Ingeniøren lige efter Tjernobyl: 'Stråling er måske sundt'

Der er mange misforståelser og mange dogmer forbundet med diskussionen om (skade)virkninger af MODERAT ioniserende stråling. Efter atombombeangrebene ønskede man naturligvis være på den sikre side og forudsatte at ”Lige meget hvor lidt, så er det proportionalt skadeligt” (LNT) Se http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1jG Alt tyder på at udviklingen er løbet fra teorien, således at man skulle skifte spor, undersøge (den manglende?) troværdighed bag de gentagne rædselsberetninger og udnytte at moderat påvirkning af ioniserende stråling er gavnlig, næsten som en vaccination mod kræft. Se http://wp.me/p1RKWc-6e

For mig at se var det en rusten flyver og Tjernobyl ,der nakkede USSR. Om Tjernobyl tog livet af 50- 100 menesker er det peanuts i forhold til hvad det kommunistiske styre kunne præstere på en god dag. Det er en ringe pris at velnærede skandinaver blev frarådet renkød og mælk nogle måneder.

Tror sq jeg bestiller tid, til en røntgenundersøgelse.

/Sarcasm

Tjernobyl dominerede den ganske udmærkede DR-udsendelse forleden. Egentlig burde Tjernobyl katastrofen ignoreres i debatter, for denne reaktortype blev frarådet af den vestlige verdens eksperter i Wien 1968. Det skrev civ. ing. Frederik List i "Ingeniøren" i 70-erne. Årsagen var den, at denne reaktortype ville løbe løbsk hvis den tabte kølevandet, medens alle andre typer ville stoppe. Det skyldes at reaktoren er overmodereret, den bruger både letvand som kølemiddel og grafit som moderator. da letvand er et kraftig moderator, vil tab af kølevand få kædeprocessen i reaktoren til at eksplodere. Derfor er Tjernobyl ikke relevant som argument for de reaktortyper, man anvender i dag, her stopper kædeprocessen i reaktoren hvis kølevandet forsvinder.

Det er ingen tvivl om, at al liv gennem evolutionen har tilpasset sig en vis mængde baggrundsstråling, men hormesis-teorien er kun interessant for meget små doser. Sund er den ikke, men det er da rart at vide, at små doser ikke er skadelige.

Derfor er Tjernobyl ikke relevant som argument for de reaktortyper, man anvender i dag, her stopper kædeprocessen i reaktoren hvis kølevandet forsvinder.

Hvad var det så der skete med reaktoren i Fukushima? Var den russisk? Eller kan en tsunami/jordskælv altid udelukkes? Kan der ske andre uforudsete hændelser? Hvis nu den ulykke var sket så tæt på Tokyo, at byen måtte evakueres og lukke ned i årevis, så havde konsekvenserne været endnu alvorlige?

Det har altid undret mig at A-kraft ulykker og radioaktiv stråling altid blive bagatelliseret.Sagen er, at selv en usandsynlig mulighed for en ulykke af en sådan karakter ikke kan accepteres, også selvom strømmen bliver billigere. Det er kernen i den hidtidige danske politik og i den nye tyske. Japanerne har nok fortrudt at de ikke havde samme politik.

Personligt tvivler jeg også på, at et nyopført moderne A-kraftanlæg vil være så økonomisk fordelagtigt i hele livscyklus, som det påstås. Det er meget dyrt at opføre, uran kan stige i pris, og Ingen ved, hvad nedlukning og nedtagning vil koste, når det er udtjent. Er der overhovedet nogen, som vil opbevare affaldet til sin tid? Det tyder fortiden ikke på, og Ingen kender fremtiden, og det er ikke bæredygtigt at overlade fremtidige generationer at rydde op efter os!

Eller kan en tsunami/jordskælv altid udelukkes?

Vi står overfor en klimakatastrofe, der kunne have været mindsket eller undgået hvis vi ikke havde haft disse nej-sigere. En klimakatastrofe er den alvorlige fare og alt det såkaldt vedvarende kan umuligt klare en tilstrækkelig og vedvarende forsyning med kraft og varme. Længe før ulykken i Japan havde man overhørt advarsler mod mangler. Nu har man haft kernekraft i over 50 år og på såkaldt vestlige reaktorer hat der ikke været et eneste tilfælde af personskade på grund af radioaktivitet.

uran kan stige i pris

Ja, men prisen på uran er en meget lille del af omkostningerne ved kernekraft.

opbevare affaldet

Jeg vil opfordre dig til at læse lidt på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11J

Egentlig burde Tjernobyl katastrofen ignoreres i debatter

Jeg foreslår at tvivlere laver lidt opsøgende journalistik. Måske kan man begynde på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-KH

University of South Carolina (2012, November 13). Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health. ... The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance. ... "It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation," he added. "A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold -- radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand."

Mousseau hopes their results, which are consistent with the "linear-no-threshold" model for radiation effects, will better inform the debate about exposure risks ... "And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports." ..."

@ Glenn Møller-Holst For snart længe siden kunne man se, at udviklingen var løbet fra LNT-hypotesen. Til gengæld VAR der oprindeligt gode argumenter for denne hypotese. Derfor beder jeg dig om at læse det jeg har fundet frem til og samlet på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1jG

For derefter at kaste mere benzin på bålet foreslår at du ofrer lidt tid på at læse noget andet: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-Ty Det viser sig nemlig at der er meget lille sammenhæng mellem stråling og cancer!

Er der lavet sammenlignende undersøgelser af beboere på Bornholm og i andre dele af Danmark? På Bornholm er det naturlige strålingsniveau markant større, så en sammenligning kan foretages.

Hvad var det så der skete med reaktoren i Fukushima? Var den russisk? Eller kan en tsunami/jordskælv altid udelukkes?

til din og P-HKs orientering kan jeg nævne, at Fukushimareaktoren var en letvandsreaktor, der som andre vestlige typer var undermodereret, idet kølevandet fungerer som moderator. en moderator nedsætter neutronernes hastighed, hvorved indfangningstværsnittet forøges, hvilket øger chancerne for at indfanges af et U-235 atom. Hvis kølevandet forsvinder stiger neutronernes hastighed hvorved indfangningstværsnittet i en U-235 kerne forringes. det betyder at kædeprocessen går i stå. I en RBMK-reaktor ("Tjernobyl-typen som Vesten havde advaret imod), består moderatoren af grafit. Kølevandet virker også som moderator, en er "overmodereret". Taber en RBMK-reaktor kølevand betyder det at kædeprocesserne løber løbsk, den opfører sig som en mini-atombombe.

Det er kendt stof - bortset fra Poul-Henning, der ikke forstår, hvad der sker i en atomreaktor, måske fordi han konstant ignorerer fakta?

I Fukushima skete der noget helt andet pga. designfejl (set i bakklogskabens klare lys). 1. Man havde bygget tsunamiskjoldet for lille. 2. Man havde placeret nødstrømsforsyningen nederst, så dieselmotorerne blev oversvømmet. 3. Man havde placeret eksterne el-ledninger til nødforsyningen således, at de blev revet over af jordskælvet.

Man kunne spørge hvorfor de, der bruger Fukushima til at fjerne atomenergien fra Jordens overflade, hvorfor i alverden de ikke havde påtalt japanernes fejl? Hvorfor undskylder a-modstandere ikke for 30 års misinformationer om kernenedmeltningernes konsekvenser? I følge dem ville et landområde som Japan være totalt ubeboeligt! Realiteten er, at man er ved at bosætte sig omkring værket, hvor der er givet fri. Vi har masser af kulfyrede værker (pga. a-modstandernes mange succesfulde protester mod a-energi). Jamen de udsender lige så meget radioaktivitet som et a-værk af samme størrelse. Men den biologiske effekt er 50-100 gange større! det skyldes af et a-værkudsender lidt ædelgasser.

Du nævner noget om stråling, men ignorerer, at man da bruger stråling indenfor nuclearmedicin. Allan, du ignorerer at fossilt fyrede værker udsender masser af stoffer, som koster menneskeliv eller forkortet livsforløb. det gælder en del tungmetaller, det gælder partikler, det gælder gasarter som NOx, SOx, CO og CO2.

som et kuriosum kan jeg nævne, at vindenergien i USA tegner sig for langt flere dødsfald end reaktorulykker. Vil du og P-HK spare menneskeliv, så burde i agitere mod vindmøller og gå ind for flere a-værker.

Man kunne spørge hvorfor de, der bruger Fukushima til at fjerne atomenergien fra Jordens overflade, hvorfor i alverden de ikke havde påtalt japanernes fejl?

Man kan også undre sig over hvorfor det er modstanderne der skulle have opdaget den pågældende fejl/mangel? Det er jo tilhængerne som konstant påstår at der er regnet på alt og at intet kan gå galt... Det påstår de jo igen, hvis bare man ikke bruger de russiske typer og hvis bare man ikke opfører værkerne i jordskælvs/tunarmi områder så er der regnet med alt... Gad vide om man får den samme sang næste gang der sker noget uforudset som lægger endnu et værk ned og som (hvis vinden igen er rigtig) ikke lægger for store områder øde pga. evakueringer (som jo er fuldstændigt overflødigt da radioaktiv bestråling er helt naturligt og mennesket i forvejen består af 4500 Bq og en kop kaffe vist er mere skadelig end et helt atomkraftværk :) )

advarsel til Poul-Henning. Ignorer dette indlæg, der kan forekomme passagermed videnskabeligt stof om stråling, man kan blive klogere af.

@Allan Astrup og Gleen, Gleen, som sædvanlig leverer du en masse lødig information, men du er ikke helt omkring feltet. Prøv at se, hvad andre har fundet ud af: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016... Her står bla.: While exposure to high levels of radiation is well documented as causing health problems from lethal radiation sickness to cancer, the low levels of background radiation to which we are constantly exposed have never been shown unequivocally to cause any illness, cancer other otherwise, despite tabloid scaremongering. Indeed, there are numerous studies from around the world that suggest that background radiation has to some degree a protective effect against the other causes of cancer. The team's review of these and other studies in contrast to the received wisdom suggests that cancer rates are commonly lower in regions where exposure to slightly higher doses of background radiation than to those areas with average low dose natural exposure.

Jamen det er da meget interessant, lidt radioaktivitet beskytter os mod visse kræftformer!

Man kan også undre sig over hvorfor det er modstanderne der skulle have opdaget den pågældende fejl/mangel? Det er jo tilhængerne som konstant påstår at der er regnet på alt og at intet kan gå galt...

@Michael, der tager du igen fejl. Atomsektoren har tværtimod været i front vedrørende sikkerhedsstudier - fkes. Rasmussenrapporten mfl. Der står intet om at intet kan gå galt, som a-modstandere ustandselig postulerer. Her er et enkelt diagram, hvor du kan se du tager fejl:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bqmcinbrybykfd/...

Michael, du skriver "russiske typer". Der er kun en, der er ustabil, det er RBMK-typen. Ruslands har derimod stor succes med deres trykvandsreaktor, som de eksporter til mange lande - Indien, Kina, Bangladesh m.v. USA er sakket helt ud af billedet siden de blev invaderet af en horde journalister da der skete en driftshændelse på reaktor 2 på Tremileøen (resultat: 1 stk. ødelagt reaktor, ingen døde, ingen miljømæssige konsekvenser for omgivelserne. det skete 14 dage efter et 17000 mennesker i Canada blev evakueret fordi der slag gas ud i kloakledningerne. Resultat: få dødsfald, ingen interesse i offentligheden. Danmark havde besluttet af indføre gas!

Det vil være en god ide at læse lidt om teknologien, så slipper man måske for de samme sange om farligheden, medens folk dør af luftforureningen. En ekspert beregnede, at Barsebäck sparede ca. 30 dødsfald pr. år pga. mindre luftforurening. Hvor meget bliver det på global plan?

PAH

Den vigtigste designfejl var nu at man for at reducere udgifter til at pumpe kølevand besluttede at sænke niveauet, hvor kraftværket blev bygget med 25 meter.

Nok en typisk prokurist beslutning.

En lille smule højere udgift til kølevandspumper ville med stor sikkerhed have reddet os allesammen for at diskutere Fukushima.

Havde man ikke jagtet en lille økonomisk fordel, så ville kun dit punkt tre kunne have medført alvorlige risici.

PAH

Sikkerhedsslendrian i alle brancher skal bekæmpes og der er nok ingen som er i tvivl om at der er farlige arbejdspladser i vindmøller og at sværindustri med meget transport simpelthen fuldautomatisk medfører risici som man aldrig vil kunne gardere sig imod.

Ulykker i vindindustrien er nok på niveau med industri iøvrigt og kan ikke gå spektakulært galt.

Derfor uanset om du statistisk har ret, så bliver de to energi generationsteknologier opfattet fuldstændigt forskelligt med KK som den markant farligste.

Hej Thorkil

Svar på:

Alt tyder på at udviklingen er løbet fra teorien, således at man skulle skifte spor, undersøge (den manglende?) troværdighed bag de gentagne rædselsberetninger og udnytte at moderat påvirkning af ioniserende stråling er gavnlig, næsten som en vaccination mod kræft.

[Sarkasme]

Det passer ikke - dette atomkraftværk fik fx virus:

26. april 2016, It-revision har afsløret malware på sydtysk atomkraftværk. Der er opdaget malware på kernekraftværket Gundremmingen i Bayern. Det har dog ikke medført en øget fare, mener operatøren.

[/Sarkasme]

@ Glenn Møller-Holst Ja det lyder mærkeligt, men læs på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-6e Uden sarkasme beder jeg dig vurdere det jeg har fundet og måske komme med FAKTUELLE oplysninger. Mig bekendt er der ingen forklaring undtagen at moderat ioniserende stråling virker som et 'wake up call' for immunitets-systemet. Men lige meget hvad er der mange tilsyneladende pålidelige data. Mere pålidelige end det der kommer fra Greenpeace. For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte. Se http://wp.me/p1RKWc-p2

@ Glenn Møller-Holst Ja det lyder mærkeligt - nok mest for dem, der er ubetinget imod alt der vedrører A-kraft. Uden sarkasme beder jeg dig læse og vurdere det jeg har samlet sammen på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-6e Mig bekendt er der ingen forklaring udover at moderat stråling virker som et 'wake up call' for immunitets-systemet. Eller måske snarere som en vaccination mod cancer. De oplysninger jeg har fundet er klart mere troværdige end det, der kommer fra Greenpeace og eftersnakkere. Hvis du værdsætter oplysninger fra Greenpeace, beder jeg dig gå ind på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-p2 Der er der bevis for at deres troværdighed er en myte.

Temalørdag på DR2 TV viste en tankevækkende dokumentarudsendelse om A-kraft - se den og fortsæt diskussionen bagefter

https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/temaloerdag/temalo...

der tager du igen fejl. Atomsektoren har tværtimod været i front vedrørende sikkerhedsstudier - fkes. Rasmussenrapporten mfl.

Har du også en statistik over hvor mange mennesker der har været evakueret i mere end et år, pga. de forskellige energikilder?

Hej Thorkil

Jeg klikker ikke på URL-forkortere af sikkerhedsmæssige grunde.

Hvis jeg skal læse og vurdere dine kilder, skal du skrive de rigtige links.

Dec 15, 2009, pcworld.com: URL Shortening Frenzy Comes with Security Risks: Citat: "... There are two main problems with link shortening services. First, they make it easier for attackers to distribute spam and phishing attacks because the actual destination URL is not displayed. [] Second, because link shortening is frequently used with social networking services like Facebook and Twitter, there is an inherent trust that the link will be legitimate. ... Attackers can also circumvent many security controls by using URL shortening services. The URL shortening domains are trusted by default by firewalls, Web filters, and spam blocking tools which makes it more difficult to identify and weed out links that lead to malicious destinations. ..."

URL-forkorter domæner burde af samme grund være blacklistet i diskussionsfora. URL-forkortere fungerer som en maskering, og er derfor som udgangspunkt utroværdige og skumle. Herudover inviteres en tredje part ind, som ikke har noget at gøre i min vej fra "mig" til slut-sitet.

Ja det lyder mærkeligt, men læs på http://wp.me/p1RKWc-6e Uden sarkasme beder jeg dig vurdere det jeg har fundet og måske komme med FAKTUELLE oplysninger. Mig bekendt er der ingen forklaring undtagen at moderat ioniserende stråling virker som et 'wake up call' for immunitets-systemet. Men lige meget hvad er der mange tilsyneladende pålidelige data. Mere pålidelige end det der kommer fra Greenpeace. For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte. Se http://wp.me/p1RKWc-p2

@ Glenn Møller-Holst Kan dette finde nåde? https://thorkilsoee.wordpress.com/2013/08/... og https://thorkilsoee.wordpress.com/2015/03/...

Hej Thorkil

Ja, tak

Hej Thorkil

Så har jeg fået kigget på kilderne i følgende link:

2014, Radiation Hormesis Overview. T. D. Luckey: Citat: "... This overview summarizes almost 3,000 reports on stimulation by low-dose irradiation. ... “Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation” presented evidence of increased vigor in plants, bacteria, invertebrates and vertebrates. Most physiologic reactions in living cells are stimulated by low doses of ionizing radiation. ... Radiation hormesis in immunity decreases infection and premature death in radiation exposed populations. ... During the previous decades, statistically significant evidence showed that whole body exposures of humans to low doses of ionizing radiation decreased total cancer mortality rates. ... A variety of external sources are beneficial. Internal sources (plutonium, radium and radon) are also effective. ... The thesis is clear. There is no risk and considerable benefit from chronic, whole body exposures to low doses of ionizing radiation. ... There are several reasons why the results summarized here are opposite from those usually reported. Most epidemiologists and government agencies err by one or more of the following: ..."

Jeg har ikke læst Luckey's bog med de 3.000 rapporter, men sammenhold Lucky's udsagn med følgende:

1. nov 2010, ing.dk: Radon slår kun rygerne ihjel: Citat: "... Kun de 30 procent af danskerne, der ryger, behøver at bekymre sig om radioaktive gasser i hjemmet, fastslår professor. Politikerne bør tænke sig om, inden de sætter milliard-dyre foranstaltninger i værk, mener helsefysiker, der har regnet på omkostninger til sikring mod radon. ... Torben Sigsgaard fremhæver konklusionerne om radon og rygning, der forstærker hinandens skadelige virkning, efter flere avisartikler har fået folketingsmedlemmer fra både højre- og venstrefløjen til at kræve en handlingsplan. ..."

-

Så ses på denne artikel omhandlende "The Taipei incident":

Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?: Citat: "... An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv—a “collective dose” of 4,000 person-Sv. ... [Graf side 3] [Bemærk at den kun viser fra 1983-2002; ca. 20 år] ..."

Fra en kilde i bunden af indlægget:

it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 - 30 years.

Det synes jeg sætter artiklen i perspektiv!

Der kan være andre grunde til at personerne har lavere hyppighed af cancer. Mulig utestet hypotese: * Måske har sygdomsfremkaldende svampe og bakterier i husstøvet gået til af strålingen? Se på Tjernobyls langsomme nedbrydning af skovaffald.

De radioaktive Cobolt-60 atomer er indlejret i stål, hvilket betyder at personerne ikke indhalerede Cobolt-60. Det betyder at Cobolt-60 ikke er blevet opkoncentreret i fx organer eller knoglemarv.

-

Virkning af forhøjet radioaktiv stråling grundet radioaktivt nedfald, som også optages af organismerne (træer, svampe, bakterier, orme,...):

Video: Chernobyl Forests Decay Differently After Nuclear Disaster.

Video: The Animals of Chernobyl. The New York Times.

March 19, 2014, Radiation damage at the root of Chernobyl's ecosystems. Citat: "... The team concluded that the bacteria and fungi that decompose plant matter in healthy ecosystems are hindered by radioactive contamination. ..."

-

Ramsar-myten aflivet:

Jesper Ørsted: Re: Hvorfor bliver du ved...?: Citat: "...Så er det da sjovt at man ikke kan måle nogen øget kræftforekomst i Ramsar Iran, selvom indbyggerne udsættes på op til 260 mSv om året, eller mere end 5 gange så meget som ansatte på kernekraftværker kan udsættes for...."

Svar fra Glenn: Re: Hvorfor bliver du ved...?: Citat: "... Ra-222 [226?] er en kemisk inaktiv luftart som derfor ikke opkoncentreres i kroppen.

K-40, Th-232, U er ikke nævnt som indvortes stoffer. Gamma-stråling er derimod nævnt:

2002: The high background radiation area in ramsar iran: geology, norm, biology, lnt, and possible regulatory fun: Citat: "... For the purposes of this paper, “dose” will be used to mean absorbed beta/gamma radiation dose because the contribution of alpha emitters is not considered. ..."

iop.org: Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks?: Citat: "... [pdf-side 32] Iran. Ramsar is a northern coastal city in Iran with over 50 sulfurous hot springs that contain enhanced 226 Ra concentrations. This water has 226 Ra concentrations of up to 146 kBq m^-3 and it flows into the surrounding areas, adding more radioactive residues to the existing radioactivity in the environment. Ramsar has a population of 60–70 000, though only about 1000 people reside in the HNBR [High Natural Background Radiation] areas. The annual effective doses received by the inhabitants from external exposures (indoors and outdoors) range between 0.7 and 131 mSv with a mean of 6 mSv [16], and the internal dose due to 222 Rn ranges from about 2.5 to 72 mSv [17]. ... [pdf-side 38: Vigtigt: ] Limitations of HNBR studies. Studies of human exposure to HNBR pose many problems, and several researchers have generally concluded that such studies are unlikely to provide definitive answers, even under the best of circumstances [73]. The limitations of studies of exposure to HNBR are several; for example, many countries that contain HNBR areas do not have well-documented health statistics, in particular, organ-specific cancer rates. [Så vi ved ikke om de får mere kræft i dette område end andre områder!] ..."

Læs lige det [ovenstående igen] - middeleksponeringsdosen er 6 mSv/år.

Background radiation: Natural background radiation: Citat: "... Natural background radiation comes from two primary sources: cosmic radiation and terrestrial sources. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[1] ..."

Så den radioaktive middelbaggrundsstråling i det omtalte Ramsar område er i middel 2-3 så høj som hvad mennesker på jorden får i snit?

Der gik luften vist af den afledningsballon. (Igen...) ..."

-

"From World Nuclear:" - har du en link eller en mere præcis kildehenvisning?

-

Chernobyl (1986) - kig i understående kilder.

-

Fukushima (2011) - det er 5 år siden. Husk: it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 - 30 years. Og husk at menneskene blev ret hurtigt evakueret og at vinden (heldigvis) sendte meget radioaktivitet ud i havet.

-

The Radium Girls Wikipedia - Citat: "... Many of the workers became sick. It is unknown how many died from exposure to radiation. ... Many of the women later began to suffer from anemia, bone fractures and necrosis [celledød] of the jaw, a condition now known as radium jaw. It is thought that the X-ray machines used by the medical investigators may have contributed to some of the sickened workers' ill-health by subjecting them to additional radiation. It turned out at least one of the examinations was a ruse, part of a campaign of disinformation started by the defense contractor.[1] [] U.S. Radium and other watch-dial companies rejected claims that the afflicted workers were suffering from exposure to radium. For some time, doctors, dentists, and researchers complied with requests from the companies not to release their data. At the urging of the companies, worker deaths were attributed by medical professionals to other causes; syphilis, a notorious sexually transmitted disease at the time, was often cited in attempts to smear the reputations of the women.[3] ... [Det vil sige, at der allerede var mange som blev syge 10-20 år efter radium kontamineringen:] The case was settled in the autumn of 1928 ..."

I din konklusion:

Citat fra Thorkil Søe: "Research, write or die. – Just write something about something, and get promoted. The quality of most papers found, reflects the above...It is my belief, that we do not need more of the usual research. "

Er det mon T. D. Luckey's 3000 refererede rapporter du mon går efter her?

Supplerende:

Kommer visse radioaktive stoffer (selv i lave koncentrationer) først ind i kroppen er det for sent - det skader de organer de opkoncentreres i - og kan minske livskvaliteten drastisk i fx årtier indtil de dør:

August 6, 2012, Fukushima's Children Facing High Rate of Thyroid Irregularities: Citat: "... According to government research released in Japan, 36 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture -- the area around the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown -- who were exposed to radiation now have abnormal growths on their thyroid glands.

The survey examined more than 38,000 local children, and found that more than 13,000 had thyroid cysts or nodules, a rate that is much higher than the average population, where an estimated 0.5-1.0% of children have thyroid cysts. According to Japanese authorities, while they don't know that the radiation exposure is the cause, they will be monitoring the effects on the area's children in upcoming years. ... The Japanese authorities' downplaying of the risks to children is controversial, and is being covered by the English-language Fukushima Voice website, the Fukushima Voice site. ..."

July 20, 2012, Fukushima Watch: Study Suggests up to 1,300 Could Die From Radiation Effects: Citat: "... The radiation toll from last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could eventually result in anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths, according to a study by Stanford University scientists. [ http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso... ] The researchers also calculate that about 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer illnesses could someday be attributed to the accident. Plant workers who were exposed to radiation on-site may account for another two to 12 cancer cases. ... About 27% of the health effects expected in Japan will occur sometime in the next 50 years, the study said. ... they mapped out the spread and concentration of the radioactive nuclides — iodine-131, cesium-137 and cesium-134. ..."

July 16, 2012, Fukushima: West Coast cesium slam ahead, hair falling out, Tepco data flaw: Citat: "... As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim's head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an "order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data. ... "I didn’t know still some people remained in the town. "One of them told me, 'My hair fell off,' with tears in her eyes. ... Hair falling out is one of the most common of the eight signs of radiation poisoning. ..."

August 09, 2012, Lead shields masked radiation readings up to 30%: Citat: "... Lead radiation shields forced on workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to cover their dosimeters masked radiation readings by about 30 percent. ..."

Jul. 25, 2012, Exec admits falsifying N-data / Lead-shielded dosimeters carried by workers in high-radiation areas: Citat: "... "I came up with the idea to use covers because the dosimeters' alarm repeatedly sounded" when he first entered the site, said Teruo Sagara, a director at the subcontractor, Build-up, during a press conference Monday at its office in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture. ..."

Erfaringer fra Chernobyl. Bl.a. virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet radioaktivt nedfald fra Chernobyl:

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher. The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science. The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases. ..."

Federation Of European Cancer Societies (2001, October 26). Cutting The Cost Of Fall-Out From Chernobyl 15 Years After The World's Worst Nuclear Accident. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... Nearly 2000 cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the world's worst nuclear accident which occurred in Ukrainian city 15 years ago - and the number is still rising. Professor Dillwyn Williams, of The Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge University, told the meeting: "Four years after the accident, an excess of thyroid cancers was noted among children who had been exposed to fall-out from the disaster. That increase has continued and new cases are still being seen in those who were children at the time of the accident". ..."

JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, April 24). Radiation Exposure Associated With More Aggressive Thyroid Cancer, Worse Outcomes. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... [ Lang "latenstid": ] The average age at first exposure to radiation was 19.4 years, and cancers were diagnosed an average of 28.7 years later. ..."

Følgende er virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet Chernobyl radioaktivt nedfald:

Aug. 17, 2007 Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants: Citat: "... The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday.

The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability. ..."

Man kan også være turist i dele af Tjernobylområdet - men det er strengt forbudt at grave i jorden. Den slags forbud har Fukushima også:

In Chernobyl town. All pipes must run above ground - no digging is allowed.

7 July 2012, Chernobyl's radioactive trees and the forest fire risk. Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud. Citat: "... Having said this, the berries are not uniformly harmful. In an average pint of them, perhaps only a quarter will be contaminated. The main thing is to make sure you do not put them on your cereal every day. ... Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent. ... Their equipment is very basic. They believe they know when they are fighting a radioactive fire - they experience a tingling, metallic sensation in their skin - but they do not fully understand the serious dangers of being exposed to superheated radioactive particles. ... Sergiy says more big wildfires in Chernobyl like the one in 1992 would be catastrophic for Ukraine's image, and potentially devastating for farmland right across Europe. ..."

Chernobyl: A tourist guide to the death zone. 45000 people used to live here before the catastrophe. They were evacuated in less than 2 hours. Now this is a ghost town: Citat: "... When the ground is more severely contaminated a bulldozer removes up to 80 cm of soil, which is buried as well to "get rid" of the Caesium 137. Even though the sun has been shining for days, all the streets in the contaminated area are wet. Tank trucks are driving around spraying water non-stop to keep the radioactive dust on the ground so it won't reach the lungs where it would probably cause cancer.

On our trip we pass by empty villages. Furniture can be spotted through the windows. The people who used to live here had to leave everything behind. Everything is contaminated! ... The levels of radioactive radiation vary immensely in this maze of tunnels. There are tunnels you can stroll through - with protective clothing on - while there are others you have to sprint through. Suddenly there is a board that blocks the way down a staircase. It says, "Stop! 200 X-ray an hour!" Not even the workers are allowed to go there. ..."

07.17.2012, Chernobyl Now. Are nuclear disasters the new normal?: Citat: "... Although Chernobyl contaminated half the planet with fallout, memory of the disaster had almost faded into obscurity when a tsunami swamped Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant last year. At the time, many observers resurrected the specter of Chernobyl as a reassuring example of what wasn’t happening at Fukushima—a nuclear meltdown. We know now, though, that three of Fukushima’s reactors did melt down, spewing radioactive contamination over parts of Japan and into the sea. ... In fact, the global rate is about five times the baseline goal of U.S. regulators. If the rate of partial core melts holds true for the 353 light-water reactors currently operating, we can expect a nuclear meltdown to occur every six years on average. ..."

Link virker ikke mere:

20 years after Chernobyl - The ongoing health effects -: Citat: "... Here you can see a picture from the Otto-Hug thyroid clinic in Gomel. Until 2002, 70.000 patients received extensive thyroid treatment at this clinic alone. For many children and adolescents, this means the removal of their thyroid glands and the lifelong dependence on medication and medical supervision.

Thyroid cancer can in fact be treated in most cases, but only under Western medical standards, which cannot be taken for granted in the region. In many cases, the only hope lies with private donations from the West. Nobody cares for the mental effects of cancer on the affected children. ... Thyroid cancer is a very rare form of cancer – under normal circumstances it constitutes less than one percent of all cancer forms. That’s also why this increase is so remarkable. ... The cancer rates increase with the rate of contamination in the soil: In the most heavily affected region of Belarus, in Gomel, the rate rose up to 55.9 percent. One can also observe a doubling of the rate of breast cancer in regions with notably high Cesium contamination. On average, women developed breast cancer 15 years earlier than usual - a similar phenomenon as with thyroid cancer.

The risk of leukemia in children in the affected regions is also three times higher than usual. ... But the health consequences are not restricted to the Chernobyl region. Surveys in several European countries showed a significant increase in infant mortality in the year 1987 – probably as a result of a “Cesium-effect” – and in the beginning of the 1990s probably as a result of a “Strontium-effect”. It would take too much time to go into detail on these effects at this point. For the record, studies come to the conclusion that fatalities under infants in Europe related to Chernobyl are in the magnitude of 5,000. Because of different reasons, the actual effects could be much higher.

Numerous studies also document a significant increase in malformations in many European countries. According to a German survey, 1,000 to 3,000 additional cases of malformation were registered in the contaminated region of Bavaria alone. IPPNW scientists estimate a Europe-wide number of malformations of at least 10,000. ... Children are also strongly affected. In 1996 in Ukraine, 70 percent of the children of afflicted parents were officially registered as sick. In comparison: in 1987, the figure was 20 percent. Children in the region of Gomel in Belarus are also very sick. From 100,000 children, 83,000 suffer from respiratory diseases, 7,000 from diseases of the nervous system and sensory organs, 7,000 from skin diseases and subcutaneous adipose tissue diseases, and 5.500 from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. In total, the number of infant illnesses diagnosed for the first time rose by a factor of thirteen. ... These are the results:

Until today, several hundred thousand liquidators have become sick.

Several ten thousand liquidators have died as a result of radiation exposure.

In total, there must be far more than of 10,000 cases.

In the future, more than 50,000 children will suffer from thyroid cancer. ... These are very conservative estimates. The Russian Environmental Ministry states that the number of Chernobyl-induced cases of diseases amounted to 1,3 million persons before the beginning of the 1990s. Until today, 10,000 cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in Belarus alone. ... Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. This represents an increase by a factor of 5.8 since Chernobyl and can certainly not be attributed to bad lifestyle or poor nutrition. Children which were breast fed were affected in particular. This study was ignored by the IAEA and WHO. ... Just as they did with other, more up to date and unquestionable pieces of research. The IAEA/WHO study relies almost exclusively on studies from 1990 to 1998. Newer, more alarming studies were completely disregarded.

But there is further criticism of the IAEA/WHO study:

Several hundred thousand people were simply overlooked: Merely 200,000 of the 600,000 to 860,000 of the liquidators were considered in the surveys.

In the study, non-cancer afflictions were left out of the computation base for the fatality figures.

Of the 9,000 cases of cancer deaths forecast in the study, the IAEA only mentioned 4,000 in its abridged report. This means that 5,000 fatalities were simply left out of the report presented to the press and the public. ... This lecture actively resists being taken in by these arguments. The Chernobyl case can not and must not be closed. Chernobyl began to kill 20 years ago – and has been killing ever since - slowly and unobtrusively. It’s an accident without an end. Nobody knows exactly what burdens will befall the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victims. A technology which has such consequences is irresponsible. Taking into account a study of the German Society for Reactor Security, the risk of a nuclear meltdown in the EU in the next 40 years lies at 16 percent. ..."

Rapport: April 2011, Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 years after the reactor catastrophe: Executive Summary: Citat: "... This paper evaluates studies that contain plausible indications of health damage caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The authors of this paper attach importance to the selection of methodically accurate and comprehensible analyses. Due to the already mentioned methodical difficulties, it is not our aim to present the “right” statistics in contrast to the obviously wrong ones given by the IAEA, since these can never be found. They can only supply us with indications as to the diversity and extent of the health effects we should be dealing with when we talk about the health effects of Chernobyl. ... Disease/health damage is to be expected as a result of additional exposure to radiation because of Chernobyl

.a. Cancer. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 - 30 years. At present we are only just seeing cases of thyroid cancers, breast cancers and brain tumours In the population. But liquidators have also developed cancer in numerous other organs: the prostate gland, stomach, cancer of the blood, thyroid cancer

.b. Genetic changes: malformations, stillbirths, the lack of children

.c. Non-cancerous diseases. Many organ systems could be affected; brain disorders; accelerated aging process; psychological disorders ... Despite this, the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] continues to give a dose limit of 100 mSv for teratogenic damage. This claim has been invalidated by numerous studies. ... The lower the radiation level, the longer the latency period before the outbreak of cancer (established as early as 2000 by Pierce and Preston in the context of the RERF studies). ... It was found that the incidence of non-cancerous disease had increased; mainly cardiovascular and stomach diseases, and cases of neurological-psychiatric illness were found to be a somatic effect of low-level radiation. The latter was observed mainly during research on liquidators and their children. ..."

Link til World Nuclear: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-l... Nederst på siden.

Dine indvendinger mod Taipei lyder helt fantastiske - Ikke engang Greenpeace ville foreslå dette.

Der er alt for meget der viser at strålig ikke er så farligt som man prøver at fortælle os.

Hvis du læser det andet link om Greenpeace vil du se hvordan der bliver løjet / vildledt.

Mere om stråling: https://thorkilsoee.wordpress.com/2015/01/... Også der finder du noget mærkeligt.

Radiation hormesis stemmer meget dårligt med disse artikler:

American Heart Association. (2019, May 3). Prolonged exposure to low-dose radiation may increase the risk of hypertension, a known cause of heart disease and stroke. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... A long-term study of Russian nuclear plant workers suggests that prolonged low-dose radiation exposure increases the risk of hypertension. This study is the first to associate an increased risk of hypertension to low doses of ionizing radiation among a large group of workers who were chronically exposed over many years. The higher the cumulative dose of radiation, the greater the risk, the study showed. ... While the development of cancer is commonly associated with radiation exposure, "we believe that an estimate of the detrimental health consequences of radiation exposure should also include non-cancer health outcomes. [] We now have evidence suggesting that radiation exposure may also lead to increased risks of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease, as well," said Tamara Azizova, M.D., lead author of the study at the Southern Urals Biophysics Institute in Russia. ... How radiation exposure may increase the risk of hypertension is still a question, according to Azizova. "So far, the mechanisms remain unclear, not only for certain cohorts but also for the general population. One of the main tasks for the coming decade is to study the mechanisms of hypertension and heart and brain atherosclerosis occurring in people who are -- and who were exposed -- to radiation." ..."

May 3, 2019, Tamara Azizova, Ksenia Briks, Maria Bannikova, Evgeniya Grigoryeva: Hypertension Incidence Risk in a Cohort of Russian Workers Exposed to Radiation at the Mayak Production Association Over Prolonged Periods: Citat: "... Hypertension incidence was found to be significantly linearly associated with cumulative liver absorbed dose from external gamma-rays: excess relative risk/Gy=0.14 (95% CI, 0.09–0.20). [] No significant association of hypertension incidence with cumulative liver absorbed dose from internal alfa-particles was found: excess relative risk/Gy=−0.01 (95% CI, non-available–0.05). ..."

Swedish Research Council (2004, November 22). Chernobyl Disaster Caused Cancer Cases In Sweden. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... There is a statistically established correlation between the degree of fallout and an observed rise in the number of cancer cases. The increase involves all types of cancer in the aggregate. On the other hand, no clear effect can be seen for individual forms of cancer, not even for those types that have been regarded as especially susceptible to radiation, such as leukemia or thyroid cancer.

It is remarkable that an increase in cancer morbidity could have occurred after such a relatively short time following the accident, but just such a short time period has been described for groups exposed to radioactive radiation. ..."

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily: Citat: "... The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher. The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science. The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases. ..."

Ramsar-myten aflivet:

Jesper Ørsted: Re: Hvorfor bliver du ved...?: Citat: "...Så er det da sjovt at man ikke kan måle nogen øget kræftforekomst i Ramsar Iran, selvom indbyggerne udsættes på op til 260 mSv om året, eller mere end 5 gange så meget som ansatte på kernekraftværker kan udsættes for...."

Vås og vrøvl. Fra IAEA rapporten The Very High Background Radiation Area in Ramsar, Iran: Public Health Risk or Signal for a Regulatory Paradigm Shift? : local physicians feel that local cancer incidence rates are lower than in neighboring cities. Furthermore, preliminary results indicate that there is a statistically significant radioadaptation in the inhabitants of Rarnsar. Interestingly, it seems that the frequency of chromosome aberrations in the lymphocytes of the inhabitants of Rarnsar is no higher than the control areas. This important finding suggests that the cancer rate in Ramsar should be no higher than in other comparable parts of Iran. In other HBRAs such as Yangjiang, China it has been reported that mortality from all cancers and those from leukemia, breast and lung is no higher than in control areas.

Svar på vås og vrøvl:

Vås og vrøvl. Fra IAEA rapporten The Very High Background Radiation Area in Ramsar, Iran: Public Health Risk or Signal for a Regulatory Paradigm Shift? :

Ramsar-myten aflivet (igen igen igen!):

Jesper Ørsted: Re: Hvorfor bliver du ved...?: Citat: "...Så er det da sjovt at man ikke kan måle nogen øget kræftforekomst i Ramsar Iran, selvom indbyggerne udsættes på op til 260 mSv om året, eller mere end 5 gange så meget som ansatte på kernekraftværker kan udsættes for...."

Svar fra Glenn: Re: Hvorfor bliver du ved...?: Citat: "... Ra-222 [226?] er en kemisk inaktiv luftart som derfor ikke opkoncentreres i kroppen.

K-40, Th-232, U er ikke nævnt som indvortes stoffer. Gamma-stråling er derimod nævnt:

2002: The high background radiation area in ramsar iran: geology, norm, biology, lnt, and possible regulatory fun: Citat: "... For the purposes of this paper, “dose” will be used to mean absorbed beta/gamma radiation dose because the contribution of alpha emitters is not considered. ..."

2009, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks?: Citat: "... Iran. Ramsar is a northern coastal city in Iran with over 50 sulfurous hot springs that contain enhanced 226 Ra concentrations. This water has 226 Ra concentrations of up to 146 kBq m^-3 and it flows into the surrounding areas, adding more radioactive residues to the existing radioactivity in the environment. Ramsar has a population of 60–70 000, though only about 1000 people reside in the HNBR [High Natural Background Radiation] areas. The annual effective doses received by the inhabitants from external exposures (indoors and outdoors) range between 0.7 and 131 mSv with a mean of 6 mSv [16], and the internal dose due to 222 Rn ranges from about 2.5 to 72 mSv [17]. ... [ Vigtigt: ] Limitations of HNBR studies. Studies of human exposure to HNBR pose many problems, and several researchers have generally concluded that such studies are unlikely to provide definitive answers, even under the best of circumstances [73]. The limitations of studies of exposure to HNBR are several; for example, many countries that contain HNBR areas do not have well-documented health statistics, in particular, organ-specific cancer rates. [Så vi ved ikke om de får mere kræft i dette område end andre områder!] ..."

Læs lige det ovenstående igen - middeleksponeringsdosen er 6 mSv/år.

Background radiation: Natural background radiation: Citat: "... Natural background radiation comes from two primary sources: cosmic radiation and terrestrial sources. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[1] ..."

Så den radioaktive middelbaggrundsstråling i det omtalte Ramsar område er i middel 2-3 så høj som hvad mennesker på jorden får i snit?

Der gik luften vist af den afledningsballon. (Igen igen igen...) ..."

Den vigtigste designfejl var nu at man for at reducere udgifter til at pumpe kølevand besluttede at sænke niveauet, hvor kraftværket blev bygget med 25 meter.

@Jens Den grundlæggende fejl var at man placerede nødkølesystemet med dieselpumper i bunden af reaktoren, dvs. under vandstanden. De blev så oversvømmede og kunne naturligvis ikke starte op under vand. En anden fejl var placeringen af den eksterne strømforsyning, ide kablerne blev revet over pga forskydning af jorden ved tsunamien og flodbølgen.

Ra-222 [226?] er en kemisk inaktiv luftart som derfor ikke opkoncentreres i kroppen.

@Glen, jeg skal på ingen måde blande mig i din debat med Jesper, men blot pege på, at du tager fejl med isotoperne. Radon-222 henfalder til Polonium så hurtigt, at der sprutter en hel serie af henfald inde i lungerne. Ra222 --> Po218 --> Pb 214--> Bi214 --> Po --> Altså en række henfald i lungerne efter indånding. Lungevævet er så tyndt at selv alfastråler kan gennemtrænge dem. Radon er den største trusel vedrørende radioaktivitet end naboerne til at atomkraftværk bliver udsat for. Et kulkraftværk udsender en lang række radioaktive stoffer, der er langt farligere en atomkraftværker, hvor man nøje holder øje med de tilladte udslip af ventilationsluften.

Jeg har prøvet at vurdere de mange - ofte klart modstridende - oplysninger på https://wp.me/p1RKWc-ec