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!

April 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Frank Jablonski said…

Hey, Anonymous.

Try thinking.

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

April 2, 2011 at 8:04 PM

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

April 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM

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When your journal's not peer reviewed, you can publish anything you want.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.

April 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM

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.

April 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog