Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Radioactivity harms us and no dose is “safe” | Beyond Nuclear International



A “small” dose can do immense damage; our new handbook explains how and why

All nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive gases and water contaminated with radioactive isotopes. When a nuclear plant has a serious accident — as occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima — orders of magnitude more radioactivity is released into the environment.
Uranium mining also releases harmful radioactive isotopes and leaves behind radioactive waste. The 1979 uranium tailings pond spill at Church Rock, NM — 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste and 1,100 tons of solid mill waste — was the largest accidental release of radioactive waste in US history and permanently contaminated the Puerco River.
Radioactive releases occur all along the uranium fuel chain, beginning with uranium mining and culminating in radioactive waste “management.”
All of these releases — whether large or small (because there is no “safe” dose) — impact human health with varying degrees of severity. And yet most of the time, these impacts are poorly understood, hushed up, or even dismissed. When discoveries are made — such as increased rates of leukemia in populations living near nuclear power or reprocessing plants — there is an immediate effort by industry, often supported by governments, to undermine, challenge or negate such findings.
The fact remains, however, that both the immediate and long-term damage done to human health — which can last for generations — is the single, most compelling reason not to continue with the use of nuclear power and the extractive, polluting industries that must support it.
The Radiation and Harm to Human Health chapter of the Beyond Nuclear anti-nuclear handbook, is available now for download and printing as a standalone booklet. In it, we endeavor to both explain and synthesize the many ways that radioactivity released through the nuclear power sector damages human health, especially the most vulnerable members of our population — women, pregnancy, babies and young children…

more: Radioactivity harms us and no dose is “safe” | Beyond Nuclear International

NEW HANDBOOK: "The Case Against Nuclear Power: Radiation and Harm to Human Health" (PDF)



Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Trump’s EPA is moving to weaken regulation on radiation exposure | PBS NewsHour



WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.

The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release…

Trump’s EPA is moving to weaken regulation on radiation exposure | PBS NewsHour


Monday, May 1, 2017

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer (2005) | NIRS |


BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation

Washington, DC July 30, 2005 | The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.
Among the reports conclusions are:
There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.
Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.
It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.

The “bystander effect” is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. “Genomic instability” can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report “might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk.” These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.
The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought... 

more: All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer. - NIRS


Tuesday, April 25, 2017

WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE | People's Climate March



you can't nuke global warming!



Nuclear power is too dirty, dangerous, expensive and slow, in order to be a viable solution to climate change. 



The climate crisis is the defining issue of our time. It poses an existential threat to life on Earth in a manner civilization never before has faced. Immediate action is necessary to slash climate-changing emissions in all sectors of society.
On April 29, the Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent will join the People’s Climate March in Washington, DC, to demand immediate action from the US government and all of the governments of the world. We are also a networking and support hub for people who want to organize nuclear-free, carbon-free contingents for local climate marches and events.



We are marching for a 100% renewable, nuclear-free, carbon-free world.

The solutions to the climate crisis are clear: A rapid, just transition to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. It is an energy system that relies not on antiquated energy models of the 20th Century and their polluting nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies … but on the safe, clean, affordable and sustainable renewable energy, energy efficiency, and smart technologies of the 21st Century.
Nuclear power in particular cannot solve the climate crisis. Indeed, its continued use exacerbates global warming by preventing the deployment of clean energy systems.
Among a myriad of other problems, nuclear power is:
  • Too Dirty: nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel chain produce vast amounts of lethal radioactive waste, which grow whenever nuclear power is used. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for far more carbon emissions than renewable energy generation and improved energy efficiency. All reactors routinely emit toxic radiation–the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.
  • Too Dangerous: expanded use of nuclear power would inevitably lead to more Fukushimas and Chernobyls.  The technology and materials needed to generate nuclear energy can be diverted to nuclear weapons programs.
  • Too Expensive: nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions; its use crowds out investment in clean energy sources.
  • Too Slow: use of nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require an unprecedented nuclear construction program, beyond the capability of the world’s manufacturers within an acceptable time frame.
  • PCM-2014_no-nuclear-laborRooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations: First Nations, people of color and low-income communities are targeted for uranium mining and radioactive waste. Radiation harms women and girls at twice the rate as their male counterparts. And radioactive pollution indiscriminately harms future generations, poisoning the environment for hundreds to thousands of years.
Clean energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, increased energy efficiency, distributed generation, electricity storage and other advanced technologies can meet the world’s energy needs without carbon and methane emissions, radiation releases, and other pollutants.
Please join us in organizing for the People’s Climate March, and in marching for a vision of a clean, safe, just CARBON-FREE and NUCLEAR-FREE world.
We urge you to join us in DC or a Climate March near you – find all of the details for Saturday and in cities around the U.S. on our Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free page on the People’s Climate March website. And organize with us on our Facebook page


see this page from the 2014 People's Climate March for more:whats up: WHY NUKES CAN'T SAVE THE PLANET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE


Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free Contingent 
to the People's Climate March


Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free page on the People’s Climate March website




Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet



 Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet. Two-page sheet suitable for downloading/printing on the basic reasons nuclear power is not a global warming solution and, in fact, would be counterproductive at addressing the climate crisis. / NIRS


see also:

a list of articles on nukes & climate

you can't nuke global warming!
(tag on this blog)

People's Climate Movement – Nuclear Free Carbon Free – Homepage


Sunday, April 3, 2016

About 200 scientists to gather for #Chernobyl conference in Belarus on 21-22 April


MINSK, 31 March (BelTA) – About 200 scientists will take part in the international conference Chernobyl: 30 Years Later, BelTA learned from Vladimir Gusakov, Chairman of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (NASB), on 31 March. According to the source, the international scientific conference Chernobyl: 30 Years Later will take place in the Radiobiology Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus on 21-22 April. It will gather about 200 scientists from Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Japan. According to Vladimir Gusakov, the Japanese delegation has demonstrated a live interest in taking part in the event. Japan will send a large delegation, which members intend to present their research projects, said the NASB head. The main highlights of the conference will include radiobiological and radioecological consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, radioecological aspects of the rehabilitation of territories polluted with radionuclides, and the prevention of emergencies and cleanup of their consequences in radioactive contamination areas.


If you use BelTA’s materials, you must credit us with a hyperlink to eng.belta.by.


About 200 scientists to gather for Chernobyl conference in Belarus on 21-22 April

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Nuclear Scars | Greenpeace International




It is 30 years since the beginning of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. It is also five years since the Fukushima disaster began. To mark these anniversaries, Greenpeace has commissioned substantial reviews of scientific studies examining the continued radioactive contamination in the affected areas, and the health and social effects on the impacted populations. We have also carried out radiation field work to expose the unrelenting crises in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Japan that thousands of people still live with on a daily basis.

more / download report (pdf): Nuclear Scars | Greenpeace International

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Nuclear power kills! The real reason the NRC cancelled its nuclear site cancer study - The Ecologist



Radioactive emissions from the Millstone nuclear power complex in Waterford, CT are associated with elevated breast cancer incidence in the Long Island Sound Counties. Photo: Dominion Energy vua NRC / Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND).

Radioactive emissions from the Millstone nuclear power complex in Waterford, CT are associated with elevated breast cancer incidence in the Long Island Sound Counties. Photo: Dominion Energy vua NRC / Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND).



The US's Nuclear Regulatory Commission just cancelled its study into cancer near nuclear plants citing the 'excessive cost' of $8 million, writes Chris Busby. Of course that's rubbish - similar studies in the UK have been carried out for as little as £600 per site, and in any case $8 million is small change for the NRC. The real reason is to suppress the unavoidable conclusion: nuclear power kills.

read: Nuclear power kills! The real reason the NRC cancelled its nuclear site cancer study - The Ecologist


Sunday, February 21, 2016

2.25 Oceans & Health Seminar | "Experiences in science and risk communication with the public about the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster" | Harvard University Center for the Environment


Jay T. Cullen, University of Victoria, will discuss "Experiences in science and risk communication with the public about the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster."
Abstract: The triple disaster of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor meltdowns that struck Japan in March 2011 led to the release of massive amounts of radioactive isotopes into the environment.  Despite the high local levels in Japan, and global reach of contamination from Fukushima the international scientific community has determined that the short and long term impacts on environmental and human health will be difficult to detect.  I began outreach and education efforts in the interest of the common good given questions and fear about the disaster among family, friends and members of the public.  I was also motivated to correct scientifically inaccurate, poor quality, misinformation that at the time dominated the public domain.  While most public response to my work on the Fukushima disaster has been positive, my outreach introduced me to the world of conspiracy theories, through a vocal minority who responded with personal threats, accusations of scientific fraud, and other attacks on my professional and personal integrity.  I now have a firsthand understanding of the pitfalls of public science and risk communication.  The purpose of this talk is to provide background to the reader about the nature of the disaster, known risks, and an account of how conspiracy ideation and poor science literacy colored a minority of the public feedback to my scientifically grounded monitoring program and evidence based outreach efforts.   

Contact Name: 

Olivera Saric Knezic
- See more at: http://environment.harvard.edu/events/2016-02-25-170000-2016-02-25-180000/oceans-health-seminar#sthash.bJDJdRTb.dpuf

Oceans & Health Seminar | Harvard University Center for the Environment

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) | The BMJ




Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS)

Abstract

Study question Is protracted exposure to low doses of ionising radiation associated with an increased risk of solid cancer?
Methods In this cohort study, 308 297 workers in the nuclear industry from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States with detailed monitoring data for external exposure to ionising radiation were linked to death registries. Excess relative rate per Gy of radiation dose for mortality from cancer was estimated. Follow-up encompassed 8.2 million person years. Of 66 632 known deaths by the end of follow-up, 17 957 were due to solid cancers.
Study answer and limitations Results suggest a linear increase in the rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure. The average cumulative colon dose estimated among exposed workers was 20.9 mGy (median 4.1 mGy). The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per Gy (90% confidence interval 20% to 79%), lagged by 10 years. Similar associations were seen for mortality from all solid cancers (47% (18% to 79%)), and within each country. The estimated association over the dose range of 0-100 mGy was similar in magnitude to that obtained over the entire dose range but less precise. Smoking and occupational asbestos exposure are potential confounders; however, exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer did not affect the estimated association. Despite substantial efforts to characterise the performance of the radiation dosimeters used, the possibility of measurement error remains. 
What this study adds The study provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality. Although high dose rate exposures are thought to be more dangerous than low dose rate exposures, the risk per unit of radiation dose for cancer among radiation workers was similar to estimates derived from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Quantifying the cancer risks associated with protracted radiation exposures can help strengthen the foundation for radiation protection standards. 
Funding, competing interests, data sharing Support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire; AREVA; Electricité de France; US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; US Department of Energy; and Public Health England. Data are maintained and kept at the International Agency for Research on Cancer.


the report >>> Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) | The BMJ


Thursday, May 2, 2013

5.19-22 Yablokov lectures in Japan|泣いちゃいそうだよ



Dr. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov come to Japan.
And he give a lecture in some cities.
These cities and the date are in the below.
(Japanese site)

①May 19th IWATE prefecture
②May 20th Fukushima prefecture
③May 21th TOKYO prefecture
④May 22th KYOTO prefecture

(about Dr.Yablokov)
wiki
his lecture on last December


★Review★

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)
Alexey V. Yablokov

Wiley-Blackwell 2010-01-12
Sales Rank : 611891

See details at Amazon by G-Tools



Dr. Alexey Yablokov will come to Japan and give a lecture in some cities.|泣いちゃいそうだよ


Dr. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov lecture, December 2012 | アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士「チェルノブイリの教訓」