35 replies to this topic

[Kleinz]

Thank you for that pretty picture. Now go and find one that shows doses vs illnesses.

Background radiation did go up due to atmospheric testing - in the 60's - and then went back down.

Not to pre-testing levels. Some isotopes are extremely long lived.
 

In the meantime, cancer diagnoses continue to rise.
Correlation =/= Causation.

Excuse me? The link between radiation and cancer is long established and not disputed by anyone smarter than a gibbon.
 
Analyses from epidemiologists puts the death toll at hundreds of thousands, if not millions. If you know better, please share it.
 
Safe doses are rubbery. A man who put his head in a particle accelerator beam lived a long and productive life. On the other hand, a tiny amount of an alpha emitter inside you can be fatal. To say how much radiation is harmless and how much hazardous is difficult. Many die each year from cancers caused by medical imaging X-rays.
 
Spreading out a terrifically dangerous thing very thinly poses a statistically tiny danger to each individual, but to say that this renders it safe is a mistake.

[malawiman85]

Dumping is bad, no denying it but whats the alternative?
Gotta fix the problem somehow.

[malawiman85]

Tunagirll does have a point kleinz. You dont need a doctorate to know that there are a million other increasing or until recently increasing carcinogenic exposures... Such as lead, asbestos, etc.

[Kleinz]

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? How is that relevant to the central argument? Asbestos does not make radiation less harmful.

[tunagirll]

The reason I put the chart up was to put radioactive dosing in perspective. As you can see, we receive radiation from many sources including, as you rightly mentioned, from the ghost of nuclear testing. You seem to be making a case that dispersion of contaminated water will lead to deaths from cancer, when it will be so dilute that you may say it could be a contributant, but a far smaller contributant than many other things that we receive radiation from on a daily basis.

 

The point I made in regards to athmospheric testing was in response to your comment that it had increased backgound radiation by 7%, omitting the fact that it spiked and then fell over 50 years ago. Its contribution to background radiation fell, but rates of cancer did not, so suggesting that the increase in cancer cases was due to atmospheric testing wasn't accurate.

[smirq]

Following the previous logic, it's pointless to give up smoking. I'm aware of how uninfluential my opinion is in the decision making process. I just hope we get more ultruistic mutants in spandex than grotesque monsters.

Edited by smirq, 09 April 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[malawiman85]

The point kleinz is that the increase in cancer rates is not due solely to sources of background radioactivity. Whilst no one argues the link between radiation and cancer it is absurd to say that since atmospheric testing caused a spike in background radiation that the ever increasing cancer rates are due to the consequences of those events.
Essentially that is the argument against diluting and dumping radioactive material and it doesnt entirely make sense.

[Kleinz]

Tuna, you are advancing a truly ridiculous argument. Apart from all of the individual bits being flawed ie with your spiel on atmospheric testing you fall victim to making correlation = no causation instead of correlation = / = causation

 

To extend your argument; all pollution is OK as long as we distribute it as widely as possible so that everyone's share  is really teeny. The amount we pollute today is irrelevant because it's a drop in the ocean (literally) next to the pollution of the last 20 years. I think Mrs Abbot and Palmer would like to hear from you when they interview for a press secretary.

Bit of a logical fallacy here, but I can't be arsed looking it up. I might as well be lazy in my thinking too.

Smirq. I think latex is the go-to fabric for mutants this decade. Spandex is so Power Rangers...

 

Malawiman... Google much, or just make it up?

 

http://www.ctbto.org...uclear-testing/

 

estimated that the radiation and radioactive materials from atmospheric testing taken in by people up until the year 2000 would cause 430,000 cancer deaths, some of which had already occurred by the time the results were published. The study predicted that roughly 2.4 million people could eventually die from cancer as a result of atmospheric testing.

 

 

But sure, forget the work of actual epidemiologists... what would they know?

 

Don't put words in my mouth.I do not recall suggesting that "ever increasing cancer rates" are due to anything. I did not reference "ever increasing cancer rates" at all. I noted that radiation increased.I noted that Experts agree that cancer increased as a result of that increase.

 

Deaths are really never attributable to single causes unless you are a badass nigga livin in the hood and someone pops a cap in yo ass. For the rest of us, it's more complicated

 

Lastly, the "that was 50 years ago argument" : Are you on crack? Do you know what the lead time is for things to develop? Mesothelioma averages 20 years after asbestos exposure. Cancer may come decades after exposure to radionuclides.

 

[malawiman85]

http://www.world-nuc...on-0204141.html

I was of the understanding that the UN's UNSCEAR knew what they were talking about...

Edited by malawiman85, 09 April 2014 - 09:40 PM.

[malawiman85]

About 30% of cancer deaths are due to the five leading behavioral and dietary risks: high body mass index, low fruit and vegetable intake, lack of physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use.

http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs297/en/

not radiation???

[Kleinz]

 FFS. Stop being obtuse.  Why are you talking about total cancer deaths? Are you trying to master the irrelevant?

 

The argument you are employing is like " most deaths at the beach are from heart attacks or drownings, so shark attacks do not exist."

[malawiman85]

Cancer spiking as a result of background radiation was half your argument.
Forget cancer WHO and The UN's FAO say there is a 3/5 of f all environmental or health concern. Geeze Kleinz the whole discussion is about weather or not dumping water in the pacific is safe. The whole world says its a bad situation. Every expert working on the problem says its the best option to release water with low levels of radioactivity to make room on land for water with higher levels of radiation. Cancer isnt a concern according to WHO. Environmental damage is considered to be negligable and the effects on seafood are limited to a few species that live permanently within a 30km zone of the plant. Do you perhqps know something that the international Atomic Energy Agency, The WHO and the FAO do not? Have a look mate, im not the one being obtuse.

Edited by malawiman85, 09 April 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[bigjohnnofish]

 

The point I made in regards to athmospheric testing was in response to your comment that it had increased backgound radiation by 7%, omitting the fact that it spiked and then fell over 50 years ago. Its contribution to background radiation fell, but rates of cancer did not, so suggesting that the increase in cancer cases was due to atmospheric testing wasn't accurate.

 

just remember a lot of what we are saying is IMO (in my opinion) and one must remember if we can read and write and maintain a civil conversation we are within 20% of the worlds interlectual people... but with our apparent intellect - it can be assumed to be of very little use when trying to understand nuclear physics and its effects into the future - the future we donot even know yet...

i studied physics , chemistry and touched on nuclear physics and to be honest most of this stuff is beyond me and prob all of us on the forum... hence we quote from other peoples knowledge on the net to try to prove a point...

 

lets all be honest no-one could have accurately predicted the resulting cancer epidemic in the world following atmospheric atomic testing.... so are we able to predict the resulting cancer deaths caused by consuming marine life that have ingested diluted nuclear waste ??? off course we fairying cant. so IMO we shouldnt dump waste into the ocean... as it will be an unknown problem in the future....

 

and i know not all cancers are caused by atmospheric radiation from atomic testing/waste... but a lot of cancers are... and some of these cancers are still happening today from exposure 50 years ago... some cancers have been said to be handed down to the next generation from their parents exposure to atomic atmospheric pollution.. 

 

when your battling with so many unknowns it makes sense to proceed with caution and not to pollute with unknown consequences....

[tunagirll]

Agreed and a very valid point BJF - there's a risk element with dumping waste in the ocean and there is some degree of influence on health both environmental and of people's health. I guess I am coming from it the other direction - extremely dilute produces a low risk of health damage on exposure, then getting in contact with extremely concentrated water.

 

There's also the elephant in the room, namely about a million cubic metres of radiactive waste has already been dumped in our oceans since we started using nuclear power. That stable door is already open.

[theKid]

Is it just be or is half of this thread the (not very) grown up equivalent of "but he did it so why can't I?".
Two points which have been made:
There is rubbish in the ocean, so nuclear waste is not a big deal.
There is already nuclear waste in the ocean, so why stop now?

Really??? There is already carbon dioxide in the air we breathe, would you have a problem if we bumped that up to 10%? Or chucked in some chlorine too? There needs to be sensible limits and requirements for treatment for all waste before it is released.

If Japan didn't want to deal with and treat nuclear waste they should not have built the plants.

[sandgroper]

The bottom line is that it is still out of control and there desperate . If you don't know what to do with nuclear waste then why the hell produce it . Only a MORON would play with fire knowing he is going to get burnt . IDIOTS ALL OF THEM.