shadowman
I know this is a bike forum and not the place for politics or science but I thought a few of you might be interested in this in light of the Fukushima damaged reactors and controversy about the risk and specifically if the Moto GP should go ahead. It fascinated me but then as has been pointed out before perhaps I should get out more.
I have just finished reading two long term studies of the exclusion zones round the Chernobyl site. It’s been 25 years now, plenty of time for any effects of the contamination to have had its effects amongst rapidly reproducing biological organisms. It is worth bearing in mind that this reactor was running close to flat out when it blew (all the Fukushima reactors were scrammed) and the level of contamination was much greater (more than a factor of ten) and also included elements and isotopes considered more toxic to living organisms than those scattered in Fufushima.
One study was by Tim Mousseau and the other by Jim Smith, both well qualified scientists. Both looked at the most heavily contaminated areas where no decontamination work had been carried out and where measured contamination was many many times above the safe levels set by the IAEA.
The study by Jim focused on fast breeding small mammals where a large number of generations would have been born, lived, bread and died in this environment. Things like field mice and similar animals. They were looking for any genetic abnormalities, any biological issues, population health, life span etc to see what measurable effects living in the most hazardous areas had had with a view to establishing likely effects on humans. The results...... There were no measurable differences at all between the Chernobyl populations and similar populations elsewhere. Whatever they looked at was quite completely normal. When the study was widened to include insects and plants they again found no detectable effects at all. This after 25 years in the areas of highest contamination.
The study by Tim looked at population densities and this did seem to show a lowering of overall bird / insect populations across the areas although the direct linkage to the radiation contamination is unclear. They also claimed that bird brain size was measurable decreased although again this seemed to be over both clean and contaminated areas so I don’t think a causal effect was established.
The more actual research I read about the measured effects of low level radiation exposure the more confused I become as to why we are all so afraid. Of course in high levels it’s lethal (so is heat) but there seems to be almost no evidence at all that below a certain level (which is much higher than even Chernobyl produced in the local area) there are any measurable toxic effects at all.
You probably generate a higher theoretical risk from radiation on the flight to Japan than you would get from lining at the Jap GP circuit for a year. These are risk taking on the edge Moto GP riders, it can only be ignorance that keeps them away as the risk is nonexistent from Fukushima!!
I have just finished reading two long term studies of the exclusion zones round the Chernobyl site. It’s been 25 years now, plenty of time for any effects of the contamination to have had its effects amongst rapidly reproducing biological organisms. It is worth bearing in mind that this reactor was running close to flat out when it blew (all the Fukushima reactors were scrammed) and the level of contamination was much greater (more than a factor of ten) and also included elements and isotopes considered more toxic to living organisms than those scattered in Fufushima.
One study was by Tim Mousseau and the other by Jim Smith, both well qualified scientists. Both looked at the most heavily contaminated areas where no decontamination work had been carried out and where measured contamination was many many times above the safe levels set by the IAEA.
The study by Jim focused on fast breeding small mammals where a large number of generations would have been born, lived, bread and died in this environment. Things like field mice and similar animals. They were looking for any genetic abnormalities, any biological issues, population health, life span etc to see what measurable effects living in the most hazardous areas had had with a view to establishing likely effects on humans. The results...... There were no measurable differences at all between the Chernobyl populations and similar populations elsewhere. Whatever they looked at was quite completely normal. When the study was widened to include insects and plants they again found no detectable effects at all. This after 25 years in the areas of highest contamination.
The study by Tim looked at population densities and this did seem to show a lowering of overall bird / insect populations across the areas although the direct linkage to the radiation contamination is unclear. They also claimed that bird brain size was measurable decreased although again this seemed to be over both clean and contaminated areas so I don’t think a causal effect was established.
The more actual research I read about the measured effects of low level radiation exposure the more confused I become as to why we are all so afraid. Of course in high levels it’s lethal (so is heat) but there seems to be almost no evidence at all that below a certain level (which is much higher than even Chernobyl produced in the local area) there are any measurable toxic effects at all.
You probably generate a higher theoretical risk from radiation on the flight to Japan than you would get from lining at the Jap GP circuit for a year. These are risk taking on the edge Moto GP riders, it can only be ignorance that keeps them away as the risk is nonexistent from Fukushima!!