This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Healthy Doses of Radiation

Rod Adams's picture
President and CEO Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
  • Member since 2006
  • 969 items added with 265,070 views
  • Mar 20, 2014 12:00 am GMT
  • 793 views

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Doses of radiation that are lower than about 700 mGy/yr (see note below) are more likely to reduce cancer incidence and increase life span than to decrease it. In other words, moderate radiation doses are good for you in the same way as moderate exercise is good for you.

The basis for this economy-altering assertion is documented in Dr. Jerry Cuttler’s recent paper titled Remedy for Radiation fear — discard the Politicized science which is available as a pre=press article from Dose Response.

Dose-Response, the journal of the International Dose-Response Society, is a quarterly peer-reviewed electronic journal publishing original findings on the occurrence of dose-response relationships across a broad range of disciplines. Particular interest focuses on experimental evidence providing mechanistic understanding of nonlinear dose-response relationships.

In his paper, Dr. Cuttler explains the biological mechanisms of adaptive response by referring to a chapter titled Hormesis by low dose radiation effects: low-dose cancer risk modeling must recognize up-regulation of protection from a medical textbook Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Springer, 2013. Here is a quote from Dr. Cuttler’s paper:

The critical factor is the effect of radiation on an organism’s very powerful biological defences and protection systems, which involve the actions of more than 150 genes. They act on all of the damage that is occurring (and its consequences) due to both internal causes and the effects of external agents. Although a low radiation dose or low level radiation causes cell damage, it up-regulates adaptive protection systems in cells, tissues, animals and humans that produce beneficial effects far exceeding the harm caused by the radiation (Feinendegen et al. 2013). The net beneficial effects are very significant in restoring and improving health. The detailed behaviours of the defences are very complex, but the evidence is very clear. They range from prevention/cure of cancers to the very important medical applications of enhanced adaptive protections in the responses to stresses and enhanced healing of wounds, curing of infections, and reduction of inflammation, as mentioned earlier. In contrast, high level irradiation impairs these systems.

Dr. Cuttler also provides some reasons why his conclusions are so different from the well known model that assumes all doses of radiation produce harm, with a straight line being drawn from measured damage at high levels through a region where there is no reliable evidence of harm to the origin at zero dose, zero harm. As he documents, the underlying reason why radiation protection organizations began applying the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response assumption is that it supported their well-intentioned effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and stop atmospheric testing of those same weapons.

The LNT assumption provided the scientific campaigners against nuclear weapons a rallying point. The extensive testing programs underway throughout the late 1940s and the 1950s were releasing and distributing measurable concentrations of radioactive isotopes all around the world. With the exception of a few isolated incidents, the isotopes were so dispersed that nearly all of the world’s population were exposed to doses that were not causing any detectable harm.

The people conducting the tests believed that there were good reasons to keep testing, so they resisted the pressures from people who thought that the testing was leading the world into a scary situation where the use of nuclear weapons might be considered acceptable. Many scientists in a variety of fields were adamantly opposed to testing and to the notion that using nuclear weapons was acceptable. Nations that did not have nuclear weapons or that had arsenals that were vastly inferior also had valid reasons to halt the testing and halt the proliferation.

Scientists working to block testing seized on the geneticists’ suggestion that all radiation doses, even the tiny ones being caused by weapons testing-related fallout, could cause harm. They officially accepted that idea in 1958 and began a heavy promotional campaign to spread fallout fears. A search of the New York Times article archive on the word “fallout” returned 964 instances during the period from Jan 1, 1958 through Jan 1, 1964. Here is an example headline from the New York Times.

Committee reports new data on fallout

(Note: Readers who desire a copy of the article may request one via email or via the contact form found at the bottom of the page.)

The sustained effort to promote fallout fear helped to create sufficient public pressure to force government decision makers in the US, the UK and the Soviet Union to agree to a treaty that halted nuclear weapons testing in outer space, underwater, or in the atmosphere. Here are some key quotes from the Times August 30, 1959 article titled Science in Review: Committee Report Provides New Data on Fallout From Nuclear Tests illustrating how the then new LNT assumption was being heavily promoted and applied.

A new look at the problem of fallout from the testing of nuclear weapons and its potential danger to present and future generation is presented in a report released last week by the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy. It is based on the testimony last May by some thirty scientific witnesses and statements presented by other scientists.

The report brings up to date certain key points on which new knowledge has been obtained since the committee held hearings in 1957. These include new data on (1) the origin of fallout; (2) distribution of fallout; (3) biological effects of radiation; (4) tolerance limits; and (5) effects of past and future tests.

Evidence was presented implying “that the effectiveness of a given dose of radiation is less at low-dose rates than at high-dose rates, even for genetic consequences,” the report states. However, it adds, “the biological significance of low levels of radioactivity [such as may be found in fallout] is still largely unknown. No resolution was reached on whether or not a threshold level of radiation exposure exists below which effects such as cancer and leukemia do not result.”

It was generally agreed, the report states, that “in considering acceptable exposure limits in the context of world-wide environmental contamination from fallout, the best assumption that can be made at present concerning the relationship of biological effect to radiation dose is to assume that any dose, however small, produces some biological effect and that this effect is harmful.”
(Emphasis added.)

After representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on August 5, 1963, the antinuclear weapons movement could proudly claim a significant victory that made the world a little safer.

Celebrating Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, July 26, 1963

Headline celebrates Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, July 26, 1963

Unfortunately, many of the people in the movement were not “in on the deal.” They had no idea that their success was assisted by a false premise created by well-intentioned genetic scientists who covered up data that falsified the LNT assumption. The people who created the concept did not realize the harm that it could cause because they comforted themselves with the notion that the assumption was “conservative” and would help to ensure that people employed in radiation-related fields would remain ever vigilant and accept onerous work rules that would have otherwise been resisted.

By the time the battle to halt testing was won, the LNT assumption had spawned a growing guild of radiation protection professionals trained under the assumption and not motivated to question it. The assumption of harm to a level of zero dose also instilled a new taboo; no one could suggest actually testing the assumption on human beings because it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to knowingly harm a patient.

Cuttler and many of his colleagues in the dose-response field of study rarely mention one more aspect of the strong resistance to questioning the LNT-based assumption that all radiation is harmful.

The regulations and work practices that have been imposed as a result of that assumption add an unmeasurable, but enormous, cost burden to the use of nuclear technology. That handicap is beneficial to a wide array of interest groups that make their money using technologies that would be substantially less competitive against a less burdened set of nuclear technologies.

This statement is true in medicine, food preparation, and industrial measuring applications, but the world’s non-nuclear energy industry is the group with the most to lose if the world’s human population accepts radiation as harmless and even potentially beneficial at low doses. Their multi-trillion dollar per year enterprise would be substantially less lucrative if it had to compete against nuclear energy without the LNT-based fear factor.

Even those parts of the hydrocarbon industry who’s product cannot be directly replaced with any current nuclear technology, like liquid fuels for personal transportation, would find that their valuable product would have a substantially reduced market price due to the effects of an increase in overall energy supplies. Many fossil fuels currently used for electrical power production, for example, can be chemically — and profitably — converted into synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel at a cost that is substantially lower than current world distillate fuel prices.

Radiation fear is a powerful tool for the world’s established energy industry and their fellow travelers in transportation, government and media. For all of the rest of us, however, Dr. Cuttler’s paper should be the source of massive celebrations. It enables us to have a far more optimistic outlook on future prosperity because it enables us to more readily use an incredibly powerful and abundant energy source that just happens to be a lot cleaner for the environment than burning fossil fuels.

Have a great weekend.


Note: Measuring radiation doses is often unnecessarily complicated by using a multitude of measuring scales, by the fact that different types of radiation — alpha, beta, gamma — have different effects, and by the fact that effects for shorter range radiation (beta and alpha particles) will be worse if the source is close and target cells are unshielded because the radioactive material is inhaled or ingested.

The chronic threshold dose of 700 mGy/yr is gamma equivalent whole body dose. The same dose can be expressed as 700 mSv/yr, 70 rad/yr, or 70 rem/yr. End note.

The post Healthy doses of radiation appeared first on Atomic Insights.

Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 19, 2014

Just as with smoking, asbestos, arsenic, etc. low level radiation requires upregulation of defense mechanisms.
Just as with smoking & asbestos that upregulated defense mechanisms gets exhausted more early. In practise after 20-60years.

A person with such exhausted defense mechanism gets illnesses, in ~60% of the cases cancer.
Low level radiation is no exception!
The damage of low level radiation also show only after a latency period of 20-60years.
The experiments of Cutler, etc do not take that into account.

Though the tobacco & asbestos industry do their best to let us believe there is a threshold below which no harm, it is now clear that also very low levels of tobacco & asbestos do harm health, which shows after a latency of 20-60years.
Similar, the nuclear industry does her best to let us belief low level radiation doesnot harm below a threshold.

In some situations low level smoking is beneficial for health, e.g. it helps ulcerative colitis patients.
Similar, in some situations radiation is beneficial. However in general clearly not.

Low level radiation is especially harmfull for the very young, as those have a high cell division rate in order to grow fast. Because during cell division the cell has little capability to repair, hence either it will be killed or the resulting abnormal cell survives and may divide again and again into more abnormal cells.

As the cell division rate of fetuses is >100 times more that of adults, one can expect that damage shows there early. And indeed it did in medical studies (so wombs of women are protected against X-ray, especially if they are pregnant), and in studies after Chernobyl.

Real life effects little extra radiation.
Chernobyl caused in some districts in Germany (~1000miles away) extra radiation (rain from the radio-active cloud) and other districts little (mainly Cs-137 caused with half-life ~30years).
In 10 districts (~a million people), the contamination varied between 0.2mSv/a and 0.5mSv/a.
In 10 similar nearby districts the contamination was near zero.

That small extra radiation caused a sudden upward jump of 20-40% in serious birth defects such as Down syndrome, serious congenital malformations, stillbirth (=deaths in the last 2 months), etc.
With P between P<0.001 and P<0.000001.

Furthermore the study showed that the frequency of those serious birth defects was linear related with the level of the fall-out contamination in the area (p<0.001). And that the increased rate of birth defects continued, gradually decreasing in line with the gradual decreasing contamination.

As:
– the non-contaminated similar districts had no upward jump;
– all birth in the whole population in the 20 districts were considered. So no sampling confounding.
Note: All birth and birth defects were registered at the population offices since before 1980 (Chernobyl was in 1986), so full time series covering more than a decade were available.

the only possible conclusion is that levels of 0.2mSv/year (0.2mGy/year) extra radiation (=10% more than normal background) cause already serious damage to fetuses.

These results are measured from real life situations.
Others measured with such low levels extra radiation:
missing numbers of boys born due to the same low levels of radiation (Csech republic, 1.000miles off Chernobyl). It is known that boys are more vulnerable for radiation, so more die early in the womb.
– increases in smaller deviations such as cleft lips.

Genetic effects. Such as sudden change in the sex-ratio of new born after Chernobyl in wider areas, with ~200million people, that got low level Cerhnobyl radiation. These changes indicate damages to the gene, which may show in new born of later generations.
increased perinatal death rates after Chernobyl in areas with ~0.5mSv/year extra radiation.
etc.

Nussbaum gives an overview based on ~20 studies.
Medical studies regarding the effects of CT-scans on children, etc. show similar.

So care for next generations imply that any extra radiation >0.1mSv/year should be avoided (~7,000 times less than pro-nuclear Rod suggest here to be safe).
Unless people have no problem with the increased risk on serious birth defects, which doubles with 1mSv/year extra.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 20, 2014

Already read this elsewhere. Already seen the refute that your miniscule numbers (.1mSv/yr) is lost to normal background radiation. You have no business telling people to “say no to nuclear”. In contrast, I am not telling you to say no to wind and solar even though they, their required over build and less than perfect storage are still more expensive (that’s your choice).

Coal is more dangerous than nuclear.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html

If you still don’t believe it, then post two links: One from wikipedia (or other non nuclear and non renewable news source) stating how many people coal kills per year, and one stating how many nuclear kills per the entirety of its history. 

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 20, 2014

@Bas

As usual, your argumentative style is to post a comment longer than the original post and full of unsubstantiated assertions that are not worth responding to on a point by point basis. However, I will challenge your last statement:

So care for next generations imply that any extra radiation >0.1mSv/year should be avoided (~7,000 times less than pro-nuclear Rod suggest here to be safe). 
Unless people have no problem with the increased risk on serious birth defects, which doubles with 1mSv/year extra.


Do you thus advocate that we evacuate the Rocky Mountain states, tear down Grand Central Station, destroy the Capitol Building, and ground all aircraft? Your assertion, in a world where background radiation levels vary by several orders of magnitude and average somewhere around 2.4 mSv/year (closer to 6 mSv/year if medical exposures are included) is patently absurd.

By the way, you’re darned right that I am pro-nuclear. It is far superior to unreliable energy sources and to continued abject dependence on burning coal, oil and natural gas for the power that enables humans to prosper.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 20, 2014

“...your miniscule numbers (.1mSv/yr) is lost to normal background radiation...”
That is often true as accurate measurement of the damage of low levels of radiation is extremely difficult. That doesnot imply it isn’t there!
NYAS*) uniquely support the Yablokov book which states 1 million death after Chernobyl before 2007 and most death still have to come due to the latency of 20-60years before harm shows of low level radiation.

Thanks to the real life unique circumstances after Chernobyl in South Germany, that damage could be measured accurately!
Read the study that I linked.

Whether coal is more dangerous depends on air pollution regulations, etc. It is clearly less dangerous her in NL and Germany.
But coal is fading out (also in Germany as figures show).

Solar+wind+storage will become the main electricity generator, and those are:
 – many times less dangerous than nuclear;
 – produce far less pollution and GHG, then nuclear with its uranium mines & processing;
 – are also >2 times cheaper (as comparison with the new NPP at Hinkley shows).

*) NYAS = New York Academy of Science

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 20, 2014

Yablokov’s book is fiction partially based on incorrect interpretations of sensationalistic media pieces. It was not reviewed or selected by the NYAS; it was printed by their in-house press because an editor, who is no longer with the organization, decided to print it.

I’ve written a number of pieces and published other guest commentary about the sad affair on Atomic Insights. If you are interested in learning some of the history and finding out how the NYAS responded to the embarassment of having one of their longest serving and most distinguished members fighting to force it to recant, please visit http://atomicinsights.com/?s=yablokov

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

Bobbi O's picture
Bobbi O on Mar 20, 2014

 Dr Adams,

  Interesting! My wife’s uncle Dr. Ralph Lapp was a nuclear scientist in the 40’s,50; 60’s who wrote several books that supported just that premise.. ” My Life With Radiation ” and ” Voyage of The Lucky Dragon ” are two of them.  I  read  them in the 70’s .During college  I had been taught that damage from radiation was linear even though the points of data were far out on the  XY graph  and the linear line had been extrapolated back to 00 without data to support the more modest radiation exposures. Dr. Lapps’ conclusions seemed like heresy at the time.    J.O.

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 20, 2014

@Bobbi O

Dr. Lapp was a giant in his field.

By the way, though I am flattered by the honorific, my highest degree is an MS. I am not a Dr.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 20, 2014

Rod,
Sorry, I forgot to write about background radiation.
As El at your blog also showed, high natural background radiation does harm people who live there.

One of the highest background radiation areas in the world is an area in Ramsar (Iran); ~2,000 people live there. Radiation level ~10mSv/year.

To show a significant enhanced rate of cancer with ~8mSv/a extra radiation, a test population of >100,000 persons is necessary. However only ~2,000 persons live in concerned area.
So that is statistically impossible to show.

But this study shows that the Ramsar inhabitants have significant more chromosome abberations (=indication of impaired health, also for their offspring) as well as significant more CD69 & IgE, which indicate alerted state of the body (continous). Which implies the body will be faster exhausted, so life will be shorter.
Other studies concerning Ramsar showed similar results.
So ~8mSv/a extra radiation harms even adults.

Of course similar results were shown for other high natural background radiation (HNBR) area, such as more aberrations that deliver more risk for Down syndrome in HNBR area in Kerala.

A 2009 review by scientists from 8 countries (USA, UK, etc) concluded: “… convincing evidence of an association between long-term protracted radiation exposures in the general population and disease incidence.

Comparing e.g. Denver with Los Angelos creates an confounding problem. Air pollution in LA shortens people life substantial, while the air in Denver is very clear (you can see the difference with google streetview, if you have a good monitor). Furthermore US has the inhouse radon issue.
I do not know of good studies, eleminating the confounding, so they can find anything significant.

___
There is great difference between damage that occurs while I take action knowing the risk (e.g mountaneering), or getting the damage as not knowing citizen.
In the first case I get a benefit in return, while the innocent citizen (or fetus, or baby) gets nothing in return for the health risk. 

Only for another method (nuclear) of electricity supply, while other methods (wind+solar+storage) are cheaper, better for the climate (emit significant less GHG), and do not impose such risks on the innocent citizen, his (grand-)children, babies, fetuses. His genes.

A week ago a documentary regarding the area around Chernobyl was on Dutch TV. Physicians told that now ~27 years thereafter ~90% of all children have chronic illness (one or more). 
Those are not considered in the stastistics of IAEA/WHO…

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 20, 2014

@Bas

People who selectively believe documents and statements that support what they want to believe while ignoring every possible piece of evidence that contradicts their belief are generally said to be suffering from “confirmation bias” or self-delusion.

Please feel free to continue engaging in that practice, but keep your phobias to yourself. You wrote:

A week ago a documentary regarding the area around Chernobyl was on Dutch TV. Physicians told that now ~27 years thereafter ~90% of all children have chronic illness (one or more).  
Those are not considered in the stastistics of IAEA/WHO…

 So I suppose you are claiming a giant, worldwide conspiracy of silence and denial among all of the members of the responsible international bodies, while your favored documentarians and fantasy writers like Yablokov are persecuted and suppressed.

Get a life.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Mar 20, 2014

 

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

 

 

” Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor’s Note at end of page 2]”


food for thought…

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 20, 2014

Rod,I didn’t state that I believed the 90% claim of the Ukraine physicians.
Still, I believe a substantial share of the children has chronic illness.
And the simple fact is that I didn’t read about that in the IAEA/WHO reports.
So the assumption they were not considered seems logic to me.

But may be I did not read well, so if you can show me?

I do not believe in big conspiracies.
I do believe that organisations, also the WHO, behave in such a way that they get/keep the finances going / survive well.
The atomic powers financed >90% of the WHO budget and they wished to continue with atmospheric bomb testing. The WHO had loud protests, so they forced the WHO to sign the 1959 agreement with IAEA. After that not a single small protests from WHO anymore…

I was not aware professor Yablokov was persecuted??

No real argument / studies regarding the conclusion of the background radiation studies, that 8mSv/year is damaging for health of adults and their offspring? So you agree?

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 20, 2014

@Paul O

The headline you quoted is misleading. Coal ash is far LESS radioactive that nuclear waste (aka used nuclear fuel). It is true that the fly ash emitted from a coal power plant carries more radiation into the environment, but that is only because the fuel rods, spent fuel pools and dry storage casks contain the radioactivity and do not release it into the environment.

In a coal plant, most of the fly ash is not contained; it gets released into the environment either through the smoke stack or in the lightly controlled slurry ponds.

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Mar 20, 2014

Agreed.

Thanks for the update. I wanted the anti-nuclear Lignite Coal advocates to at least have some food for thought.

 

BTW. My edit function won’t work, so I’ll leave it as  is with you comment as an explanation.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 21, 2014

Rod,
Yes. Many parties repeatedly attacked this scientific organisation about publishing this book on its WEB-site since 2009. Even long time and most distinguished members attacked.

They disqualified it a.o. as: “posing a risk for the scientific reputation of NYAS“, which is one of the most serious imputations possible.

Despite all that: 
1. NYAS decided to continue to publish the book on their site.
So apparently the responsible at NYAS consider this book to be an important contribution to the discussion. Otherwise he/she/they would not have accepted a risk with continued publication. 

2. A famous scientific publishing house, took the copy rights and keeps those up-to-date. In the book you read: “Copyright © 1999-2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved.“.
So apparently they also consider it valuable.

3. Prof.Dr. Grodzinsky, Chairman of the dept. of biology of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, wrote a supportive forword.

So this book from the professors Yablokov & Nesterenko contains valuable information according to those respectable scientists and scientist organisations. 

I do see why it is attacked by pro-nuclear.
It is one of the mines under the statement that nuclear is safe, safer than coal, etc…

But I am less interested in fossil as I believe that the future of electricity generation belongs to PVsolar+wind+storage, which is anyway much safer and more reliable.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 22, 2014

I have a daughter who fell off a bicycle, went to the doctor, just to make sure her hand and face was alright. The doctors talked me in to a catscan which is like a whole bunch of  X-ray images. Now, I was fearful but the doctor said “don’t worry, concerning the radiation, its a very trivial amount and she’ll be alright”. So I went for it (not knowing what a mSv is).

Doses from a single pediatric CT scan can range from about 5 mSv to 60 mSv.

I think she’ll be alright with just .1 per year from the worst possible nuclear energy accident in all of history.

Besides, even the open cycle requires a very small volume for wastes isolation (but would prefer to burn the actinides in the closed cycle).

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 22, 2014

Uh oh, more lies from Mr. Bas Gresnigt.

Bas writes:

Despite all that: 

1. NYAS decided to continue to publish the book on their site. 
So apparently the responsible at NYAS consider this book to be an important contribution to the discussion. Otherwise he/she/they would not have accepted a risk with continued publication. “

In fact, the NYAS was warned about the worthlessness of the publication *after* they published it, not before, or else it would never have been published.

NYAS also published a scathing review of the Yablokov book, which you always seem to ‘forget’ about, don’t you Bas? Here it is.

http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bfc-3b35-434f-8a5c-ee5579d11dbb&t=634507382459270000

Except you didn’t forget about it, did you Bas? It’s been shown to you before, yet you ignore it and spread your lies perpetually. Abuse of freedom of speech is your strategy. Who pays you Bas?

What I’m also starting to wonder is why the moderators of this website let you go on with your work so freely. I wonder what the use of a moderator is, if someone like you is free to publish the same lies over, and over, and over, and ….




Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 22, 2014

Of course, as a good scientific organisation. they published critical reviews too.

The critical review you refer to, is by a member of the Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, Russia, who cooperated and defended the IAEA/WHO 2006 report.
His credentials are far less than those of the authors:

– Professor Yablokov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
– Professor. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center (died);
– Alexey V. Nesterenko, Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus).
Or those of Professor Professor Grodzinsky: Chairman, Department of General Biology, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, Chairman, Ukrainian National Commission on Radiation Protection, who wrote the supportive foreword.

Wikipedia shows an overview of the critical reviews.

Taking into account that this book undermines the statement that nuclear is safer than coal,
it is amazing that not more critical reviews by persons with better scientific credentials are published.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 22, 2014

I agree that radiation should not be present past normal background levels. That is another reason I don’t like coal because it emits many times more radiation (by concentration into flyash)  than nuclear power plants.

It is FAR easier to isolate the wastes from the closed cycle than to contain the wastes from coal because of the million to one ratios. Such (only 300 year) confinement must become a national priority.

We can’t wait any longer.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 23, 2014

Your daugher had a diagnostic CT-scan, which implies lower radiation.
From your link:”The effective doses from diagnostic CT procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv.”

A rough estimate based on this review study, would be that a CT-scan creates an increase in the chance to get some form of cancer (leukemia, brain, etc) of ~2%.

I assume that the real chance is highly dependent on:
– the amount of radiation involved (1 or 60mSv is a big difference);
– the age of the child (studies took all children until ~20years). It is known that faster dividing / growing organisms are far more vulnerable as during the process of cell division repair is difficult. And little children have a much faster grow rate (bigger % increase in weight per week) than older children.
– which part of the body is CT-scanned.

The review concerns mainly the Australian and the UK study. Both involve >100,000patients.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 23, 2014

It’s a funny thing about science. A theory can be destroyed by single piece of evidence showing it is false. Likewise, the book by Yablokov was so bad, that only one review was necessary to show why. No more is necessary, therefore no more will be coming. Anti-nuke propaganda does not deserve more.

But you wouldn’t understand Bas. Your actions show that you are the kind of person who believes that by repeating a lie often enough, it will become truth. Likewise, I fully expect to see you promoting Yablokov’s book throughout the coming years on websites like this one, like you have done in the previous years. Whenever I have the time, I will try to find you doing this, tell people you are a repetitive liar, and I will point people to the solid, scathing rebuttal of Yablokov’s book, like I have done in previous years. Wherever you attempt to cause morbid radiophobia with your propaganda, I will be there to help people regain their intelligence and peace of mind by pointing to the actual science.

Have a great day.

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on Mar 23, 2014

@Bas

Being “chairman or director” of an organization that sounds impressive has little to do with scientific credentials.

If you want to know something about M. I. Balonov’s scientific credentials, you might want to see what he has published and take a good look at the variety of collaborators on his many publications – 48 of which are listed at the link below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Balonov%20MI%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor...

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 23, 2014

These things should be replaced with simple X-rays for first diagnosis (should the X-ray reveal a problem, then the CT might be necessary).

Doctors (evidently) use the CT procedure as just another way to make extra money.

My point is that these CT scans (sometimes highly unnecessary, as in the case of children who simply get a scrape) are FAR more ionizing than that from any NNP. Furthermore, why is it Ok to conduct CT scans on children for such trivial little incidents when it is not Ok to use the far less dangerous nuclear power to replace coal, which is proven to cause even more adverse health effects?

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Mar 23, 2014

I googled “Bas Gresnigt”

It appears he all over the internet repeating the same things he is saying here, and continually being debunked exactly the same way, all over the Web.

Bas just ignores the responses and debunks and continues to regurgitate the same substance over and over and again.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 23, 2014

Agree. Furthermore, it would be better to replace all CT-scans by MRI, as MRI has no such radiation disadvantages.

Whether nuclear power is less dangerous than coal is unclear yet as there is only the highly biased Hansen etal study that concludes that. E.g. the Hansen study assumes that Chernobyl caused only 80 death, while others state ~a million until 2007, which imply ~4million deaths before the year 2200.

Anyway, fossil will gradually be replaced by renewable solar+storage+wind which are far less dangerous than nuclear and generate far less CO2 than nuclear does (through the uranium mines, etc).

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 24, 2014

Paul,
I always read the posts, etc. of my opponents as I want to learn.
Unless I run out of time.
But then I do not respond.

Seems to me that you lost or had no arguments anymore, and now resort to some wild attack on the person. Please read my responses with an open mind.

Selective reading is a waste of time.
Even your report about the google results is rather selective.
You missed my hobbies, as well as my main professional activities.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 24, 2014

Rod,
Agree, Balonov too has a list of publications, as well as the professors.
That doesnot imply that Balonov’s point of view is the right one.

I think that the Oxford journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry did the right thing.
They published two reviews one rather positive and one more critical.

The positive review by Dr. Fairlie, a radiation biologist, who was a scientific secretary to UK Government’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters.

The negative review by Monty Charles from the school of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham.

I agree with some of the main points of Dr. Ian Fairlie’s review, such as:

  • IAEA/WHO’s exclusion of most important data (only direct involved persons, etc),
    Which is contrary to normal practise and ICRP practise, and contradicts their own adhered Linear-no-Threshold (LNT) model.
  • IAEA/WHO’s dismissal of epidemiological studies regarding Chernobyl. With arguments such as questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by IAEA & WHO.

This creates the strong impression that the 2006 Chernobyl forum, organized by IAEA who has the target to promote the application of nuclear energy, is essentially a cover up operation.

That impression is boosted by the forum report which brings positive messages as facts without any decent study to underpin those. E.g. the message that wild life strives in the exclusion zone.

 

Paul O's picture
Paul O on Mar 24, 2014

Bas,

Your Claims about Chernobyll for example, have been refuted and debunked many time on this site and others, yet you keep on repeating them

This is why I believe that repesponding to you is far too pointless…You are just not listening.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 24, 2014

That impression is boosted by the forum report which brings positive messages as facts without any decent study to underpin those. E.g. the message that wild life strives in the exclusion zone.”

The fact is that wildlife *does* actually thrive in the exclusion zone. Watch this documentary about the ‘Radioactive wolves’ of Chernobyl.

You ignorance on this matter suggests that you are too immersed in anti-nuclear claptrap to be able to objectively evaluate the Forum report.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 24, 2014

Nope.

As representatives of the ICRP and other radiation and health research institutions explain here, in the context of Tjernobyl and Fukushima:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaEKfPlCL_4

 

 

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 24, 2014

There are clearly many outstanding scientists that support my claim that Chernobyl will kill a million people in the period to the year 2200…
I stated some in my discussion thread with Rod in this blog.

I also explain why the IAEA/WHO 2006 forum report is flawed and resemble a major cover-up operation.

The only statements I saw until now in response was that IAEA/WHO, etc. are decent UN organisations. History shows that many decent organisations had their flaws…
So that is no argument.

Especially not since the conclusions of the 2006 forum report do not fit with research results in Germany, which shows that the 0.5mSv/a radiation creates already a ~50% increase in Down syndrome’s, etc.
Similar with those in Chech republic, Poland, East-Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 24, 2014

Joris,
Just a promotion movie. No scientific data at all.

Since you seem to like YouTube, please look at this presentation regarding the results of scientific research regarding the wild life in the exclusion zone at Chernobyl/

That research show, that the animals in the exclusion zone have:
 – increased rates of genetic damage and deformaties;
 – reduced life spans and population sizes;
 – reduced fertiliy rates (also shown in human populations in Europa hit by only ~0.5mSv/a Chernobyl radiation);

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 25, 2014

Joris,
Again no relevant research results, only information which is clearly biased.

Few examples.  It is stated & suggested that:

  • dosis received by 6million residents is 9mSv” is safe (at 6.54min)
    According to LNT (underwritten by (UN WHO, ICRP, etc) that dosis will generate ~0.5% of the residents premature death (~0.9% extra cancers), which is  30,000 deaths after 20-60years.
    Then we forget about the extra damage that this dosage created to fetuses (extra Down syndrome, malformatios, etc), the enhanced levels of stillbirth, the missed births, etc. 
  • “several places in Iran, India, Europe where (background radiation) doses can be more than 50mSv/a” (at 7.50min), which would be safe.
    The highest background radiation area where substantial numbers live (~2,000people) is <12mSv/a (6mSv/a average) in Ramsar, Iran. The voice forgets to explain that almost nobody lives at places with >12mSv/a.
    Research found substantial more damage to the genes in people who live in Ramsar with ~6mSv/a (similar in Kerala, etc), which implies lower quality next generations as well as less fertility. Furthermore research found that:”…individuals who live in homes with more than 10.2 mSv/y had incomplete repair…”.

This kind of promotion with associated misrepresentations of reality, resembles highly the promotion of the tobacco and asbestos industries. Those also promoted during many decades the (false) idea that there would be a threshold below which the use was healty, supported by similar would be ‘scientific’ statements.

Promotion that below a threshold asbestos would be harmless continued, while it was already shown since the seventies that a single asbestos micro fiber can cause the special type of asbestos cancer. Nevertheless that promotion delayed the total ban of asbestos in the Netherlands for at least two decades. Which imply ~20,000 unnecessary asbestos deaths Netherlands alone as research showed.

The only excuse is that low level radiaton, as well as asbestos and tobacco, also has a latency of 20-60years before the health damage becomes visible. So a direct link is not obvious.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 25, 2014

Some of the misrepresentations in your long story:

  • WHO:”no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes … have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any.”
    That statement clearly denies & ignore the many sound scientific studies, even in W-Europe that do show substantial harm. The most solid studies done by the Germans, show big damage to fetuses even with only 0.2mSv/year Chernobyl radiation in parts of Germany, Poland, Finland, etc.
    Even former East-Germany (part of the communists bloc at the time) researches found such damage as well as those of other countries.
  • …comparing the health of people or of children born in these different regions, there is no evidence at all of any negative health effects from the significant difference in radiation doses recieved…
    Negative effects to the genes are shown by many studies.
    Negative health effects are very difficult to show because:
     – few people live in each high radiation area (one need a million in order to show significant results);
     – many confounding factors (not equal living cicumstances). E.g. air pollution in Los Angelos is worse, especially compared to “higher radiation area” Denver that has clean air.

    Despite that review studies did show that health is significant less in areas with high background radiation (compensating for confounding).
    “...convincing evidence of an association between long-term protracted radiation exposures in the general population and disease incidence...”

    So now a number of countries have programs to lessen the amount of ²²²radon in houses, etc.
    There are discussions to forbid building houses near the coast in Kerala in areas where the beach contains the radio-active monazite sand, etc. (not sure about the status of that ban).

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 25, 2014

Bas,

You think the IAEA is corrupt

You think the WHO is corrupt

You think the UN is corrupt

You think the UNSCEAR is corrupt

And now (because you deny the information in this video), you also think the ICRP is corrupt!

Is there any public radiation and health research institute which you DO trust?!?

Why should anyone trust you, if you deny the information supplied by foremost research institutes?

Why should I accept the fact that you continue spreading your nonsense everywhere, causing morbid radiophobia? Why should I not conclude that you are a liar and a danger to society?

You are just as bad as the climate science deniers. Oh wait I forgot: you ARE a climate science denier.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 25, 2014

Bas, I watched your presentation.

Are you serious? It is bloody propaganda, man! The guy is a total kook! He has been spreading nonsense and getting completely debunked by accredited scientists for years. You can google his sorry history in an afternoon.

You really have to get away from this ridiculous propaganda. It makes you look like a common dunce. It is dangerous to be so gullible. I actually kind of hope you are a paid propagandists who is not really fooled by this nonsense. On the other hand … no … I hope you are simply horribly misinformed and willing to learn. It’s never too late to do so.

So in that spirit, please find the full analysis of your presentation by an actual doctor of nuclear physics, right here:

http://atomicinsights.com/critical-analysis-mousseau-fukushima-presentation/

 

 

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 25, 2014

@Joris,I do not think IAEA or WHO or UN or UNSCEAR or ICRP is corrupt. Not at all.

If someone makes statements that contradict the accepted theory of these UN organisations regarding radiation without any proof, even without any study that support his statement, then
you too should doubt whether that statement is true.

While Lineair-No-Threshold is the accepted theory regarding nuclear radiation by these UN organisations, folks involved in the 2006 Chernobyl forum state that this general accepted theory does not apply for Chernobyl nuclear radiation.
After all, they state that an extra dosis of 9mSv is safe, while LNT states that this extra dosis creates ~0.5% deaths in the population…

So these folks are either misinformed, or so fanatic convinced that nuclear radiation is harmless that they ignore theory and evidence accepted by their own organisation, or …
Any case, informed people cannot trust the statements of such people.

So statements made by those folks without any evidence are not enough, as they clearly cannot be trusted as shown here.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 25, 2014

Joris,
I’m willing to learn.
So I checked and found that Mousseau is a respected scientist who in cooperation with roughly 50 other scientists produced about 60 publications in mostly peer reviewed scientific journals.
He was the leading author in ~10 publications.

If he was a “total kook”, he would not have found so many other scientists prepared to cooperate with him and share publications with him.

The critical analysis at Rod’s Adams site
Start with three paragraphs to minimize the importance of the meeting & presentation. Not relevant regarding the reliability of Mouseau’s statements. But it indicates that the reviewer wants to devalue the presentation as much as possible. An attitude one cannot qualify as objective.

Then an attack because Mousseau announced that Japanese colleagues withdrew, speculating that they are afraid because of presented conclusions. While the reviewer shows that he knows that Japanese scientists are afraid to present negative findings regarding Fukushima (a.o. read NY-Times).

Then the reviewer states, via a lengthy detour, that the animal counts may not be per unit of surface (e.g. m²). Which is ridiculous taking into account: 
 – the huge areas involved and the low numbers of animals on the graphics;
 – the near impossibility to count all animals;
 – that this was published in peer reviewed journal, which would have noted such childish mistake.

Then the reviewer states his main critique:”…9% sperm abnormalities due to a field of 1 μSv/h seems incredulous…”.
If he had checked e.g. the Ramsar studies, he would know that ~9mSv/a radiation (=1μSv/h) deliver enhanced levels of genetic abnormalities, even in humans. Yet he only makes emotional statements about people spending some hours on a beach with higher radiation levels, which may or may not have those abnormalities (almost sure not as people spend <1% of their time on a beach, so received dosis is also <1%). Furthermore assuming that humans have the same sensitivity for those abnormalities as those animals.

etc.

Alas no scientific founded critique, but a story intended to impress the reader emotionally.
Or otherwise stated: no substance.
Not sure why Atomic Insight publishes such nonsense.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Mar 25, 2014

Negative health effects [of radation] are very difficult to show becauseone need a million in order to show significant results…”

Yet you compare radiation to smoking and asbestos.  The effects of smoking are easy to show, even for only a handful of people, since essentially everyone who smokes for multiple decades will show negative health effects.  So this comparison strikes me as rather knowingly dishonest (or do you believe everyone in Denver will get natural-radiation-induced cancer?).


There are discussions to forbid building houses near the coast in Kerala in areas where the beach contains the radio-active monazite sand,”

So when tsunamis sweep away people by the tens of thousands, you think it’s radioactive sand which is the hazard we should avoid?

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Mar 26, 2014

“… fossil will gradually be replaced by renewable solar+storage+wind …”

This is obviously the goal of the environemental side of the renewables movement, but it is a leap of faith to predict that it will be achieved.  The other side of the renewables movement wants to lock-in fossil fuel backup (in place of much more expensive and less versatile energy storage); so far this side is winning (i.e. solar and wind are being installed without energy storage, PV has all but killed off the CSP industry, PV and wind are being installed in places with very poor capacity factor, and long distance HVDC is not being widely deployed.

Thus far, the only alternative to fossil fuel which has proven to be cost effective at high penetration is a combination of nuclear+hydro (e.g. as in France, Sweden, and Swizerland).  To dismiss nuclear before an affordable alternative has been proven suggests that another goal or ideology is being placed above the best interest of the environment and human health.  Antinuclearism is extremely reckless.

  renewable solar+storage+wind which … generate far less CO2 than nuclear does (through the uranium mines, etc).”

Compared to fossil fuel, nuclear power and renewables have about the same very low CO2 emissions.  And nuclear’s CO2 emissions are rapidly falling, as most are due to the old gaseous diffusion enrichment plants (which are being replaced with 50x more efficient centrifuge plants).  CO2 emissions from the nuclear cycle will drop even further with the switch to breeder reactors like LFTR and IFR, as these reduce the need for mining ore by two orders of magnitude.  Early plant retirements advocated by anti-nuclear activists also cause increased life-cycle emissions for nuclear (e.g. anti-nuclearism is bad for the environment).

Whether nuclear power is less dangerous than coal is unclear yet as there is only the highly biased Hansen etal study…”

There are no studies to prove whether clean air is less dangerous than carbon monoxide; this does not mean there is an actual dispute.  In the US at least, the track record clearly shows that nuclear power, including Three Mile Island, is extremely safe, while the coal industry has a continuing list of fatal accidents, and an emissions profile of CO2, ash/particulates, sulfur dioxide, NOx, mercury, and other pollutants that push the limit of what the EPA cosiders acceptable.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 26, 2014

Oh please.

The study you linked concludes among other things that exposure to low dose radiation might be beneficial because it stimulates cell protection and repair systems. Being exposed to several times background radiation is actually stated by your study to reduce mortality from all kinds of cancer (although the effect is not statistically significant).

In other words, the study you linked to support your craven fear-mongering in fact debunks that fear-mongering, and then some!

An “own-goal” if ever there was one.

Have a good day.

 

 

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Mar 26, 2014

“...essentially everyone who smokes for multiple decades will show negative health effects…
If that was true, then smoking would have been forbidden long time ago. My grand father became 92years old while smoking, and didn’t die through cancer…

..So when tsunamis sweep away people by the tens of thousands, you think …
No tsunamis known at the coast of Kerala.
I do not think here.
I just report what is going on; a possible ban to build houses on monazite sands.
 

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 26, 2014

How could you say that it’s unclear whether nuclear power is less dangerous than coal? I will detrack for a moment and list ALL hydrocarbons.

Here’s another link… just one out of who knows how many under the search “tar sands health impacts indians”.    http://www.ienearth.org/what-we-do/tar-sands/

There is NOT just “only”… Bty, Hansen is a respected scientist, not a shill.

Can you please answer these two questions: About how many people died due to fossil fueled pollution ( that’s all kinds of fossil fuels such as coal, smog from gasoline and diesel cars and gas for heating. Don’t forget about infrastructure “mishaps” such as the oil spills, gas pipelines blowing up, etc). And about how many people died from nuclear (including mishaps).

Not only people, but wildlife has been extremely effected by our use of hydrocarbons.

In your defense, I must acknowledge that nuclear powers like only 10% of “everything” that the fossils do, thus these numbers must at least be 1/10 nuclear to 9/10th hydrocarbons.

I am proud to be “highly biased” for a source that can electrify “everything”. And to back up my claim that nuclear is safer than the fossils, here is a short vid documenting the “deaths per GWh” from various sources. You might want to watch it a few times to get the drift (and I forgot to include “war” in that list of hydrocarbon kills).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2GTg7W7Rc&list=PLl7wz1JXaNOzHzDbclSuvBhtcMV53deQe&index=12

Notice that COAL has the fewest GWh per death (the smallest circle. Solar was added because there was just 6 documented deaths caused by people falling off the roof, but since solar contributes such a small amount, had more “kills per Gwh” than other, larger sources!

Also notice how light water reactor mishaps were also shown in the beginning. It’s a “pro LFTR” message.

Oh (another edit) here’s some documentation that matches the video…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf

Or search “death per kWh”, Gwh, TWh etc.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Mar 26, 2014

Great references Robert.  Looking at the coal fatality rate (global average of about 150 lives lost per GW-year) from the Forbes article, it’s clear that coal is more dangerous than nuclear, even if we believe Bas’s claim that Chernobyl killed millions (which I don’t believe) and if we believe that modern reactors are as dangerous as the Chernobyl units (which I don’t think anyone believes). 

It’s worth pointing out that since coal pollution is a local problem (except the CO2), pollution control is always at the discretion of the host government.  Even the poorest nations buy nuclear plants from experienced suppliers, and therefore get world-class safety (e.g.  China has stopped building their domestic Gen II reactors, and are exclusively building to Gen III safety standards, by buying and cloning western reactors like the AP1000).

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 27, 2014

Those references that Bas points to are however, quite alarming such as the incident rate ratio’s of people getting cancer after CT scans. As the number of years past beyond 4, (I believe) those ratios went down, suggesting that they were caused from the CT scans.

I know that nuclear is much safer than that but I believe Bas’s fear is that another Chernobyl will happen, perhaps by a nightmare infrastructure distruption happening such as a major grid knockout (from solar flares or  wars?) causing such social mayhem as to prevent the flow of water to cool the solid fuel to prevent meltdown(s). I kinda think in that way, too.

However, I believe this kind of rational to be flawed for molten fuels and other reactor designs as they can’t ever possibly melt down. 

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Mar 27, 2014

Regarding the possibility of another Chernobyl: yes, the probability is non-zero, even though it is quite low.  The important thing is understanding the likelihood, and the factors that influence the likelihood.  Cohen’s on-line book on nuclear power has a good discussion of this.

By analogy, another Fukushima tsunami could  happen too (by this I mean a giant wave could kill 20,000 people in an ocean-front city).  Does this mean that we should evacuate all ocean-front cities?  It depends on the risk and benefits of being near the ocean; in most cases society has decided it is worth the risk.  We can mitigate the risk with strategically placed sea walls and wetlands, early warning systems, etc.

Similarly, nuclear power has a proven track record of low risk.  Yes, future accidents will occur, but we have good reason to believe that they will be much less frequent than in the past, and much less severe.  In spite of what Bas and the rest of the anti-nuclear community claim, the most convincing science today says that nuclear is far safer than fossil fuel, and far cheaper (in most locations) than renewables with storage.  Furthermore, nuclear’s costs don’t rise rapidly with penetration like the cost of renewables, so there is less risk that the transition will stop at 30% non-fossil as with renewables.

The advantages of nuclear power are so compelling, that even the poorest nations take notice, and often develop indigenous nuclear technology.  The developed nations can improve global nuclear safety by taking the lead in exporting the most advanced and safest technology, rather than sitting on the sidelines and leaving developing nations on their own.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 27, 2014

We need to develop the “absolutely no meltdown” designs ASAP so that more people will accept much more nuclear in the long run. My “fear” (other than LWR uncertainty) is that everybody else’s fear will severely limit designs such as the AP1000.

Bas (and the billions of others) could have no argument against the meltdown proof designs.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 27, 2014

I suppose you’ve heard of the other reason locals in developing countries are sometimes prohibited from building on the beaches?

Because such locations are worth much more when sold to tourism accomodation developers.

I remember a scandal after the Great Tsunami (I think it was either in Thailand or Indonesia), where a swath of beach area where hundreds of locals had just died due to the tsunami was declared ‘unfit to live’ and cordoned off, preventing locals to start rebuilding, only to suddenly feature a chain of brand new tourist accomodations. The deadly tsunami was apparently callously used as a means to drive the locals off an area covetted for tourist exploitation. It wouldn’t surprise me if a similar strategy involves the Kerala beaches you mention:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/HotelsList-Kerala-Beach-Resorts-zfp4017.html

On the other hand, India has seen a conspicuous uptick in anti-nuclearism in recent years. The influx of foreign agitators who spread misinformation among the public in other to foment ‘grassroots’ protest at new power plants went so far that the Indian government actually extradited the foreign agitators and banned foreign anti-nuke NGO’s from setting up shop in India. That was a good move. India – of all places – is in grave need of a massive nuclear power build-out. It is one of the regions where hundreds of millions of people are still waiting to be connected to cheap energy and modernity. Home-grown nuclear technology is ready to make that happen, which probably signalled foreign anti-nuclear organisations to send in their jackals.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on Mar 29, 2014

Replied to wrong comment.

 

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Mar 27, 2014

Yet another story describing the devastating negative health impact of using combustion for energy (fossil fuels and biomass/biofuels): New Report: 7 Million People Died from Air Pollution in 2012 by NRDC on The Energy Collective.  Here is the World Health Organization air pollution fact sheet.  (Yes coal power in the US is cleaner than the world average, but only by one order of magnitude, according to the Forbes article discussed below).

How many more will die while we wait to see whether renewables+storage will ever catch up to nuclear in its ability to enable an affordable non-fossil non-polluting electrical grid?

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Mar 27, 2014

I seen the video and it seems to me that they admit that a Chernobyl type disaster is unacceptable and that Fukashima was harmless (except for the adverse effects from relocating)!

I bet that fossil fuels killed more people in that same time period (of the real desaster). What I (and scientific minded people) suggest is the development of the safest reactor design possible, as soon as possible so that we can finally stop killing people, polluting and ravaging the landscape and the unacceptable global warming… by coal. I will refute any anti-nuke activism because such is more deadly than coal pollution and radiation alike.

Think about what the excess CO2 does to the biosphere of this entire planet! Look at it from space, from China, from your house, from my house, from our descendants POV and tell me that it is of no concern after shell fish cease to exist due to ocean acidification, when the icecaps melt, how there will no longer be any significant snowfall, entire ecosystems altered, cities in poverty when crops fail to severe wind… ALL because a few billion people embraced FEAR

Forever Eliminate Advanced Reactors??? Never!

Pages

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »