The thing about radiation dangers in the US is we have nobody we can all trust to give us answers.

[kickysnana]

I have carefully read posts from knowledgeable people on both sides which spans from we are all going to die horribly very soon to we might as well be eating the stuff on cornflakes because there is no real danger.

Why do we not have an agency, or a group of scientists that we can all believe to give honest information we need, free of politics and ass covering?

My Dad was in a Lions Club with a former Director of the Minneapolis FBI who told him he was so glad that he was no longer working there as that politics had ruined what was a agency that worked to do what it was meant to do morally and legally. That may have been a little rose colored glasses but he was right about the corruption totally ruining almost all intelligence and information we need to make life and death decisions.

[sce56]

1. Heck FBI Agents got promoted and bonuses for not stoping the act!

Dave Frasca — FBI Radical Fundamentalists Unit Chief; personally scuttled the work of Kenneth Williams in July 2001 and Coleen Rowley in August 2001, the Arizona and Minnesota FBI agents who were actively investigating “terrorist” patsies in CIA-operated flight schools

Marion “Spike” Bowman — FBI agent who thwarted FBI investigations into both Zacarias Moussaoui and the anthrax attacks on Congress

[uppityperson]

2. k&r, we have nobody we can trust to give us the answers.

[franzia99]

10. Hey I'm new here, what does K & R mean?

[wickerwoman]

16. kicked & recommended

welcome to DU :hi:

[franzia99]

17. ty :)

[wtmusic]

3. We do have an agency, and it's doing its job very effectively.

Lots of good information here:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/

onedit: The reason Republicans want to defund the EPA is it's doing its job *too* effectively.

[kickysnana]

11. Thanks. I will take a look. n/t

[gateley]

4. The problem, too, is that our watchdogs may not bet getting the entire

truth. Again, think "BP". :(

[wtbymark]

5. Watch Arnie Gundersen

http://www.fairewinds.com/updates
An independaant voice. Watch all his videos from the beginning and you will learn so much.

on edit sorry typo

[Mojorabbit]

7. I really like his videos

as he is wonderful at explaining what is happening in a way even I can understand.

[franzia99]

9. Ah, that's who I was suggesting. Yes, he's been good on this.

He seems knowledgeable and he's upfront about what we know and don't know.

[kickysnana]

12. Thanks. n/t

[Sirveri]

6. I dunno, I think we've been getting some answers, just not enough of them.

That's really a big part of the problem. Like when someone notices that a one time data point sample for I-131 is above the legal limit and goes OMG! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!111!!!!ELEVENTY!1!

The issue is that the general public doesn't have the scientific background to put these numbers into a realistic perspective. Also another issue is acceptable risk, people seem totally content to ride in a car every day and then freak out that something thousands of miles away might increase their risk of an easily curable cancer by 0.0001% when they're much more likely to die from their car trip.

Then there are translation issues, like reporting microsieverts as millisieverts, which is off by a factor of 1000.

Then there is reporting of 'detectable amounts'. That doesn't actually MEAN anything, you can't tell what the value is from that information. Our neutron detectors (SRNI) minimum amount was 10CPM, if we didn't get that we had to pull a special neutron source around to test the detectors prior to start up. So if we said we detected 12CPM, does that mean something is wrong or bad? I also hate the SI system of using Bq... Just use Curies, it's really easy to convert those into Sv or Rem. Don't have to go through 1 curie = 3.7e+10 becquerel. That same I-131 report put into real terms was if you took that dose for a year you'd grab an extra 4mrem, which is basically nothing. The actual numbers are important, and the media isn't reporting them.

So where can we get good info... I dunno, I'm fine with just sitting back and relaxing. No use worrying about it, not like I can actually do anything about it anyways.

[franzia99]

8. I have the same complaint. You just have to read multiple views on it.

Including the independents. The guy at fairewinds.com helped with the three mile island disaster and he seems pretty knowledgeable and independent. He said with Chernobyl and TMI the government painted an overly rosy picture, but hopes that with the advent of the internet they won't be able to control the message this time. Anyway, I'd do what you're doing and not just blindly trust what the government says. They have powerful industrialist donors with an agenda (ie build more nuclear plants, sell more milk) who they try to placate at our expense. Plus, politicians don't like to admit to things going wrong under their watch as it hurts their reelection chances.

[Zanzoobar]

13. Does it matter?

If you are told tomorrow that your body has absorbed lethal doses of radiation, get your papers in order.

If you are told tomorrow that your body will absorb lethal doses of radiation, get your papers in order.

If you are told tomorrow that radiation is not a problem, get your papers in order.

In any event, your papers will be recycled.

[cutlassmama]

15. true.

[JDPriestly]

14. This gives some Santa Monica readings

http://www.enviroreporter.com/radiation-station-stats/

[enough]

18. Two reputable organizations with expertise that have around for a long time:

Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/


Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

http://www.thebulletin.org/



These will not give you the "answers," but at least you can add them to your list of sources. Both have websites with a lot of depth and current updates.

[kickysnana]

19. Thanks. Glad I asked I have gotten great answers. n/t

[Mnemosyne]

21. Did you read this, Nana? from UCS site:

U.S. plants have the same key vulnerability that led to the crisis in Japan. The basic problem is that the Japanese reactors lost both their normal and back-up power supplies, which are used to cool fuel rods and the reactor core. The reactors had batteries that could supply power for eight hours until the back-up system or normal power supply was restored. But officials were unable to fully restore either. Most U.S. reactors are designed to cope with station power outages (where both primary and back-up power supplies are out) lasting only four hours. Measures that increase the chance of restoring power within that four-hour time period, and provide better cooling options if that time runs out, would make U.S. reactors less vulnerable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/nuclear-reactor-crisis-faq.html#seafood


How comforting...

:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

20. Excellent links, enough. Thanks! n/t