Skip to main content

John Boice - Fukushima Radiation a Threat?



Epidemiologist John Boice did a superb job this morning on MSNBC tempering overreaction to radiation levels.
Key takeaways:
Dilution and dispersal of radioactive iodine moving away from the Japanese coastline keeps any impact minor.
Sensitive detection equipment in U.S. is picking up insignificant levels of iodine. For example,  iodine levels in milk in the U.S. is 5,000 times below FDA standards.
None of this means that concern should not be directed to the workers at Fukushima.

Comments

Anonymous said…
He used the term "minuscule" so many times i lost count, trying to convince us, you see. LOL! Then he used a banana as an example of something that has radiation that no harm. He's a sorry excuse for making a case.

I'll bet he has moved his family out of harms way. He can take his banana, well..you know. ALL LIES!
Frank Jablonski said…
Hey, Anonymous.

Try thinking.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/life-is-rad
Frank Jablonski said…
Hey, Anonymous.

Radiation is everywhere, and the best science indicates that there is a level of it below which harm from radiation, if any, is likely exceeded by the benefit from the body's adaptive responses to it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/life-is-rad

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/ramsar.html
Anonymous said…
"the best science" supports rejection of LNT and acceptance of hormesis? Only if you consider Lyndon Larouche better science than UNSCEAR, ICRP, NAS, US NRC ...

When your journal's not peer reviewed, you can publish anything you want. Hence hormesis as a cottage industry.
Brian Mays said…
You're behind the times, Anonymous.

These days, cutting-edge scientific research related to hormesis is published in peer-reviewed journals. Here is an example, and no, it's not published by LaRouche.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…