Radiation hormesis.

Ron Long
Reply to  commieBob
October 17, 2021 6:10 pm

When the uranium exploration company, where I worked, set up a radiation safety program, for workers, project neighbors, and politicians, the issue of hormesis came up due to many reports in the literature. Try to get a Doctor to acknowledge the effect, they don’t like the idea (LNT to the end!). From the many examples we concluded it was a valid effect, and not just for radiation exposure.

October 17, 2021 2:18 pm

The supposed threats from nuclear power stations were yet another hyped up scare story with a hidden anti-human, anti- capitalist agenda.
Back in the 1950s when the U.K. was a world leader in civilian nuclear technology it was suggested that electricity would become too cheap to meter.
Couldn’t let the masses benefit from that, though.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 17, 2021 2:48 pm

Spent 20 years in the US Navy on Nuclear submarines. At least ten of which was on a Sub under Nuclear power. Was also at TMI during the accident for over three months, did not exceed my NRC allowed dose limit. I am now 78 years old. My GP tells me every time I visit for my physical – “I wish I was as healthy as you are. I have no doubt you will out live me” – and he is ten years younger than me.

Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 17, 2021 3:24 pm

Thank you for your service! I too am a career Navy nuke, most of it as a civilian engineer (N/S 0989-028-5000 Manual for Control of Testing and Plant Conditions (U) )

*I* was responsible for my exposure 27.5 mSv = 2.74 REM WB Occupational

I am 73 y.o and bless Dr. Genevieve Mantanosk for giving me the confidence to do what I could. I was CNSY P.O.T. engineer for five years, five good years.

I am an exercise fitness nut that just took a ‘test’ results suggest cardiovascular fitness of a 54 y.o.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 18, 2021 8:56 am

Don’t forget that the UK only became a ‘world leader in nuclear technology’ to hide the fact it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

Chaswarnertoo
October 17, 2021 2:27 pm

As was also the case at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 17, 2021 2:46 pm

And Chernobyl

PhilH
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 17, 2021 2:58 pm

Don’t forget the fire bombing of Tokyo. Which demonstrates that war criminals don’t need nuclear weapons to commit war crimes against civilian populations.

BobM
Reply to  PhilH
October 17, 2021 6:21 pm

The firebombing of Tokyo in March, 1945, forced Hirohito to see in person what was in store for his country so long as the military was in control. The war continued for five more months, and nobody believed bombing alone would force surrender. Estimates were for a million or more Allied casualties and perhaps 20 million Japanese dead to invade mainland Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yes, Tokyo, undoubtedly saved Japanese lives by a factor of 10. The war criminals were in Tokyo and Berlin and Moscow.     

Rory Forbes
Reply to  BobM
October 17, 2021 7:19 pm

The Japanese were a unique people. For an insight into the Japanese culture, I strongly suggest reading “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture” is a 1946 study of Japan by anthropologist Ruth Benedict. It will open some doors as to why the Japanese are unique and that the US had no other option than what they did. So too Benedict lays out why what would have happened had the US not dropped the bombs. They were almost necessary or the Japanese would never have been able to live with the shame of defeat. They were all in. There have even been Japanese who thanked the US for the lesson in humility.

bonbon
Reply to  PhilH
October 18, 2021 7:16 am

Japan was negotiating with FDR via Montini for a peace agreement, and Gen. McArthur said a few weeks blockade would be enough, their military logistics situation was hopeless. Harry S Truman, the worlds only nuclear terrorist, had other ideas just after FDR died. It is said Fat Man was named after Churchill who was targeting Dresden, which instead got the fire bombing with the war actually over.
So we have a world of MAD, nuclear terror, now Aussie nuke subs, indeed utterly and criminally insane.

Meab
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 10:06 am

Bonobo,

Your knowledge of history appears to sorely lacking. The first firebombing raid on the Japanese mainland took place in 1942. Three years later, the US campaign for daylight precision high altitude bombing of military targets had made no impact – mostly because of high altitude winds (now known as the jet stream) and ferocious anti-aircraft defenses. So fire bombing resumed in March, 1945, but not just of Tokyo – fire bombing killed 100s of thousands across Japan. Despite this, Japan did not surrender even after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They did NOT try to seriously negotiate a surrender until after the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki because they thought that the US could have produced only one atomic weapon.

By some estimates, Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons quickly ending the war may have saved the lives of 1 million Americans and up to 20 million Japanese.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meab
bonbon
Reply to  Meab
October 18, 2021 10:27 am

Consider the massive globalized trade choke-up happening right now to the main US cargo ports. A comparable and more deadly blockade was all that was needed to force the Japan military to heed the Emperor – no invasion was necessary. Japan still is absolutely linked into global trade. Military ¨Estimates¨ are used always to justify war crimes – witness Gen. Milley today admitting the military lied about success in Afghanistan and Syria for years!
Just a little later D.C wanted to nuke Korea, and the brilliant military Inchon strategy sidestepped another nuclear war crime…

Today the ONA, Net Assessment office, thinks nuclear war is winnable. I estimate that assessment as certifiable.

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 10:51 am

Japan is linked into world trade today. That is true. It was not true during or before WWII.

If you take Gen Milley as evidence of anything, it just goes to prove that you accept anything that agrees with what you want to believe as proof.

bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 11:29 am

I thought Japan was always an Island(s), at least for geologic times. That was it’s weak-point. Today the USA’s weak-point is exactly that, although self-inflicted by globalization, dumber than even the samurai.
Gen. McArthur, no mere blow-in trolling a blog, rather with direct experience, knew better than the Washington Consensus, unlike nuke-bomber Harry S Truman.
All of this was before Gen Milley’s MICIMATT – go figure.

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 5:26 pm

Fascinating. You answer none of my questions and just repeat the same old lies.
You assume that since Japan is an island, it must have been heavily involved in international trade.

Why not actually study up on the subject for once, instead of just assuming that you must be right.

I asked you to provide evidence that McArthur said what you claimed. Your response is just to declare that McArthur was smart.

And then you continue to declare that admitted liar and traitor Milley must be right because you agree with him.

Meab
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 1:29 pm

If all that was needed was a blockade, and the US had the ability to do that, the US would have done that even before the atomic weapons were developed. So why didn’t the US? Because the US wasn’t able to blockade all of Japan, period. Japan is a country with more than a hundred usable ports and the US was ALREADY trying to disrupt Japanese shipping with subs and aircraft. Guess what? US attempts to disrupt Japanese shipping didn’t get the Japanese to surrender.

Some estimates of the HUGE numbers of lives saved by Truman were done after the war by academics who had no motivation to justify any war crime asserted by you without merit. Your claims are laughably false, bonobo.

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 10:49 am

Your little story contradicts just about every historian who has written on WWII.
The war was over when Dresden was fire bombed? You hatred of all things British has rotted your brain.
As far as Japan goes, there were no negotiations, and the hardliners in the military wanted to fight to the last man, woman and child. They had to be overridden by the emperor.

If you believe Aussie’s having nuclear powered submarines contributes to MAD, then you are as big a nutcase as your previous posts have made you sound.

PS: If you can find anything in Gen McArthur’s writings to support your claim that he believed a few weeks of blockading would force Japan to surrender, I would love to see it.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 11:30 am

Neutrons sure do drive MICIMATT nut-cases wild…

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 5:28 pm

Once again, can’t be bothered to provide evidence to support his lunacies, but is able to insult anyone who doesn’t share his hatred of all things British.

bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 11:41 am

You sound like Greta of History – follow the consensus. Hilarious!
Prince Charles should grant a Title, what?

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
October 18, 2021 5:29 pm

Is it your position that the majority is always wrong?

Then again, I doubt you have thought this (or anything else) through that deeply.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bonbon
October 19, 2021 8:58 am

You are the Greta here, jackass.
Almost every single word of every assertion you have made here is demonstrably and provably wrong.
Congratulations, you are a historical revisionist, propaganda spewing, agenda driven fool.

cgh
October 17, 2021 2:32 pm

“Researchers find few adverse health effects in wildlife exposed to low levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear accident”
Misleading headline. It should read that they found NO evidence of adverse health effects.

philincalifornia
October 17, 2021 2:40 pm

Compare with the organic bean sprout disaster right around that time.

October 17, 2021 2:42 pm

Time to get the Nuclear Power Plants off of the “No Build” list and “Non Renewable Energy” list
If the same amount of money was spent on new NPPs in the USA as they want to spend on Wind mills and Solar panels the CO2 emissions would be achieved before 2050. Otherwise add another 50 years! ! !

And yes i know the greenies call them wind turbines. I think they do that to make people think they are better at generating electricity.

Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 17, 2021 3:00 pm

Windmills is correct in my ears and eyes 😀
I don’t care what greenies call them and say in general.

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 17, 2021 3:16 pm

Well, turbines is the correct term, whatever your preference is. Calling them windmills is like calling a gas turbine a gas mill. They’re not milling anything.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 17, 2021 5:09 pm

They are milling birds and bats and the wind too.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 17, 2021 9:24 pm

In fact ‘mill’ IS the correct term. The turbine is the machine within the nacelle housing. The term mill originally meant factory or plant. I suppose, a windmill does just that, it mills the wind for electricity as a grinding wheel mills grain for flour.

PCman999
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 17, 2021 11:24 pm

The generator, not the turbine/rotor, is in the nacelle.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  PCman999
October 17, 2021 11:53 pm

You’re right. I wasn’t thinking straight. There’s no turbine at all. I was wrongly comparing the gears and generator to a turbine. There’s just a windmill (a big propeller) driving a generator. I stand by the rest.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 18, 2021 8:40 am

Decades ago before rural electrification, people installed generators with propellers on towers to charge batteries to listen to the radio. They were called wind chargers. One can still see a few derelict wind charges on the plains.

Reply to  Rich Lambert
October 19, 2021 1:01 pm

I built one when I was in the 9th grade for the “electric fence” way back in 1955. Use the fan and generator from an old Model “T” Mounted it on the barn roof, like a weathervane. Added a second old battery and then light bulbs from the old style headlamps for lights in the barn also. Took pictures of the lights and fence charger and took the generator portion to the school science fair. Got second place for 9th Grade.

Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 17, 2021 3:27 pm

Only salesmen tout windmills and investing in them. No one has ever heard Mr. & Mrs. Kettle, Ma and Pa, brag on their new Kuntry Kadillac bought with the profits of the windmill(s) in the north forty.

Salesmen lie to sell whatever they have.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 17, 2021 7:06 pm

My idea of “renewable energy” is a fast neutron breeder reactor that makes more fuel than it burns. The Russians have two of these on line now, and the US doesn’t even have a program to do this.

bonbon
Reply to  Rich Lentz
October 18, 2021 7:23 am

Call them windmills, as Gulliver found out at Room 42 :
http://www.literaturepage.com/read/gulliverstravels-149.html
Extracting sunbeams from cucumbers will take 8 more years…
Do not even ask what was in the next room – hint synthetic food…..

October 17, 2021 2:58 pm

Ther was a very minor release of radiation. No cleanup was really necessary and certainly no evacuation.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 17, 2021 3:18 pm

To be fair, they didn’t know what would happen. In those circumstances, evacuation seemed sensible at the time. Long term, less so, but the ‘fear’ had been instilled by them.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 17, 2021 5:19 pm

Fukishima caused Germany to shut down perfectly serviceable nuclear generating plants. Sheesh, I guess Germans get the same ersatz education that the NWO victim countries get.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 17, 2021 7:09 pm

Just in case there’s another tsunami in Germany. \sarc

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 17, 2021 9:29 pm

It was a convenient excuse to do what they had already intended to do. It was all part of the march towards the New World Order … and I can’t think of a more fitting country to lead the way back to socialism. It was so successful for them in the past.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 17, 2021 3:30 pm

YOU are releasing a minor amount of radiation just now. A ‘clean up’ was really necessary at TMI, the vessel was full of nasty water and messed up parts.

Robert of Texas
October 17, 2021 3:10 pm

Not an unexpected result – just look at human populations that live near large granite basins versus those living in areas underlain by sand, dirt, and sedimentary rock. If you correct for altitude, these is little difference in cancer rates even though some of these people get twice or more of exposure from the rocks. Biological mechanisms have evolved to handle a basic rate of repair to DNA no matter the source of the damage. Exceed that rate and there is trouble, but these exposure rates set up by the EPA and other government agencies are ridiculously “safe”.

The other factor is whether the radioactive substance is stockpiled in the body. This can lead to dangerous levels over time, but can also be monitored.

Cesium-137 can be taken up through breathing (dust). While not likely a problem in Japan, it could be a problem if the cesium were distributed in an arid environment. Humans can store cesium in various soft tissues. Cesium-137 levels are now so low as to be difficult to detect in animals found in the area. Cesium-134 has a shorter half-life and has already diminished to background levels.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 17, 2021 3:26 pm

That’s the thing about half-lives. Shorter means it’s safer more quickly, longer means it’s not so dangerous. When half-lives are measured in 10s or 100s of thousands of years, people think that’s really scary, but it means that decay is really slow, so there’s little radiation.

Strangely, we know a lot about radiation, radioactivity, and the effects on life, but the media like to portray it as a scary unknown to generate fear, and the eco-loons have eagerly promoted that.

It’s like the release of radioactive water from fukushima. The very best way to get rid of radioactive material is to dilute it. That way it goes back to the level it was before we concentrated it for use. The eco-loons resist this vehemently, acting as though radiation didn’t exist in nature.

The entire universe is basically working by means of radiation!

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 17, 2021 9:32 pm

There’s a vast furnace beneath our feet releasing a continuous flow of radiation, without which we would likely still be protozoa.

bonbon
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 18, 2021 7:35 am

Even here there is radiation hysteria. Just mention Svensmark and Shaviv on Galactic Cosmic Radiation and the effect on climate and biosphere development!

And the other side of the coin – just mention Nikolov’s NON-RADIATIVE Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, and dodge relativistic protons!

So the ¨greenhouse¨ effect MUST be radiative, yet not Cosmic Radiation – it’s OUR radiation, innit?

n.n
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 17, 2021 4:54 pm

Yes, the type of radiation and dosage matter. It’s the same with chemical exposure, where there is disparity between observation in isolation (e.g. lab) and the wild. CO2 is another example where observation is divergent from predictions.

Reply to  n.n
October 18, 2021 4:54 am

Tip of the Hat. Thanks to Fat Tony for leading me to the Obesity Paradox.

Bil
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 18, 2021 3:19 am

Lancashire is well known for radon emissions from the ground. Remember twice growing up in the 60s/70s having engineers coming round to measure the levels in our house.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bil
October 18, 2021 4:49 am

Remember twice growing up in the 60s/70s

Impressive. I only grew up once in the 60s and 70s. Do you have a time machine, and can I borrow it? Purely to escape this Climate Scientology BS…

rovingbroker
October 17, 2021 3:13 pm

It is important to remind people that the “Fukushima nuclear accident” was the result of a nuclear power plant being built in a flood zone and then year 2000 and year 2008 studies and warnings of possible damage from tsunamis were ignored.

After the tsunami a TEPCO report said that the risks discussed in the 2000 report had not been announced because “announcing information about uncertain risks would create anxiety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

bonbon
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 18, 2021 7:43 am

At 19ft when 33ft was projected – instead a 45ft tsunami hit. Germany was sure to be hit next so closed it’s nukes down….(even when the order was signed 5 month’s before the tsunami…)

October 17, 2021 3:13 pm

See Genevieve Matanoski’s Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study NSWS – so disappeared. Conclusion; positive correlation of good health with low level radiation. I am an extreme datum.

Radiation hormesis, it’s not the poison, it is the dose.

Eric Vieira
October 17, 2021 3:35 pm

The same thing was observed around Chernobyl. Nature has completely recovered. More people died due to the evacuation measures (hospital patients) than due to the radiation.

Michael E McHenry
October 17, 2021 4:01 pm

I live in western New Jersey USA. Our house that we built in 1985 sits over what’s called the Reading prong which generates radio active radon. There was a great deal of hype in the late 1980’s about remediating basements to reduce radon. I tested our basement and it had 11 picocuries which is above the EPA limit of 4. I read up on it and found the EPA was extrapolating from uranium mine workers exposed to10K to 50K picocuries. Needless to say we did nothing

n.n
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 17, 2021 4:46 pm

Ventilation. Opening a window should be sufficient to reduce the background radon level.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 17, 2021 6:58 pm

And that EPA study was about lung cancer in those miners using the LNT ideology. What they did not consider was any other impurities in the mine air including smoke pollution from lamps or other individual maladies of the miners.
The danger is not from radon directly but SLRDs (short lived radon daughters) which attach themselves to dust which is then breathed in. But those can be mitigated by air movement from fans which cause the SLRDs to plate out.

Glenn
October 17, 2021 5:11 pm

I’ve got to complain. Not that I think that Nuke plants can’t be built safely or shouldn’t, but this sounds for all the world like “nothing to see here, move along”. The tanks are full, they’re going to release massive amounts into the ocean, it’s under serious earthquake danger, and it’ll be a lifetime before the mess is put to rest.
Let those claiming it is safe to move back near this disaster, move there themselves.

MarkW
Reply to  Glenn
October 17, 2021 6:56 pm

Pointing out that animals that have been exposed haven’t been harmed is the very definition of nothing to see here.

Why is it that you assume that this study is just a cover up?

I don’t see anyone proposing that people be forcibly moved back into these areas.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Geoff Sherrington
October 17, 2021 5:45 pm

More deception.
The authors write of a massive release of radiation.
Then describe experimental work to show it is not massive.
Why cannot people mention nuclear without mentioning fear and disaster and exaggeration?
In reality places with nuclear electricity have close to zero loss of life, while coal mining for example has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Hydro even more loss from dams bursting and overflowing.
Get real with your reporting, authors. Geoff Sj

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 18, 2021 4:57 am

SJ? Care to comment on SEDEVACANTISM in the Holy See and the Oval Office? Mere coincidence or mere conspiracy?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 18, 2021 5:59 pm

DH,
That SJ was a typo. sorry. On the topic of sedevacantism, I have no comment to offer. Religion is a defect of the thinking mind that has no more basis in science than Establishment global warming hypotheses do. Their link in common is a desire by some to control to minds of many others. Geoff S

Duane
October 17, 2021 6:31 pm

The half life of Cs 137 is 30 years, meaning in 30 years it’s activity would be reduced only by half, not the 90% reduction in just 10 years stated in this post.

Therefore, the Cs was not decayed away by 90% but must rather have been removed from the surficial soils, such as leaching deeper into the soil profile and/or taken up by vegetation roots, or possibly some other mechanism. Interesting result if true.

When authorities talk about radiation or contamination levels “exceeding health standards”, here in the USA that standard by law is a probability of 1 x 10 -6, or a one in one million “excess risk” of getting cancer. Which puts it far below the noise level of cancer data precision, since the total probability of any person contracting cancer during their lifetime is about 40%. In other words, your cancer risk increases from 40% to 40.000001%.

No wonder the hogs and snakes and other critters do not appear to have suffered any harm from the Fukushima release!

steven F
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 7:35 pm

The half life os Cs is 30years, but seasick is water soluble so much of ti was probably washed away by the rain.

TonyL
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 8:37 pm

Cs 134, half life 2.1 years.
Explicitly mentioned in the article.

Rhs
Reply to  Duane
October 17, 2021 8:47 pm

While I partially agree, the story states:
By the time this research began in 2016 to 2018, cesium-134
Cs 134 has a half life of 2.1 years, this easily explains the 90% being gone.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
October 18, 2021 10:58 am

Cs 137 is not the only radioactive element present.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
October 17, 2021 8:23 pm

The fun part here is that background radiation is relatively in most places, but in places with more radiation, life is healthier.

Years ago a skyscraper in Japan was built with steel that was made with a radioactive metal additive (Cs or Cd, I think) rather than the benign isotope. It was a few years after being finished and occupied before anyone noticed that the steel structure was radioactive.

Instead of closing the building and evacuating the residents, the (incredibly smart) authorities decided to survey the building and the surrounding building residents in terms of their health. The surprise results were that those in the hot building were healthier than those in surrounding buildings. It appears that an active stimulus to the immune system by higher background radiation is a boon to overall health and lower cancer.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Charles Higley
October 17, 2021 8:44 pm

Hormesis

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Charles Higley
October 18, 2021 1:03 pm

I believe you’re referring to the apartment block in Taipei, where people lived for up to 20 years before the Cobalt discovery. The cancer rate dropped to just 4% compared to the rest of the city. Report here:
https://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/robinson.pdf

Bil
October 18, 2021 3:10 am

On joining the RAF in the mdid-80s as a radar technician I remember a presentation by an RAF doctor about the perils radiation in general and specifically, given our trade, microwaves. He provided a few graphs that appeared to show a small dose of radiation is actually efficacious. Larger doses clearly not so. I was in my teens at the time and the only real thing that stuck was that the doctor said he slept with his watch on and his watch wearing hand between his legs hoping for some ‘benefit’ from the glowing hands and dial.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bil
October 18, 2021 4:53 am

Microwaves, although technically radiation, are not ‘radiation’ as normally understood. They are just photons, and will generally only warm you up. Moderation is advisable unless you want to boil.

Bil
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 18, 2021 7:55 am

which was the nature of the discussion and why women weren’t allowed in our trade. Happy for airmen to be sterilised but not airwomen.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 19, 2021 10:14 am

Photos above the energy level necessary for ionization is a different ball of wax than those with energies below that threshold.
That amount of energy is found with photons at the wavelength somewhere in the UV band and above. Multiphoton ionization can occur but is not considered to be important except in certain high energy/ high intensity situations.

IOW, photons in the UV, x-ray, and gamma ray bands are definitively thought of as “radiation”, in the “potentially harmful and dangerous” connotation of the word.
According to some definitions, only three types of radiation are considered, alpha (helium nuclei), beta( high energy electrons), and gamma (high energy electromagnetic radiation).
There are two separate factors that are considered when assessing the dangers of each type, ionization ability, and penetration ability. These two factors tend to be inversely correlated with each other:
http://www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/A-Guide-to-Different-Common-Types-of-Radiation.png

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 19, 2021 10:15 am

That photo did not post as a picture, so here it is again:

A-Guide-to-Different-Common-Types-of-Radiation.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 19, 2021 10:21 am

Just to be clear, these are the three that are commonly referred to as “nuclear radiation”.
Of course there are others, such as neutrons, positrons, UV and x-rays…

fretslider
October 18, 2021 5:01 am

There are many studies covering accidents, like Windscale and Chernobyl

Health effects of the Windscale Pile fire
Steve Jones1

Published 28 November 2016 
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/E23/meta

That’s 59 years after the event.

What makes this Malthusian junk?

“The animals are flourishing mostly because there aren’t people around”

bonbon
Reply to  fretslider
October 18, 2021 7:52 am

Windscale was classified for 50+ years. France got the nuclear wind, with no warning. That is why Britain delivered stuff for the exact same graphite reactor disaster at Chernobyl – they had stocks. Not to be compared with Fukushima design.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 18, 2021 7:26 am

doe.org/10.1051/epn/2019102

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2019/01/epn2019501p19/epn2019501p19.html

Abstract

Radioactive contamination of seawater has often caused concern, for example about releases from Sellafield and Le Havre and later about the Fukushima disaster. Repeated reporting has contributed to the general feeling that the sea is particularly sensitive to radioactive contamination (Greenpeace,1998). This is not the case, it is rather the opposite. Marine life is much better protected against radioactive contamination than life on land. This protection is due to three natural factors: shielding, dilution and isotope competition.

ozspeaksup
October 19, 2021 3:59 am

always puzzled me that the hiroshima and nagasaki events also seemed to leave little radiation going by fast resettlements and few report of defects etc

DiogenesNJ
October 20, 2021 4:21 pm

There’s a technical error in the article. It’s Cs-137, not Cs-134, that’s one of the two major volatile fission waste products that cause trouble in reactor accidents. THe other is I-131. I-131 had a half life of only 8 days, and is essentially gone by now, but Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years. “Volatile” matters because these elements have low boiling points and evaporate from decay heat.

DiogenesNJ
Reply to  DiogenesNJ
October 20, 2021 4:31 pm

Cs-134 has a 2-year half life. After 5 years, in 2016 when the study started, it would be down by a factor of 32 (97%). Now, after 10.5 years, it’s down by a factor of more than 1400. So really, the only isotope to worry about is Cs-137.

%d bloggers like this: