This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Mothers for Nuclear

I came across these Pro Nuclear Activists today (much rarer than Anti Nuclear ones

). This article is well written and reasoned and the comments make interesting reading. They certainly show how polarsised the arguments are.

mothersfornuclear.org/.../firsthand-in-fukushima

I will be interested to see how many off the antis in the comments will back up their arguments with references.

Best regards

Roger

Parents

0 Roger B over 8 years ago

I also have found Bionerd23. She is a German medical physics technician who is trying to publicise that radiation is not as bad as the anti-nuclear groups and the media make out and is active on YouTube and Flickr:

www.flickr.com/.../

www.youtube.com/.../

There is an interesting series on a Brazilian beach where the background gamma level in the town is around 1.5 micro Sieverts/hr and close to the (Thorium containing) sand is getting 60 micro Sieverts/hr. So how does this compare to the scaremongering article from Greenpeace?

As reported by a Japanese newspaper:
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/03/71822ef06714-fukushima-village-radiation-still-above-govt-target-after-cleanup.html
“Most of the six houses surveyed in Iitate, located around 40 kilometers northwest from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi complex, logged radiation levels higher than the government-set target of 0.23 microsieverts per hour, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 microsieverts per hour.”
“The survey also showed that the effect of cleanup work conducted in 2011 and 2012 in the Tsushima district of Namie, located 40 km northwest of the Fukushima plant, was limited, with one house there logging radiation levels of 5.8 microsieverts per hour at the highest and 1.3 microsieverts per hour on average.”

The E&T article states;
“In its report, published today, Greenpeace warns that all areas surveyed, including those where people have been allowed to return, had levels of radiation similar to an active nuclear facility “requiring strict controls”, despite years of decontamination efforts.
“This is public land. Citizens, including children and pregnant women returning to their contaminated homes, are at risk of receiving radiation doses equivalent to one chest X-ray every week. This is unacceptable and a clear violation of their human rights,” said Jan Vande Putte, leader of the survey, from Greenpeace Belgium.”

Does there seem to be something wrong here? The citizens in Brazil have a general background of 1.5 micro Sieverts/hour with areas up to 60 micro Sieverts/hour and have lived there for centuries with no health problems. Greenpeace are up in arms about much lower levels. I think that someone is being very economical with the truth!

Bionerd also takes us through her thyroid scintigraphy using Tc99m, measuring the radiation levels along the way. As she notes while standing at the bus stop she has a level of 10 micro Sieverts/hour at arm’s length.
https://youtu.be/Mj0HDN82Pfo
Greenpeace would want her fenced off with warning signs!

So what are the real risks of radiation? There are many areas of the world where the natural background radiation is higher than the levels being demanded in Japan, search for example Ramsar in Iran, Karunagappalli in India, Arkaroola in Australia and Yangjiang in China. None of these have been found to show significant differences in the incidence of cancer.

A message to E&T, please check the facts before publishing.

Best regards

Roger
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roger B over 8 years ago

I also have found Bionerd23. She is a German medical physics technician who is trying to publicise that radiation is not as bad as the anti-nuclear groups and the media make out and is active on YouTube and Flickr:

www.flickr.com/.../

www.youtube.com/.../

There is an interesting series on a Brazilian beach where the background gamma level in the town is around 1.5 micro Sieverts/hr and close to the (Thorium containing) sand is getting 60 micro Sieverts/hr. So how does this compare to the scaremongering article from Greenpeace?

As reported by a Japanese newspaper:
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/03/71822ef06714-fukushima-village-radiation-still-above-govt-target-after-cleanup.html
“Most of the six houses surveyed in Iitate, located around 40 kilometers northwest from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi complex, logged radiation levels higher than the government-set target of 0.23 microsieverts per hour, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 microsieverts per hour.”
“The survey also showed that the effect of cleanup work conducted in 2011 and 2012 in the Tsushima district of Namie, located 40 km northwest of the Fukushima plant, was limited, with one house there logging radiation levels of 5.8 microsieverts per hour at the highest and 1.3 microsieverts per hour on average.”

The E&T article states;
“In its report, published today, Greenpeace warns that all areas surveyed, including those where people have been allowed to return, had levels of radiation similar to an active nuclear facility “requiring strict controls”, despite years of decontamination efforts.
“This is public land. Citizens, including children and pregnant women returning to their contaminated homes, are at risk of receiving radiation doses equivalent to one chest X-ray every week. This is unacceptable and a clear violation of their human rights,” said Jan Vande Putte, leader of the survey, from Greenpeace Belgium.”

Does there seem to be something wrong here? The citizens in Brazil have a general background of 1.5 micro Sieverts/hour with areas up to 60 micro Sieverts/hour and have lived there for centuries with no health problems. Greenpeace are up in arms about much lower levels. I think that someone is being very economical with the truth!

Bionerd also takes us through her thyroid scintigraphy using Tc99m, measuring the radiation levels along the way. As she notes while standing at the bus stop she has a level of 10 micro Sieverts/hour at arm’s length.
https://youtu.be/Mj0HDN82Pfo
Greenpeace would want her fenced off with warning signs!

So what are the real risks of radiation? There are many areas of the world where the natural background radiation is higher than the levels being demanded in Japan, search for example Ramsar in Iran, Karunagappalli in India, Arkaroola in Australia and Yangjiang in China. None of these have been found to show significant differences in the incidence of cancer.

A message to E&T, please check the facts before publishing.

Best regards

Roger
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Mothers for Nuclear

Community Rules & Guidelines