thc wrote:Kevin Kamps of the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, takes issue with that assumption.
"EPA's statement tries to downplay the harm its proposed 100 millirems per year radiation doses at Yucca would cause by stating that we currently average 360 millirems per year of exposure from natural and artificial radioactivity. What EPA fails to mention is our current exposure to 360 millirems of radiation kills many thousands of Americans each year with fatal cancer," said Kamps.
"EPA's decision to allow an increase from 15 to 100 millirems per year downstream from Yucca Mountain dooms future generations to significantly increased rates of fatal cancer," he said.
Hah, so you're citing scientifically illiterate, obviously nonsensical pseudoscientific nonsense from an anti-nuclearist and professional activist who wouldn't know what science was if it bit him on the arse?
Making pseudoscientific claims about how evil and scary nuclear energy is and telling the public how they need to donate their money to them so they can save everyone from the wicked nuclear power is actually what these people do for a living
. Meanwhile, we keep burning more coal, which gives the public more ionising radiation dose than nuclear energy.
The idea that every single extra microsievert means extra cancer and extra deaths is obviously nonsense. There are dozens of obvious possible epidemiological studies that you could do to test such a claim, and no such studies yield positive results.
Can you do an epidemiological study in Ramsar in Iran, for example, or in Kerala, and show that their abnormally high natural radiation doses cause increased cancer compared to populations with lower radiological doses?
Can you show epidemiologically that people living at high altitudes (eg. Colorado) have increased rates of cancer and disease due to the significantly higher cosmic-ray flux that they receive?
Can you show that those people in that apartment building in Taiwan who have 60
Co contamination in the steel rebar in their building have an increased rate of cancer compared to a control population?
Can you show epidemiologically that radiation workers, for example in medicine or in nuclear engineering, have increased rates of cancer?
If you serve in the Navy on a nuclear submarine, and you go out and spend several months at sea, you actually get significantly less ionising radiation dose than the average background, because you're well shielded against cosmic rays and you're away from most of the geological U and Th and their daughter products.
Therefore you would expect to see, epidemiologically, that they're healthier than equivalent workers with normal background dose, right?
Experiments are currently underway with bacteria at the underground laboratory part of the WIPP site to see how bacteria grow and evolve and behave over many generations when all their background radiation dose is removed, compared to normal background dose. It's still early days for those experiments, but at this early stage, some investigators have claimed, tentatively, that the bacteria get less healthy
when you take away their background dose.
Furthermore, people who espouse the "every single microsievert kills people" nonsense would have a pretty hard time explaining this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18301096
Interesting, isn't it? Apparently, more dose means less
cancer, up to a certain point.
Secondly, we have no idea what civilization will look like 100,000 years from now. Predicting that would be like making long term weather predictions. It just doesn't work. There is too much uncertainty.
What's your point, though? Why do we have any need to predict what civilization will look like 100,000 years from now?