Bill Nye on nuclear

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:02 am

EM

NOT you too, dammit!

The point is not the control. That is a red herring of Bobbo's. The point is that humans can tolerate 100 millisieverts. The rest of Bobbo's argument is just an attempt to evade the point.

Since 100 millisieverts is not experienced outside nuclear plant buildings, the harm done in nuclear accidents is limited. That is the biggest part of the reason for the low death rate. Chernobyl killed 49 people, with maybe a very few more with cancers not officially associated with the accident. Compared to Banqiao (170,000 dead), or the million each year from coal, or the many thousands from gas accidents, or the hundreds from wind or solar panel accident, nuclear power is relatively very safe. That relative safety is what I want you to acknowledge. But I guess it takes a person with stronger character to admit being wrong.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:50 am

MY point is the control group and how Cohen didn't account for the fact that he was dealing with survivors of a nuclear bomb at all.
Bobbo is pointing out that you simply don't understand the problem - which is probably due to the fact that your science degree has no relevance on the issue.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:03 am

And what, EM, do you think I fail to understand?

Bobbo has not been making a point. He has been casting a red herring in my path.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:37 am

By stating that the rest of the population of Japan is the control group, you've claim that we can compare the world population to that of WW2 Japan when it comes to susceptibility to radiation.
This would be dubious for any subgroup, but it's worse for a war-torn nation living to a disproportionate degree of seafood.
- Japan has a culture biased against birth defects and handicaps, making the proportion of such weeker individuals lower than in other populations
- the high seafood diet means abundant supply of Iodine, which is a good way to protect against radiation
- as the war had been going on for years, with an economy geared towards the war effort, constant stress was normalcy - this is also called A-stress, which puts the body in a state of higher readiness against other stressors
- the bombing campaigns killed hundreds of thousands, often in ways quicker than radiation, which makes it impossible to see long-term effects

Im sure there are other factors that make Japan a bad template for populations exposed to radiation elsewhere.

Again, it's not that the results are necessarily wrong - it's just that we don't have the proper data to make that call.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:11 am

EM

Take a look at your own post. You are trying to make excuses, and they are truly feeble ones.

Besides which, the use of the rest of Japan as a control was not my idea. This was a major study conducted by teams of professional epidemiologists, with the back up of professional statisticians. I certainly do not know enough to criticize their work and I am damn sure you do not.

At the end of the day, my key conclusion is that 100 millisieverts is essentially harmless. This is not exactly controversial. It is widely accepted. Both charts of the effects of radiation I posted show 100 millisieverts as harmless. So I think that the arguments you and Bobbo present against that are not exactly credible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:31 am

I've never seen anyone so fixated.

No flexibility at all.

Lance: if I ask you what time it is.....are you going to natter on about millisierverts?

EG: "Besides which, the use of the rest of Japan as a control was not my idea." /// If you had the ability to juggle more than having both hands firmly on only one subject at a time......you would find that statement gut busting funny. I mean, you know.............. "excuses" aside.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Cracks me up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:02 pm

Bobbi

Try to learn a little about the scientific method. I have worked with it most of my adult life, in my role as industrial chemist. That included running laboratory and field tests, which required the establishment of controls. I also had to use basic statistical analysis to determine how meaningful my results were. However, I am the first to admit that my grasp of statistical analysis is basic. I suspect it is a lot better than yours, though.

The Hiroshima studies were carried out by teams of experts. They chose to use the rest of the Japanese population as their control. Your criticism of their method is, frankly, pitiful. The Hiroshima studies are very thorough. Not only did they deal with a large number of subjects, making the results very meaningful, but they followed those subjects through an entire human lifetime. Their results represent excellent data. Again, your criticism from a base of ludicrous ignorance is utterly reprehensible.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm

Lance, it's your claim too, since you believe the conclusions.
And we (as well as the WHO) are skeptical about them.
If you were less fanatical you could see that significance of these studies is much less than you think.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:14 pm

EM

You can add error bars to the results if you wish. But the reality is that humans are not as sensitive to radiation as paranoid and radiophobes believe.
Bear in mind that there are literally dozens of studies involved. The people at Ramsa in Iran, who are 'naturally' exposed to 250 millisieverts per year, and have no increase in measurable radiation related illness. The people at Kirala in India, who are exposed to about 100 millisieverts per year with the same result. Even people in Colorado, living in the granite rich mountains, exposed to 50 millisieverts per year. All of these populations are healthy, with no increase in cancer rate or child mutation rate.

The belief that we are all, terribly, terribly vulnerable to small amounts of radiation is pure paranoia, and unsupported by good science. High levels of radiation, sure. Get 10 sieverts exposure and you are dead. But you get that INSIDE a plant that has suffered a melt down. Not outside.

None of this is new. It is easy to measure radiation dose. Dosimeters are issued to all workers in nuclear power plants. Any nuclear accident can be followed by accurate measures of radiation dose inside and outside the plant. Nothing new here. It is always done. Any dose less than 100 millisieverts is no cause for panic. And so far, no one has ever received a dose of more than that from outside a plant.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:26 am

Lance, I addressed the systematic flaw in studies of populations adapted to radiation, natural or otherwise.
Try to keep up.

The fact is that your facts are not universal facts: they are studies that cannot be easily extrapolated to all humans.

Use some critical thinking and stop your blind arguing from any pro-nuclear authority.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:37 am

There is no adaptation to radiation. The Hiroshima study was of people exposed once to radiation. No adaptation. They were normal Japanese people and the control is other normal Japanese people who were not exposed. Simple, and good science.

And yes, the results can indeed be extrapolated to all humans. I know this because the Hiroshima study is just one of exposure to radiation. As I have been at pains to point out, there are lots of other groups of people exposed to higher than normal levels. On top of that come the animal studies, which confirm the human studies.

You are desperately trying not to accept a simple fact. That humans can tolerate up to 100 millisieverts sets of radiation. Well, they can. As shown by a whole raft of different studies.

You cannot win a debate by arguing that black is white.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:58 am

Lance, stop talking {!#%@} about stuff you have no clue about. OF COURSE there is adaption. You simply have no clue about cell biology, but you are trapped in a Dunning Krueger on this issue because you MUST, for the sake of your self-esteem keep on convincing yourself that you aren't completely out of your depth.

Newsflash: people aren't all the same. Some can take more abuse to their DNA than others. Safety limits are there to protect the most vulnerable, not the average persons.
It's not like your claim of 200mSv (and now only 100) being safe are important. 50mSv is a good marker at which monitoring for effects start to make sense, that's all.
But this is a side issue in terms of the actual problems of nuclear power.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: They chose to use the rest of the Japanese population as their control. Your criticism of their method is, frankly, pitiful.

Please copy and paste what language you think justifies this statement.

As you fidget, you'll note I said just the opposite: (from memory) that is was very good, very accurate, the best that could be done, probably 99% accurate.

No Lance. You simply can't or refuse to direct your attention to what the subject being discussed actually was.

Once again===>copy and paste..........or apologies............or make a statement that you don't understand what I'm saying.

Ha, ha.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:35 am

EM

Surprise, surprise. I have a very good grasp on this. My degree includes minor studies on microbiology.
And the Hiroshima survivors did not have a chance to adapt. They were hit with a burst of radiation, both radiant and from a brief spell exposed to radioactive material, and then they all left the area and were never exposed again to anything above normal background. I suppose you thought they remained in Hiroshima. Duh!

Adaptation takes time, and they did not have it. When you are talking about adaptation in this instance, you are talking horse dung.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:38 am

Lance, what do you think adaption against radiation means in cellular biological terms, and how would the authors at the time have measured it?

And if you are so well studied, I'm sure you can do it without Google.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:56 am

Just to demonstrate to Lance how "fact and subject" oriented I am: EM, I must confess I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against. 100 millisieverts is well below a lethal or even morbid (is that the right usage from "morbidity" or illness?) well above what we get flying airplanes or having a dental xray which is also in millisieverts and also non-lethal/morbid.'

Have we "adapted" to this low level exposure....or more accurately been exposed at this level without harm? Now "without harm" means to our general function. Of course...a single cosmic ray could damage a single dna strand...say in our fingernail. We are not damaged to an extent that would justify that description. Same with 100 millisieverts?

Another take: lets say you chop my arm off with a hatchet .... but I live. Now....I have been damaged, and I am missing an arm......have I "adapted" in the sense that you mean it?

Are you discussing the right word?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 am

Bobbo

The response of the human body to radiation is to repair any damage.

Let me see if I can explain with an example. You have no doubt heard of the death of a thousand cuts. If someone attacks you with a knife, inflicting a small cut, you will survive. The cut will clot and stop bleeding, and you will live. The death of a thousand cuts is an old fashioned and lethal torture, which involves so many cuts that you bleed to death. Any single cut, you could survive. But a thousand is too much.

The same thing applies to radiation. Your body is subject to 15,000 impacts with particles every second. Most of those particles do no damage to speak of, striking water molecules, or other unimportant molecules. However, occasionally, a particle strikes a DNA molecule, and the damage might create a mutation or a cancer. To prevent this, we (and all other life on Earth) have repair systems. The damage to the DNA molecule, in almost every case, is simply repaired. Sometimes apoptosis occurs, and the damaged cell is destroyed and replaced. But a genuine harm is rare.

Obviously, with more radiation , there are more DNA impacts, and more chance of genuine damage. When the number of DNA molecules damaged is relatively small, they can be fixed. When the damage is too great, like the thousand cuts, it cannot. The "threshold" appears to be 100 millisieverts. Less than that, and the damage is repaired. More than that, and there is an increasing probability of mutation or cancer.

Now to the idea of adaptation. In this situation, it would mean being previously exposed to radiation, so that body adjusts, and becomes better at healing the damage. Certainly, this is a possibility, if previously exposed. But the Hiroshima people were not previously exposed.

Can I explain it in any simpler way

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:01 am

In other words, you still have no clue on the subject, but are convinced that what you don't know can't be relevant: classical Dunning Krueger.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:13 am

EM
That is not an argument.
Not that this is any different from all your other posts.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:12 pm

Why bother arguing with you? You've decided that you know everything and therefore can't possibly learn anything new.

Again and again I've tried to close some of the gaps in your knowledge, and every time you've given me nothing but abuse.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:47 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:In other words, you still have no clue on the subject, but are convinced that what you don't know can't be relevant: classical Dunning Krueger.

Seems to me, Lance gave an extensive on point answer. If he is wrong..... I'd like to know it and why. Just stating a conclusion never helps.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:04 pm

Thank you, Bobbo,

I am happy to tackle any reasonable and rational query.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:24 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Seems to me, Lance gave an extensive on point answer. If he is wrong..... I'd like to know it and why. Just stating a conclusion never helps.


actually, he didn't. One point was about Adaption to radiation, which he barely mentioned except for "it's possible" but only if you got previous exposure.
The main point is about whether WW2 and later Japanese make a good reference for all people on earth; by accepting the study, Lance says they do. I have previously given multiple scientifically relevant reasons why they don't, and instead of addressing them, Lance just called them feeble excuses.

Why are Japanese survivors of Hiroshima not significantly more likely to develop cancer?
First of all, survivorship-bias: by not dying during or soon after the blast, they've already been shown to be more resilient than others.
Adaption is a related reason: as I have mentioned, people under stress and harmful conditions (factory smoke, possible contact to chemicals involved in weapons production, partial starvation, frequent exposure to sunlight UV etc.) are, if they don't get truly sick, in a state of A-stress which prepares the cell to react faster in case of protein and DNA damage by keeping the necessary enzymes ready. This is the mechanism that Cohen and other talk about when they speak of the health benefits of constant low-level radiation.
I say constant, because unlike what Lance suggested, dropping a nuke is not like switching radiation on and off in a second: the whole area was contaminated and stayed so for decades until all former buildings were torn down and carried away as well as soil and plants. Wind and rain eventually carried away even more, leaving only slightly elevated levels near ground zero.
But during this time, locals did get the benefits of low exposure that gave their bodies an edge over slow-growing tumors caused by the initial explosion. This was not as important as the seafood diet and general healthiness of the Japanese, which have much lower levels of cardio-vascular problems than Westerners:
The first response if someone might have been exposed to radiation is to give them a massive dose of Iodine to prevent uptake of radioactive iodine in the thyroid- this was unnecessary in the case of Japan, but it would make a huge​ difference in more land-locked places.
A typical Westerner would lack many of the benefits

Or to make it short:
In all comparative health studies, Japanese are always an outlier; but when it comes to coping with radiation, they are suddenly presumed to be the norm?
That's not at all rational.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:34 am

EM---You make some good points. Lance does tend to twist all discussion back to his original statement regardless of what should have changed his thinking.

My own recall is that he did "correct" or more specifically address some of your issues as in "Of course, they do not adapt..." so where he said anything else.... I don't know.

but .....I won't parse your response as I think the thread is mostly talking past one another (mostly Lance's shortcoming as I agree with most of your counter)....but I was interested in why lance was wrong, and you responded on point....so thanks. I'd have to read it a few more times to assess who is zooming who. An exercise I don't enjoy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:00 am

Thanks Bobbo.
What I failed to mention above is that the researchers couldn't have done the necessary immuno- and protein assays required to test the population for elevated levels of Chaperone or DNA support/repair enzymes. But that would have been necessary to accurately assess the source of their immunity to higher levels of cancer.


IMO the problem with Lance's way of arguing is a constant shifting of goalposts, where things start out as harmless/cheapest/safest and, when pressed, move to less harmful/still worth it/safer than X.
He would do himself and us a favor if he just kept with relatives instead of absolutes.
50 or 200mSv in a society with regular check-ups and healthcare probably don't make much of a difference - but we are far from having reliable data on this.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:07 am

Well, let me respond to Ems post on Hiroshima.

First, on how the Hiroshima study was conducted. The researchers drew maps of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the detonation point at the center, and circles out from that point. Each circle was mathematically calculated as being an area of a certain radiation. The first circle might include all the areas with more than 10 sieverts. The second one, one to ten. The third circle, half to one, and so on.

The results for each group applied to that group only, and the results came from a lifetime follow up. For example, those exposed to one sievert had a higher than normal rate of cancer. Those exposed to 100 millisievert, though, had cancer rates over an entire lifetime, no worse than the average for the rest of Japan. EM suggests that those most prone to cancer would die at the time of the blast. But everyone exposed to 100 millisieverts survived the blast. The ones who died were in the circles closer to the detonation. So for the 100 millisievert group, there was no dying off of vulnerable ones. They all lived beyond the tragic time.

There was no chance for adaptation, for the reason I gave, that there was no exposure before the bomb. No chance that anyone would adapt.

The other thing EM is talking about, being made more resistant to cancer due to the radiation, is called radiohormesis, and you can Google it under that name. However, this effect is considered to be unproven for humans. There is clear evidence in experiments on laboratory animals, but no evidence for humans. I do not know if radiohormesis on humans is real or not. But I do not want to assume it is real, when the scientific community tends to treat it with skepticism. EM may consider radiohormesis to be the reason Hiroshima survivors who experienced 100 millisieverts had no more cancer than the rest of Japan on average. But that is not a discussion I want to get into at this stage because it is not accepted as a scientific reality. At least not by most scientists in that field.

EM talked of immunity to cancer. I have not suggested at any stage any increase in immunity to cancer. There may be something there, but it is not agreed by scientists. My position is simpler than that. I simply say that exposure to radiation up to 100 millisieverts does not cause harm.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:26 am

Even multiples above 100..........according to everything I have read........THIS thread and others. Mostly from flying airplanes and getting that Jazz....then dental xrays which for real is about machines that are not calibrated correctly.

That human error thing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:36 am

High levels of radiation cause harm. The people of Ramsa, Iran, experience 250 millisieverts per year. But this is spread over 12 months. If someone took 250 millisieverts dose over a short period, it would not be harmless.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:41 am

I had wondered if millisieverts had a dose rate aspect about it rather than just an accumulative number...but when you said moving out of an affected area made no difference (don't bother) ....I gave it up. Not worth looking up. When Nukes blow up..... I move.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
EM talked of immunity to cancer. I have not suggested at any stage any increase in immunity to cancer. There may be something there, but it is not agreed by scientists. My position is simpler than that. I simply say that exposure to radiation up to 100 millisieverts does not cause harm.



not my position, but an effect that is not considered by the study.
My position is that it makes a hell of a difference what your other health conditions are before you can guess the harmless about of radiation/year (seafood being a biggie).
Which makes all to the previous studies insufficient for generalization.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:13 am

For Bobbo.

Let me see if I can explain.

One sievert is sufficient to cause 5% increase in cancer over a lifetime. But this is time dependent. If you copped one sievert in a short time, say by spending an hour inside a nuclear plant that had a melt down, this would be much worse than spreading the impact over a year. That is because of the body's repair mechanisms. Given time, the damage can be repaired.

One sievert is roughly 150,000 trillion impacts on your body by nuclear particles, such as neutrons, or helium nuclei. That is a simplistic explanation, but is more or less correct if we ignore a couple of complications. If those impacts hit in a short time, they may overwhelm your body's ability to recover. Over a longer time period, there would be a better chance to repair the damage.

Dose rate is thus important. A high dose is worse. Spread over a longer time is better. Am I clear ?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:16 am

EM

Your strange illogic is kinda weird.

You ignore the simple fact that I am talking of the conclusions of teams of top experts. But your strange conclusions outweigh theirs, you seem to think.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3062
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:High levels of radiation cause harm. The people of Ramsa, Iran, experience 250 millisieverts per year. But this is spread over 12 months. If someone took 250 millisieverts dose over a short period, it would not be harmless.


This is in direct contradiction to your claim that Hiroshima survivors hadn't to much radiation to increase had cancer risks: or do you think the bomb exploded over years.

My logic is very straight: a control group must be similar to a norm, and​ Japan post-WW2 isn't, no matter what you say. Neither is Iran.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:56 pm

Lance: yes, dose rates make sense. "Time" is a thing.

EM: The bomb was instantaneous and killed people outright. Then.....people lived in the different radiation zone for years while clean up took place. Hmmm....I wonder what the residual radiation rates are today? Must be a well studied subject...as is Chernobyl.

A Darwinian adaption to radiation takes generations to accomplish. No reason some tolerance could not be bred ...but "Time" is a thing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:17 pm

Interesting.

Bobbo is talking sense and EM is talking total nonsense. What has HAPPENED?

For your information, present day Hiroshima has the same background radiation as the rest of Japan. You can live there as safety as anywhere else in Japan.


To EM
For your information, Ramsa, where people are exposed to 250 millisieverts per year, is in Iran. Nothing to do with Hiroshima except that both were exposed.


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest