Without saying whether the claims in the article are true or not, they are most certainly not unbiased. The author appears to have a definite, personal agenda and axe to grind.

The paper they reference was published in the Open Journal of Pediatrics. As near as I can tell (and I can't find anything really definitive because I can't find much of anything at all other than the publishers own statements) this is very possibly a vanity journal in which authors essentially pay to have their articles published in the journal and the "peer review" process is a rubber stamp.

The SJR journal ranking service lists 189 journals in the category Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health and this journal is not among them. A different index listed them but gave them a zero in every category in terms of the journals "impact", which is measured by how much other journal articles reference articles from the one being ranked.

One telling point is that there are lots of hits talking about how the radiation release is linked to elevated CH rates -- and as near as I can tell all of those hits refer back to this one article. Interesting that no one else seems to have detected a 21% increase in these cases.

 

71% of all statistics are wrong.

 

71% of all statistics are wrong.

I figure there's only a 9.2% chance you are right (because I think that there's a 81.8% chance that the figure is higher and a 9.0% chance that it is lower).

 

This whole thing is like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

This forum is very good for keeping me grounded.
This thread started from a petition to the united nations to put together a group of scientist and funds to help clean up fukushima power station
the petition is nearing 1000 signatures
nearly 8000 people have viewed it
How many have viewed the campaign through friends on face book I don't know.
I also don't know how many have view the articles that I have placed with the petition or the face book page for related articles.
It was a bit open season on me doing a petition but I feel that it has educated many people about what is happening. A lot people did not even know about it or that it was still going so i feel I has been good for letting people know.
I think one of the main problems with this whole thing is that people like headlines and when something has been going a while it stops being news.
I also think people in generally don't want to know it is there. it's to uncomfortable.
I am not a scientist but I feel this continual seepage of radioactive waste into the sea is a grave threat to the sea life and all life. I can not even get my head around the longevity of this waste.

 

People thought chernobyl would be a grave threat
turns out, other than causing a town to be uninhabitable, nothing much happened

the sea area right around the plant might be negatively impacted, but when you take the number of radioactive atoms, and spread them around the VOLUME OF THE OCEAN, the concentration is immeasurably low

then there are also the odds that, if there is a radioactive atom, will it decay right next to you? if I eat a radioactive plutonium atom, it's half life is so large, there is almost a 100% chance it passes right through me, and nothing happens

when it's all spread out, the longevity actually helps make things less dangerous

 

People thought chernobyl would be a grave threat
turns out, other than causing a town to be uninhabitable, nothing much happened

the sea area right around the plant might be negatively impacted, but when you take the number of radioactive atoms, and spread them around the VOLUME OF THE OCEAN, the concentration is immeasurably low

then there are also the odds that, if there is a radioactive atom, will it decay right next to you? if I eat a radioactive plutonium atom, it's half life is so large, there is almost a 100% chance it passes right through me, and nothing happens

when it's all spread out, the longevity actually helps make things less dangerous

While I agree with the points you've made, it's not quite that simple. The atoms involved are not just plutonium (which has chemical toxicity issues as well as radioactivity issues), but many other radionuclides plus their daughters all of whom have their own radiological and chemical toxicity issues.

But, in general, the impact of these events is almost always much less severe than many of the early predictions. The Earth is an amazingly resilient and adaptive system and subtle mechanisms that we discount usually come into play to drive the system back toward the norm much quicker than expected.

 

From what I understand the radio active rays injure the DNA.
My question is in the case of cancer - Does one cell with injured DNA, produce other cells with the same DNA dis-function
or does it need more radiation to injure more DNA ?

 

From what I understand the radio active rays injure the DNA.
My question is in the case of cancer - Does one cell with injured DNA, produce other cells with the same DNA dis-function
or does it need more radiation to injure more DNA ?

from my understanding, most of the time a cell with damaged DNA will just die, cancer is when instead of dying, it reproduces successfully (damaged dna is reproduced also), and then instead of functioning normally, it stops reproducing and instead it and all the future generations of it do nothing but reproduce as quickly as possible

 

If 1 fish receives 100 units of radiation
And has a 5% chance of getting cancer

Does it stand that when –

100 fish receive 1 unit of radiation each
There is a 5% chance of 1 of those fish getting cancer ?

 

I don't think it works that way. If you look at mortality charts in humans absolutely no radiation causes a slight uptick in cancer. Sorry, I was unable to locate a citation for this. The low dip is was a very small amount of background radiation, which is pretty much with us all the time.

In other words, it is not a linear function.

 

That is interesting for me.
the reason I was asking this was to get an idea - that if by spreading the the radiation around the whole pacific ocean, whether the damage is actually less or whether it is the same damage but defused over a larger area.
Any ideas on this.

 

As Bill says, the relationship is not linear.

Hence the probability of damage is not decreased by 100 if the radiation level is decreased by 100.

 

Only those individuals with a high susceptibility for cancer will get it. Those with the "seeds" of cancer already in them, if you like.

The rest just get radioactive and remain in perfect health. Like the healthy radioactive wildlife they have studied around Chernobyl.

You have to be careful with those "increases your risk by X%" figures.

They are generally misunderstood, the fact that a stimulus causes 5% of the population to get an illness does not prove that the stimulus gives YOU a 5% chance of getting ill.

If you are in the group that has a low susceptibility to the illness the stimulus has a 0% chance of affecting you. And if you are a high susceptibility individual that stimulus will have a very high percentage chance of making you ill.

 

The petition has now gone over 1000. it has been a lot of work getting it there, with out the help of several friends it would not of got past 15. I had naively thought it would just power its self and go viral - no chance.
Also it has been an education getting feed back from this forum.

 

From what I understand the sun works on fusion. Is there any where, where fission is naturally occurring?

 

Since about 2 billion years ago in West Africa.

 

It was a freak event, the amount of natural uranium was large enough it caused about a 2° rise in the ground temperature.

 

It was a freak event, the amount of natural uranium was large enough it caused about a 2° rise in the ground temperature.

is this type of fission the same as the fission that happens in nuclear power stations and produces plutonium?
and is this still happening or was this a short event?

 

Yes, and probably yes.