Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator

[flamingdem]

http://www.wise-uranium.org/rdcu.html

Is this cool or what? I wonder if they have an individual plutonium, cesium or strontium calcuator!

Be ahead of your friends and know your own individual dosage! Discuss at parties!

EPA Data Shows Fukushima Uranium in Los Angeles
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=289512&mesg_id=289512

[FBaggins]

1. That's a great site. But you've got the wrong calculator.

The amount of uranium detected will be too low to get much out of the calculator. Besides... they aren't reporting amounts of uranium, they're reporting activity levels detected.

What you want to use is their Uranium Dose to Risk Converter. You can put in your assumptions and it will give you your statistical additional lifetime risk of cancer.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/rdcri.html

[SpoonFed]

2. Outdated methodology?

Seems that the web calculators (which I'm not surprised that you don't have a problem with) are using ICRP and not newer RCRR models for evaluation...

http://vimeo.com/15398081

[FBaggins]

4. The difference is at the margins.

Either model is fine for our purposes. If one says that you have an additional .003% chance of cancer and the other says it's double that... does the diffence matter?

The question is whether a given dose is significant or insignificant. We're debating whether a reported exposure is going to kill thousands... or increase the chance of cancer for those thousands by a tenth of a percent. Either model will answer that question to a greater degree of accuracy than the data we have (re: exposures) can provide. But by all means, provide a different calculator if you prefer it.

And I wasn't the one who selected the site... I just pointed to the more relevant calculator.

[SpoonFed]

8. hmm, didn't watch the link did you?

Either model is not fine. The IRCP model is outdated and is based on external source model and omits DNA binding as such. The ECRR model is an internal exposure model and the factor he mentions is that you take a IRCP estimate and multiply it by a factor of 600, or at least 300 on average.

x300 =/= x2

The analogy given is that the IRCP model of estimation is like sitting in front of a fire warming your hands, and the ECRR model is if you had swallowed a red hot ember.

You didn't select the site but it, right off the bat, smacks of error for the reasons given above and in the video. Ie. The site gives gross underestimates of the radiological effects on humans. That's keeping in par with your actions since the beginning of this.

[FBaggins]

19. I don't think you understand what's being presented.

The calculations at the sirte FD gave include the ability to select an external source or internal (and break it down by inhalation vs. ingestion) as well as a single event or ongoing exposure. You can adjust dose and/or risk factors as well if you think they're insufficient.

As I said.. pick ANY valid model you like and give us a link. NONE of them will give a result for what has been detected in the U.S. that equals and reason for concern.

[SpoonFed]

20. I don't think you understand very much.

My criticism of a web-form dose calculator, if you had bothered to watch the link provided, is that the dose factor checkboxes are ICRP which according the ECRR/Prof Busby underestimate the risk, potentially by a 2-3 orders of magnitude.

Underestimating risk is something that I think you very well understand.

I like how you've issued this challenge for almost as far away from the reactors at Fukushima as you can get. The corner you've painted yourself into for 6 weeks is getting smaller and smaller as the days go by.

Using a web form to evaluate radiation dose is almost as stupid as arguing with pro-nook pundits.

[FBaggins]

21. Really? Than maybe you can answer a question for me.

Let's just ignore the fact that few whose name isn't Busby consider the ECRR to be the gold standard.

Can you tell me what the ECRR adult dose coefficient is for inhaled elemental uranium?

Returning back to reality... the rest of the scientific community isn't named Busby. ECRR and LLRC don't have the credibility to make this claim.

[txlibdem]

3. Each Coal plant spews out 5.8 tons of Uranium, 11 tons Thorium each year - calculate that dose

Thats each and every year! Year after year. So if you live your whole life (60 years) near a coal power plant you should be calculating how much of that 348 tons of Uranium and 660 tons of Thorium just by living near a coal power plant.

But let's be really, really scared of nuclear power, folks. Fear, FEAR, Fear the radiation -- except if it comes from coal, oil or natural gas... then the anti-nuke crowd won't mention a word about it.

[SpoonFed]

5. You've got a scratch in your talking points LP and it's looping...

> except if it comes from coal, oil or natural gas

You keep pushing the point that rational people that are against nuclear fission power and it's nightmarish pollutants are somehow ignoring other shitty energy choices. This seems like a nuke industry talking point to me.

We're talking a lot about the "filth being spewed hither and yon" from Fukushima, as another DUer so eloquently put it recently, and not the filth spewed by coal plants for instance, since Fukushima recently blew up.

I don't have to like coal emissions if I do not like nuclear fission's poisonous filth.

This is just another obvious attempt by you to frame the debate as either nuclear energy or coal/oil/gas.

[txlibdem]

6. I don't have to like coal emissions

That makes it sound like nothing serious at all. If I have a big bowl of chili for lunch, I give off emissions. Oops!

But you do not like nuclear fission's poisonous filth! OMG That sounds far more dangerous! POISONOUS FILTH!!!

What you fail to include in your false claim is that Radiation IS THE SAME AS Radiation. Uranium = Uranium = Radiation. Thorium = Thorium = Radiation.

Plus, with coal you get Mercury, Arsenic, Lead, Boron, Cobalt, Manganese, etc., POISONOUS FILTH!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer<49>"
... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Environmental_effects
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Are those 24,000 lives that are shortened due to coal power plant "emissions" worth nothing?!?

Are those 2,800 lung cancer deaths meaningless?!?

In the past 40 years of using coal power plants that equals 960,000 shortened lives and 112,000 lung cancer deaths -- thank you coal!!! We love you coal!

[SpoonFed]

9. Pile some more on... please

And you continue with the "Let's talk about coal and not Fukushima" thread.

The straw man that you have so presented in your lameness is that I somewhere suggested that the pollutants and health damage from coal plants are worth nothing and insignificant. I notice how you quote nothing from my comment because I said no such thing.

Instead, as I have read numerous times, you're spamming a thread and creating straw men that you then half-assedly put down. Go look at my comment, coal falls into "shitty energy" like nuclear as mentioned in my comment.

Now back to discussing the fact that the IRCP model of risk is outdated and wrong...

[txlibdem]

12. I quoted you directly

You wrote, "I don't have to like coal emissions if I do not like nuclear fission's poisonous filth."

I replied with facts on the number of deaths that are caused EACH YEAR by coal power plants. Color that how you like but the fact is that coal is an extreme danger to our health, our lives, and the future of this planet.

[SpoonFed]

13. quite the little edit you just made...

I said maybe you want to try to stay on topic with respect to reactor filth and Fuku, but if you'd like to talk about the coal and contamination, then hey, why not continue to put negative words in my mouth and continue to try to hijack the thread.

best that you removed the part where you attempted to claim that I said deaths from coal plants were insignificant, cause you bloody well know i said nothing of the sort. nice try though.

[txlibdem]

15. Upon a reread I did an edit, you should try it some time

I actively seek out and correct MY mistakes. And you should try that as well.

What I object to in your posts is your attempt to focus like a laser on the radiation from Fukushima while completely ignoring the far higher radiation from coal, oil and natural gas. Radiation is radiation. Uranium is Uranium. Thorium is Thorium, Cesium is Cesium. It comes from fossil fuels as well as from nuclear waste. Try to spin that any way you like. I am trying to help you to understand that someone has misled you if you think that radiation does not equal radiation.

[txlibdem]

14. Focus on the burnt leaf, not the raging forest fire all around you...if you live your whole life (60

From my earlier post, "if you live your whole life (60 years) near a coal power plant you should be calculating how much of that 348 tons of Uranium and 660 tons of Thorium just by living near a coal power plant.

But let's be really, really scared of nuclear power, folks. Fear, FEAR, Fear the radiation -- except if it comes from coal, oil or natural gas... then the anti-nuke crowd won't mention a word about it."

Your post calls that a "straw man." I disagree and would like to refer you to a dictionary. Pointing out that your opponent is cherry picking his or her facts and figures is in no way a "straw man" - it is merely stating the truth.

Google is your friend, please don't fear the google! The more you search, the better the chance that you might learn something about the poisons (including RADIATION) that is locked in with coal power plants, oil drilling, and natural gas.

Drilling pipe radiation
coal radiation
coal toxic metals
coal hazardous waste
what is in fly ash

These are only a few of the suggested searches you need to conduct in order to gain a better understanding of the relative dangers of our energy sources.

[SpoonFed]

17. duderino

know plenty about the environmental and health effects of coal power plants and thank the flying spaghetti monster that I don't live anywhere near one. That being said, you can stop trying to put words in my mouth and maybe start a thread called "ignore Fukushima and focus on the real threat of coal..." or something like that,

and then when I go write something there, you can make up a bunch of straw men to attack, since I've said nothing about coal and that displeases you to no end for some reason.

BTW, does burning coal produce 1% or more plutonium?

Edit: was to change the word god to the flying spaghetti monster.

[txlibdem]

18. And sometimes it is what we DON'T say that is more instructive of our opinions and biases

Of course you're saying nothing about coal, even though it is the source of far more deaths each year than (I hope) will the Fukushima disaster. But your singular focus on radiation from Japan and how bad, Bad, BAD! it is tells me that you have a purpose, an axe to grind or are simply unaware of the facts that abound out there about radiation sources and the long term and relative risks of each.

Your post, again, incorrectly uses the term "straw man" to deflect attention from what is in your left hand while you wave the right hand around and around yelling, "Fukushima! Fear, Fear FEAR!!!"

The whole point of my posts is to bring some balance and accuracy to the fear mongering posts of the anti-nuke crowd. Your post tells me that you did none of the suggested google searches I hoped you would do. Your mind is made up and neither facts nor reason can change your beliefs. I accept that. I do, however, hope that some people reading both your posts and mine will begin to think critically, begin to question your myopic, laser focus on Fukushima and take a look at radiation sources a little closer to home (coal, oil and natural gas). If I help one other person begin to understand that the anti-nuke crowd wants nothing but to spread fear over nuclear power while at the same time ignoring a far higher (yet unregulated and uncontrolled) radiation output from coal, oil and natural gas then I will have considered my efforts very worthwhile.

Your posts fail to address the 24,000 premature deaths and 2,800 lung cancer deaths that happen *each year* due to coal power plants. How is that a rational or logical outcome if one truly has the public health in mind???

Radiation equals radiation. Uranium equals Uranium. Thorium equals Thorium. All radioactive and all come from coal power plants, totally uncontained and unregulated, versus nuclear power which uses the same materials but has government inspectors making more and more stringent rules almost every year and has to pay the costs of permanent containment of its Uranium, Thorium, Cesium, etc. Coal gets a free pass on all of its toxic and radioactive filth.

That situation just doesn't seem right to me.

[FBaggins]

7. This doesn't have to be "coal vs. nuclear - which to kill first"

Of course I would argue that coal is the greater danger and we should get rid of all of it before we move on to the first reactors...


....but that's not the only point that's being made here. You wanted to pretend yesterday that NANObequerells worth of Uranium IS a health hazard. Wouldn't it be fair to point out that uranium in the air by the ton is a bigger radiological hazard than .0000000008 grams of essentially the same material?

[SpoonFed]

10. Putting words in my mouth as per usual...

> I would argue that coal is the greater danger and we should get rid of all of it before we move on to the first reactors...

You wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds.

> You wanted to pretend yesterday that NANObequerells worth of Uranium

I mentioned nothing of the quantities. I suggested this was bad bad news due to the fact that they have downplaying the effects of this thing since the beginning, with your help I might point out yet again.

I want the same data from the same filter and alpha-particle spectrometry techniques to be reported in Japan and Fukushima... where is that? Maybe it's there and just too fucking scary to release?

> essentially the same material?

Interesting how you qualify yourself because you know there is a difference, but you're being intellectually dishonest as usual.

As I understand it, it's generally accepted in up-to-date scientific circles that no amount of radioactive material in the human body is safe. Any exposure is bad and any additional exposure is worse. ICRP external model of exposure is much less realistic than the ECRR model of internal exposure. I mean, the ICRP was founded before DNA was discovered amongst other interesting facts. No nuclear weapon was detonated, everyone's exposure (except workers at the plant) for the most part is going to be internal from food intake and breathing, and add to that any (less harmful) external exposure.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. No mention of plutonium has been made but it's 100% there someplace and it's more poisonous than U.

> .000000001 grams

If we say this is one ng (nanogram) and it's plutonium, is it not generally accepted that 1000 times the amount you mention is considering carcinogenic, 100% of the time? (I think the accepted amount is 1ug (microgram), no?)

Do I trust the EPA and TEPCO and others to be honest and accurate about quantities at this point? No.
Is a factor of 1000 (three orders of magnitude) an acceptable buffer? Maybe, I'd prefer 6 orders.
Would the concentration of Pu be diluted by a factor of 1000 crossing 8000km to North America? I dunno. Probably.

So, is it possibly at risky levels in Japan? I dunno. I hope not. Hence the concern.
But feel free to continue to pretend like nuke poison released from Fuku is nothing to be concerned about.
I'll continue to worry that types like you, still don't really know what they are talking about or at worst are lying about the effect.

[FBaggins]

11. Really? I'm pretty sure that your actual words will do.

I mentioned nothing of the quantities.

The quantities were already reported. We were discussing the significance of those quantities.

you might as well go all fantasy land and claim that airborne uranium (and plutonium and everything else found in the reactors in Japan) that is being detected by legitimate sources like the EPA is no worry to anyone's health.

I don't need to be in fantasy land to claim that the levels detected by the EPA are no worry to anyone's health.

Interesting how you qualify yourself because you know there is a difference, but you're being intellectually dishonest as usual.

And there you go again mistaking your own ignorance on a subject for dishonesty on someone else's part.

I differentiated precisely because I doubted that you understood the difference and didn't want to chase it down a rabbit hole.

They are not exactly identical, but the difference is not relevant to the discussion. The relative abundance of U234 and U235 in uranium from a reactor does mean that one gram of the stuff emits more radiation than one gram of natural uranium. But the difference is no significant (and, of course, the actual activity was reported, not the weight).

The point is that if the difference is between a position of "one" vs. "billions"... you don't gain any traction for the former position by saying "Hey... it might actually be TWELVE!. There's still no comparison.

See? I saved all that (plus treating you like you wouldn't know the difference" by just typing "essentially".

As I understand it, it's generally accepted in up-to-date scientific circles that no amount of radioactive material in the human body is safe.

That's because the definition of "safe" here is "zero chance of any health impact ever". But it doesn't change the fact that we HAVE radioactive material in and around us all the time. It is relevant to compare that everyday exposure to some new detection. Is something is one millionth as dangerous as the stuff you consumer and ignore... on what basis would you worry about it while continuing to ignore the rest?

Where there is smoke, there is fire. No mention of plutonium has been made but it's 100% there someplace and it's more poisonous than U.

And I've said both that some plutonium must have been released and that it IS more significant than uranium. There just hasn't been enough detected to warrant much news so far (and certainly not enough uranium). There HAS to be some, but the problem is that Japan already has plutonium all over the place (in tiny amounts). The new deposition has been too small to differentiate it from the background levels. That doesn't mean that it isn't there... just that they can't identify how much should be "scored" as from Fukushima.

Allow me to highlight this prediction for your future "always downplays" nonsense

We are probably just a few days away from a more significant report. Much most plutonium would (at least IMO) have leaked out in the water leaked from at least one core. They're reportedly testing for it now just offshore from the plant. Because of it's weight, you would expect most of it to settle out pretty quickly, so I expect much higher levels than what has previously been detected (certainly enough to differentiate from Hiroshima/Chernobyl sources) and much MUCH higher levels when they eventually get to the water at the bottom of the plant.

Do I trust the EPA and TEPCO and others to be honest and accurate about quantities at this point? No.
Is a factor of 1000 (three orders of magnitude) an acceptable buffer? Maybe, I'd prefer 6 orders.


Good. The reported levels are more than six orders from dangerous. Sleep soundly tonight. :)

[SpoonFed]

16. once again, you're wrong but who's counting

FBags wrote:

I don't need to be in fantasy land

But you're there anyway, hopefully on vacation.

And there you go again mistaking your own ignorance on a subject for dishonesty on someone else's part

Nah, let's just chalk it up to your flinging crap down on the rest of us from up high there on your pedestal.

They are not exactly identical, but the difference is not relevant to the discussion.

More intellectual dishonesty on your part. Clear and simple. The deadly filth that comes out of reactors is different from the poisonous radioactive materials that are dug out of the ground and refined by man and made into fission reactors and fission weapons. The most simple difference is that one is man-made.

Why don't you go on another tear, and maybe teach us about how ejections from this plant are exactly like uranium from deposits in municipal ground water?

Let me help you. Your argument falls apart someplace around: "This stuff is poison, but you're already getting poison from all around you, so this poison isn't really significantly more than what you might already be getting."

The final straw in the argument is somewhere around the realization that we can't really control what is in the earth but we can control the types of energy producing facilities and their fuels that we choose to build and operate, what we dig out of the earth, and what kind of waste products might be produced.

1,000 years from now, nobody will be faced with dealing with the pollution caused by the wind turbines I saw on the highway during my trip to Portugal a month ago. 1,000 years from now the legacy of Fuku will still be present (and all the fuel from all the other reactors past and present and future.)

That's because the definition of "safe" here is "zero chance of any health impact ever".

Yeah that does sound like a reasonable definition of safe. And so, you're agreeing with me that no level of this stuff is safe. Wow. Maybe you'd even agree we might all want to agree to limit the spread of this stuff.
That might even mean divesting ourselves from nuclear power as fast as possible, no?

Is something is one millionth as dangerous as the stuff you consumer and ignore...

++ spinning and downplaying

And I've said both that some plutonium must have been released and that it IS more significant than uranium.

Actually, you jumped on the thread where I mention this should be discussed.

there just hasn't been enough detected to warrant much news so far (and certainly not enough uranium).

Right. So like since sun hasn't risen yet, I have no proof that it's gonna rise tomorrow. Handy that you qualified your statement with "so far". It's a nice hedge. You're "winning".

The new deposition has been too small to differentiate it from the background levels.

++ spinning and downplaying

EPA is detecting increased uranium levels in NA, it seems rather illogical that there are not elevated levels in Japan. It seems more logical the authorities and company haven't reported it (maybe I just haven't seen the reports?) Are you implying that the measurements of airborne plutonium and uranium in Japan fluctuate so greatly that this disaster is indistinguishable, or that they just really suck at measuring it?

> allow me to highlight this prediction for your future "always downplays" nonsense

Uh, it's not future. It past and ever present. That's your style.

> We are probably just a few days away from a more significant report. Much most plutonium would (at least IMO) have leaked out in the water leaked from at least one core.

Yeah, uranium likes to fly, plutonium likes to swim I guess. I mean it makes sense that heavy metal like U might have been blown all over hell's half acre but a light metal like plutonium might just washed out of the reactor like grains of sand.

> most of it to settle out pretty quickly, so I expect much higher levels than what has previously been detected (certainly enough to differentiate from Hiroshima/Chernobyl sources) and much MUCH higher levels when they eventually get to the water at the bottom of the plant.

Yeah, it's that they need more time to study and differentiate, not that they're just withholding and spinning. Japan doesn't have any reasonable understanding of nuclear fission or radioisotopes and their measurement given some major event from 65+ odd years ago.

Oh by the way, one point that clearly comes to mind about how wrong you are about your understanding of technology and this situation was when you mentioned how long it would take to detect this stuff (in another thread)... you said sooooooo long. I've seen it mentioned that according to some documentation from the EPA, air and alpha-particle spectrometry measurements would take only a matter of days in the case of an emergency.

So, how many "matter of days" has it been since these guys popped their tops?

Good. The reported levels are more than six orders from dangerous. Sleep soundly tonight. :)

++ spinning and downplaying

The filth spilling out is avoidable. If the people on charge of this thing are anything like you, that would cause me to lie awake staring at the ceiling in a cold sweat.

[madokie]

22. Thats the only thing the nuclear apologist have to go on, its an either or when actually its neither

and when you don't buy their line of shit they then start the personal attacks. The person you're replying to is no different than the other dozen or so that frequents this forum.