tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post5617334321091705926..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: "No Safe Dose" is Bad Science. Updated. Guest Post by Howard ShafferMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-69994948449871738862014-07-01T09:54:36.973-04:002014-07-01T09:54:36.973-04:00Anon
There have been many studies attempting to f...Anon<br /><br />There have been many studies attempting to find links between nuclear power plants and local cancers. All found no correlations, with the exception of the German KIKK study, which claimed links with childhood cancers. <br /><br />The KIKK study has been soundly refuted for bad methodology, such as not even attempting to review for confounding factors such as socio-economic status. Here's an article with many links to studies that evaluated that study. From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.<br /><br />http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet.cfm<br /><br />By the way, anon, I did not claim that the "Germans were lying". Your question gave me the opportunity to link to a decent paper. So I published your question. However, your statement that either "the Germans" are lying or I am lying is sheer trash. Under most circumstances, it would have gotten your note dumped, Other commenters notes are already dumped. I don't publish comments that accuse me of lying, being unethical etc. <br /><br />But I had the chance to link to a decent review of KIKK, due to your question, so I did so. I just love questions on KIKK, because it is such a junky study and so easy to refute. Thank you.<br /><br />Kit,<br /><br />Helpful, thoughtful comment Kit! Have a great time in China. Tell us about it when you get back! Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-42673132438214603282014-07-01T01:33:27.232-04:002014-07-01T01:33:27.232-04:00There is no difference between the ways radiation ...There is no difference between the ways radiation is treated than other hazard. First you must understand the difference between poisoning and risk of cancer. The term threshold of harm refers to poisoning. A simple example: There are several scenarios during refueling such as dropped spent fuels assemble where personal would be exposed to a lethal does of radiation in a short period of time. To mitigate radiation poisoning, 21 feet of water is required to be above the spent fuel. <br />Since the water in the spent fuel pool is radioactive, workers receive a small exposure resulting in an a very small increase in cancer. <br />Personally I would like to avoid dying from radiation poisoning but have never had a problem staying regulatory limits for exposure.<br />Off topic a bit but I am now living in China working at nuke plant for a year.Kit Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-3008804596074141092014-06-29T23:55:24.478-04:002014-06-29T23:55:24.478-04:00How do you explain the German study showing the in...How do you explain the German study showing the increase in cancer around their nuclear power plants, and they decision to shut them all?<br /><br />Are you telling me the Germans are lying, while you are not?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-82767285389135722342014-06-25T14:23:21.578-04:002014-06-25T14:23:21.578-04:00Thank you for posting my comment, and my apologies...Thank you for posting my comment, and my apologies for not getting the attribution straight.<br /><br />That being said, would you consider answering the actual question -- what about the current U.S. regulatory approach to nuclear power imposes "unreasonable" costs for radiation protection? Please note I'm not talking about accident risk reduction measures.<br /><br />Thank you again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-50132499642553892162014-06-24T21:25:42.139-04:002014-06-24T21:25:42.139-04:00Thank you, David, for your informative comment!Thank you, David, for your informative comment!Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-66911588577261716972014-06-24T21:24:31.731-04:002014-06-24T21:24:31.731-04:00Hi Anon,
The first part of the post, including the...Hi Anon,<br />The first part of the post, including the part you quote, was written by me. Howard's part starts at the bold line with his name on it.<br />So I should answer. I am away from my desk and I make mistakes on this mobile device:please forgive them.<br />The basic idea is that the term "reasonable" is intrinsically unreasonable. How is it defined? By whom?<br />Example. My town provides town water to people without wells. (If they live close-in to the center, as I do.) As long as the town water meets EPA requirements, it is considered safe. People can't go to the town select board and insist that new water treatment methods be acquired to lower some contaminant from half the EPA safety limit to a quarter of the limit, because it seems that 1/4 the limit is now "reasonably" achievable.<br />That's the difference between a threshold and the unreasonable term "reasonable." A threshold is a number. A term is open to endless expensive interpretations.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-14380794470265141812014-06-24T18:46:43.673-04:002014-06-24T18:46:43.673-04:00Mr. Shaffer;
Of course opponents of nuclear power...Mr. Shaffer;<br /><br />Of course opponents of nuclear power will play up every unreasonable fear they can fabricate. It's the only way they know how to overcome their inability to produce evidence of actual harm.<br /><br />I have a question, however, in regards to your statement:<br /><br />" 'Protecting' against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small."<br /><br />How would you reconcile that statement with the actual U.S. regulatory regime, which relies on the As Low As <b>Reasonably</b> Achievable approach?<br /><br />Thank you for considering an anonymous comment, Meredith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-2992885227477526982014-06-24T15:34:11.435-04:002014-06-24T15:34:11.435-04:00The French Academy of Sciences, the Health Physics...The French Academy of Sciences, the Health Physics Society and the American Nuclear Society have all rejected LNT, having found that doses below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) result in risks of health effects that are either too small to be observed or are non-existent. These organizations are made up of individuals who actually work in the field providing protection for workers and the public from radiation exposure. Their position on LNT actually puts their livelihood in jeopardy because it implies levels below concern and therefore lessens the demand for experts in their field.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15508944470375640552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-84652696696111523522014-06-23T11:14:37.583-04:002014-06-23T11:14:37.583-04:00And you can't prove it is right, Bob. I have ...And you can't prove it is right, Bob. I have seen you try, with endless postings on other people's blogs. And you always add accusations of "denier" or "creationist," to emphasize that, in your opinion, anyone who disagrees with you is not a scientist. <br /><br />This was your last posting on this blog.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-42920299265298343042014-06-23T11:06:36.142-04:002014-06-23T11:06:36.142-04:00All Shaffer has to do is present the physical evid...All Shaffer has to do is present the physical evidence that LNT is wrong. He can't. His behavior is no different than that of a global warming denier. Why are you promoting science denial?<br /><br />Bob ApplebaumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com