[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Dustin G. Miller
dgmiller at enercon.com
Wed Jun 22 13:39:48 CDT 2011
Why would you attribute all increased deaths/cancer incidence/infant
mortality to the exposures? There is more happening to the people in
Fukushima than exposure to radioactive materials. With the tsunami, I would
assume the following could increase the death/cancer incidence/infant
mortality in the area
1. Chemicals (industrial and household) spread across area
2. diseases from corpses
3. depression - body can't repair itself as easily
4. Increased Stress
5. lack of clean drinking water
6. Other numerous factors that I am not going to waste my time explaining.
My point is that your assumption (any increase in death/cancer
incidence/infant mortality must be due to radiation exposure) is very
biased.
Reminds me of all the anti-DU people who think that DU has to be the only
culprit in the Gulf War Syndrome and it can't have anything to do with oil
wells burning and or our soldier walking through pools of oil in the Mid
East. I'm not saying DU can't have an effect, but to ignore the nasty
chemicals in oil seems a little biased to me.
I'm not an epidemiologist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn express last
night!!
Dustin Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:19 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Dear Sandy,
The way this works is through epidemiology.
So what I predict is this:
The deaths in Fukushima say within 100km from the site will be
statisticallly significantly higher than the deaths in Osaka. I am
predicting greater than 30%. This means that something caused this increased
mortality. The rate before the Fukushima releases will be roughly the same
in Fukushima as in Osaka or in all Japan. It will be a simple matter then to
associate the deaths/ cancer incidence/ infant mortality with the exposures.
OK? If you fine they are the same, no difference, I will apologise for my
error. If you find that what I predict is true, then you must do the same.
C
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Perle, Sandy
Sent: Wed 22/06/2011 15:41
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Chris,
My opinion, purely opinion, is that there are probably more deaths from
various incidents such as Chernobyl, but percentage wise, not significant.
However, when someone states that there have been nearly a million deaths
from Chernobyl, anyone who can think for themselves has to ask, what
credible data is there to justify such a claim. I don't see it and the
general scientific community don't accept it, even those who may be
considered liberal or conservative on the subject of dose, effect and
prognosis. You quote individuals who have made statements in the past that
are simply not credible. To quote them on future incidents and accept their
current projections, well, not realistic. This reminds me of a murder trial
where there is significant evidence, such as DNA, unquestionably reliable.
Then you have the defense witness who contradicts everything, and the
defense banks on the jury being swayed based on the individual's
qualifications. The facts get lost. The jury can be swayed. That is what I
see with the various groups that you reference. Their track records is just
not that great, nor credible.
You say that we have to wait for the Fukushima deaths. Well, I can assure
you 100% there will be deaths in Fukushima, whether there was an accident or
not. Some die from natural causes, some from genetic causes, some from
lifestyle selections. They will all die. Did they die from Fukushima. No.
Will they all be counted as deaths from Fukushima. Yes. Is that credible?
How will you and your colleagues define what is Fukushima related or not.
Individuals who have died in the last month, did they die from Fukushima? I
seriously doubt that. How about in a month, 6 months, a year, 5 years?
In the end, you'll hold your opinion and I'll hold mine. Mine is like my
politics. I don't follow like sheep. I make my own educated decisions. In
some cases I agree with the conservatives, some with the liberals and mostly
moderate. I don't follow the trend, I assess each case individually. Same
here. If there are issues in my profession, I speak out, just go back the 15
or so years I've been on radsafe. I call it like I see it. Am I always of
the correct opinion? No. but I learn when facts, irrefutable facts are
presented.
The Chernobyl and Fukushima numbers thrown out, not a chance!
Regards,
Sandy
-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ "Protecting people, property and
the environment"
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:12 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
The easy way out is to discount any study that you dont agree with as not
being credible.
There really is no answer to that.
Thats what UNSCEAR do, ignore any study that disagrees wth their position.
But thats not science.
And why, for example, is my meta analysis study of infant leukemias after
Chernobyl not credible?
I cant remember you answering that question way back when I started this
discourse?
And Tondel's study of Sweden after Chernobyl?
Or the many studies of nuclear site child leukemias? e.g. KiKK.
There are plenty more.
But I think you will just have to wait now for the Fukushima deaths.
Sincerely
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Perle, Sandy
Sent: Tue 21/06/2011 21:20
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Chris,
There will always be some entity that over estimates or under estimates any
situation. I don't recall any credible study that concludes there have been
any significant deaths documented in the numbers you state below. Now if
someone wants to include any death that occurs in a geographical area as a
result of Chernobyl, they can make whatever conclusion that they want to.
However, there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this
contention, even remotely.
Regards,
Sandy
-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ "Protecting people, property and
the environment"
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:45 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Well, so far on the basis of death toll, you will excuse me if I say
Chernobyl outweighs all of these by orders of magnitude. I know you guys
think only a few firemen died, but this isnt so.. Alexey Yablokov is right.
Gogman calculated 980,000 in 1990. All the studies have been done. Here is
my paper on the issue.
Cheers
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Jeff Terry
Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 23:24
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
Well, if we are using radiation related fatalities to date as the metric in
Fukushima, we cannot leave out:
"Jackass" co-star dies in car crash in Pennsylvania as its one fatality
exceeds the radiation tally in Fukushima.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-jackass-dunntre75j4u2-
20110620,0,5962651.story
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> Here are some from Wikipedia. I am not saying these are the biggest,
> as they only cover a brief slice of time, are mostly Northern
> Hemisphere, and are mostly catastrophic events, as opposed to long
> term health crushers like Black Lung Disease (so if you are going to
> say, "but Fukushima potentially will have long term effects," I
> suspect I could come up with 10 of those without much problem, too.)
>
> December 3, 1984: The Bhopal disaster. Estimates of its death toll range
from 4,000 to 20,000. The disaster caused the region's human and animal
populations severe health problems to the present.
>
> April 16, 1947: Texas City Disaster, Texas. A minimum of 578 people lost
their lives and another 3,500 were injured as the blast shattered windows
from as far away as 25 mi (40 km). Large steel pieces were thrown more than
a mile from the dock. The origin of the explosion was fire in the cargo on
board the ship. Detonation of 3,200 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer
aboard the Grandcamp led to further explosions and fires.
>
> 1932-1968: The Minamata disaster was caused by the dumping of mercury
compounds in Minamata Bay, Japan. The Chisso Corporation, a fertilizer and
later petrochemical company, was found responsible for polluting the bay for
37 years. It is estimated that over 3,000 people suffered various
deformities, severe mercury poisoning symptoms or death from what became
known as Minamata disease.
>
> August, 1975 The Banqiao Dam flooded in the Henan Province of China
> due to extraordinarily heavy rains, killing over 26,000
>
> April 26, 1986: Chernobyl disaster. At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
in Prypiat, Ukraine a test on reactor number four goes out of control,
resulting in a nuclear meltdown. The ensuing steam explosion and fire killed
up to 50 people with estimates that there may be between 4,000 and several
hundred thousand additional cancer deaths over time. Fallout could be
detected as far away as Canada. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, covering
portions of Belarus and Ukraine surrounding Prypiat, remains poisoned and
mostly uninhabited. Prypiat itself was totally evacuated and remains as a
ghost town.
>
> January 15, 1919: The Boston Molasses Disaster. A large molasses tank
burst and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35
mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event has entered local
folklore, and residents claim that on hot summer days the area still smells
of molasses.
>
> March 25, 1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City. This
was a major industrial disaster in the U.S., causing the death of more than
one hundred garment workers who either died in the fire or jumped to their
deaths.
>
> March 10, 1906: Courrières mine disaster in Courrières, France. 1,099
workers died, including children, in the worst mine accident ever in Europe.
>
> October 21, 1966: Aberfan disaster was a catastrophic collapse of a
colliery spoil-tip that occurred in the Welsh village of Aberfan, killing
116 children and 28 adults.
>
> September 21, 2001: Toulouse, France. An explosion at the AZF fertilizer
factory killed 29 and injured 2,500. Extensive structural damage to nearby
neighbourhoods.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
>
> What industrial catastrophes are bigger than Fukushima?
> I cant think of one. But maybe there is one. Certainly not 9.
> I mean Industrial right. Not earthquakes and stuff like that.
> If we call the atmospheric tests an industrial catastrophe then that one
certainly.
> Also the use of uranium weapons in GW2.
> But thats probably not as bad in terms of health effects as Fukushima will
be. You wait.
> Chris Busby
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 21:35
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> While I don't choose to guess at the amount of activity released at either
Chernobyl or Fukushima beyond "a whole hell of a lot", I don't think I agree
that Fukushima has or will result in "higher collective exposure". Firstly,
there was some hours between the end of criticality and the beginning of
release at Fukushima. This means that many of the isotopes with the
shortest half-lives had enough time to decay away before release began,
unlike Chernobyl. Second, at Fukushima the first portion of the release,
which is potentially the hottest, was blown out to sea, as opposed to at
Chernobyl, where there was inhabited land in every direction (some,
obviously, more densely inhabited than others).
> Third, a significant portion of the released activity is in water, going
to the ocean, where the impact on human health will be limited.
>
> I am not for a moment saying that Fukushima isn't a disaster. I am not
even saying that it is unreasonable to compare it to Chernobyl. Heck, I am
not even saying that something can't happen and make Fukushima worse than it
is. However, I don't believe that it is useful to engage in hyperbole.
>
> This morning a concerned citizen sent me an article from Al Jezeera in
which an activist claimed, "Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe
in the history of mankind". It certainly is not, and probably isn't in the
top ten.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:15 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
>
> My estimate is
> Chernobyl
> about 10^19 Bq
> Fukushima about 10^19Bq but more local so density greater and higher
> collective exposure due to Tokyo Hiroshima more difficult, maybe 10^14
> including the Uranium But I agree, not easily comparable with
> Hiroshima since that involved high level prompt gamma and neutrons
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 17:41
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> I am not sure if the question of how much radioactivity was released at
Hiroshima is a meaningful question, at least when trying to put it in
perspective with Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> There are several reasons for this. The first is that the explosion
> at Hiroshima produced blast and heat that killed people (though not
> everyone) out to a range past where the radiation dose would cause acute
problems. At Chernobyl the blast killed a few people (I am not sure how
many), and at Fukushima no one was killed by blast.
>
> Second, at Hiroshima much of the radiation was produced by fission, so
"curies" isn't an appropriate unit, in much the same way it isn't for
machine produced radiation. There was a substantial amount of radioactive
material produced, and there was some exposure to people from the fallout,
but that wasn't the main source of dose. At Chernobyl a reactor core that
was (for a brief time) at more than 100% power was blasted into the air,
then roasted in a graphite fire for days. At Fukushima there was a release
into the air some hours after criticality ceased, and a large amount of the
radioactive material has been trapped in water that either went into the
ocean or is still on site.
>
> Third, the isotope mix of what was released is very different between
> the three. This come into play in that the release of, say, 1,000 Ci
> of
> I-131 has different consequences than the release of 1,000 Ci of I-129.
> Weapons tend to have a higher percentage of very short half life isotopes,
reactor fuel that has been use a while has a higher percentage of longer
half-life isotopes. Also, with reactors the amount of time between the end
of criticality and the release will impact both the amount of activity and
the isotope mix.
>
> I bring all this up because it is a natural tendency to ask questions
> like this, then equate "more" with "worse". In this case, I don't think
that the intentional attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be meaningfully
compared to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theo Richel
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> Could anyone please give me some facts on how much radioactivity
> (curies) was released in: Fukushima, Hisoshima, Chernobyl
>
>
> Much appreciated
>
> Theo Richel
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
Well, so far on the basis of death toll, you will excuse me if I say
Chernobyl outweighs all of these by orders of magnitude. I know you guys
think only a few firemen died, but you are wrong. Alexey Yablokov is right.
All the studies have been done. Here is my paper on the issue.
Cheers
Chris
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments
transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may
contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its
affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments
from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments
transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may
contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its
affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments
from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list