You might want to check with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Dr. Jane Orient, on this topic, as they have been involved in the radiological threat for decades.
Personally, I eat a lot of fish, incl salmon from the Pacific, so I am concerned. However, if I recall, DDP thinks the threat is more muted. See linear no-threshold model (LNT model) a conservative model used in radiation protection to estimate the health effects from small radiation doses. Radiation Dosimetry. LNT model allows for the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose. They also discuss hormeisis, where tiny amounts of radation, which the earth normally has, may in fact be salubrious.
However, I may have the DDP position wrong, or they may have changed. I'm doing this from memory and an article from several years ago, so I suggest checking them out. Joining them is $20/year https://www.ddponline.org/
My particular problem here is less with the threat itself and more with the language of the narrative.
I've done disaster recovery and business continuity planning for 25 years, and before that I was in Cost Accounting doing operations research among other things.
It is a fatally false argument to present anything with a non-zero risk factor as "safe". A particular modality of action might be the "safest" choice, or perhaps merely a "safer" choice, but so long as the risk is not zero it should never be thought of as "safe".
That is what the Japan Times piece presents--that this dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean is "safe". It isn't. Even the experts in favor of this procedure acknowledge a non-zero risk factor, but calling the procedure "safe" shuts down all discussion about that risk factor. As another reader has asked, tongue in cheek, "what could go wrong?"
What indeed. That is always the question that should be asked. And the question that isn't being asked in far too many situations. TEPCO failed to ask that question when they put the generators for the cooling pumps in the basement of the reactors at Fukushima Daichi, and the price of that failure is the worst nuclear accident on record, rivaling that of Chernobyl.
TEPCO isn't asking that question (at least not publicly) again with this water release. They're saying they need to clear space for decommissioning facilities to finish the cleanup of the reactors themselves, but having that need does NOT eliminate the risks attendant upon adding to the levels of tritium already occurring in the Pacific Ocean--levels which likely are already elevated due to radioactive disposal protocols elsewhere in the world.
Will the radioactive elements accumulate in various species as animals and plants ingest the radionuclides, and then are eaten by other animals? Will that pose a radiological threat to consumers of Japanese fish three decades hence? Will that negatively impact the abundance of fish species in the Pacific, which in turn will negatively impact the fishing economies of Japan, China, South Korea, and the Phillippines?
The short answer to all of these questions right now is "we don't know". An intellectually conservative risk assessment of the wastewater dumping plan is to presume that every such potential risk has a non-zero probability of happening, which means this is not "safe".
It's very possible, and perhaps even probable, that this disposal method is the safest option available to TEPCO given the current state of nuclear technology and the current state of the Fukushima reactor site. It is very possible this is the best course of action available.
Saying something is the safest choice, and the best option, is a far cry from saying that it is a safe choice, and a good option.
Everything you write is always great! Thanks! Respectfully, though, where you note the issue of "safe," I have - again, respectfully - some issues, as of course nothing is safe (unless you are some leftist Karen reporting a black man "looking at you" in NYC! or you are on your 35th Covid booster - then you are safe... or not!)
Perhaps "safe" is just shorthand for those that don't have time to delve into things deeper. I consider, since I don't drink and drive, keep my car in full repair, am VERY defensive driving, driving safe. I have driven 50 years with ZERO accident claims. Similarly, I consider flying safe. However, if one wants to discuss this more deeply, then literally none of this is safe, strictly speaking.
Of course, your concern is with them shutting down an informed, scientific conversation , which I am on board with. You are spot on. But practically speaking, for the layman, is the that linear no threshold thing an issue or not? But, as noted, this is really a SEPARATE question.
In sum, I am on board with you. Everything you do is great! But on a practical level, my concern right now is are the fish safe to eat - i.e., will it significantly increase my cancer risk. And what will it do to the ecosystem long term? But your distinction of safest vs safe is a valid one; unfortunately, in our whiny, everything must be 100% safe world (thus meaning I am getting my idiot Covid booster shots once every week!), that valid, important distinction you make will be lost on our mollycoddled, dumbed down, somnolent wokester population.
Everything you do is GREAT! My one constructive critique would be, where possible, to try to keep things shorter... the bane of all writers! Kind regards, JR
Corporate media and government experts keep wanting to take that choice away from you. That's not okay. It's not okay for anyone to tell you "X" is safe; you need to be able to make that decision for yourself.
(Thanks for the praise and the constructive criticism!)
We are at a critical point in the history of the world, incl man's attempt the create a new, fake
"god" at "First, do only evil" Google. I seriously expect His return, or serious intervention from Him, and soon. What is going on now cannot, ontologically, continue, nor can it continue financially, despite the idiot MMT (modern monetery theory)
Those of a theological bent are inclined to view our current situation as the End of Days--and not without reason.
But even without the eschatological emphasis, the trend in every system is invariably towards equilibrium: the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems, physical and otherwise. The further people try to push structural disequilibrium, the greater the inevitable reversion to mean must be. There will be a "Great Reset", and we know there must be, because sustained disequilibrium in the world admits of no other outcome.
What people fail to realize is that a Great Reset means exactly that: crash everything, shut down every system, every technology, every car, every plane, every ship, every computer, and only then can society begin to build anew. (Think Snake Plissken shutting down the world at the end of "Escape From LA")
Whether we are heading for that Great Reset or the Second Coming, what must happen in either scenario is going to be pretty damn horrific for most people.
Yes. Indeed I am of a theological bent as well; i.e., a practicing Christian (as is Dr. Orient, of DDP; for $20 year, you might enjoy her newsletters; she also has yearly meetings of MDs, PhDs, etc. that is a real brainiac convention.) But, as you note, in conjunction with the eschatalogical side it the physical world, what you cite in the Second Law of thermodynamics. Indeed, Newton wrote more on theology than on physics, and all the early scientists, Faraday, Bacon, etc. were all Christian. Indeed, as Dr. John Lennox, prof emeritus of math at Oxford Univ. and a praticing Christian wrote:
If you listen to some commentators today, you get the impression that science has replaced religion as the only credible way of learning about the world, and that few academics now believe in God. So what then do we make of Prof John Lennox’s claim, made in a recent Radio 4 interview, that over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God? Could such a surprising statement really be true, given what we know of the culture around us?
The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim.3 Although the author’s methodology is not explained in detail, it is certainly significant if the Nobel Laureates identified as such, even though some may have been associating themselves with a religion in more of a nominal or cultural sense. The Jewish figure is particularly striking, as they only represented about 0.02% of the world’s population, whereas, by contrast, Muslims made up around 20%. Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Indeed, one of the fascinating features of the research is some of the differences across the subjects. Rather than being less represented in the scientific disciplines, Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%). As for the peace prize, if you exclude those going to organisations, 78% of them went to Christians, 11% to Jews, 4% to non–believers, 2% to Buddhists, 2% to Muslims, 1% to Quakers and 1% to those holding Shinto beliefs.4
The study certainly raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we account for the differences, as it is important to acknowledge, for example, the way in which the prize is awarded, how people identify themselves, as well as factors like the age and location of the recipients. Nevertheless, although the findings do not include the past two decades, they do at least support John Lennox’s contention that science and religion are not considered to be opposed to one another, and that, up until very recently, many of the world’s most eminent academics believed in God.
one estimate made by Weijia Zhang from Arizona State University and Robert G. Fuller from University of Nebraska–Lincoln, between 1901 and 1990, 60% of Physics Nobel prize winners had Christian backgrounds.[2] In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1]
Note: Note: Einstein is a big of an enigma, stating "I believe in Spinoza’s God" but not a personal God. He stated "I am not an atheist" then also called himself an agnostic or a "religious nonbeliever." On the other hand, Nobels weren’t around then, but November 23, 1654: French scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal experiences a mystical vision and converts to Christianity. The creator of the first wristwatch, the first bus route, the first workable calculating machine, and other inventions then turned his life to theology .
So... what you say is the Great Reset or Second Coming is going to be horrific. And we look to people like you to help guide as as truly awake vs. the somnolent wokesters. Charles Colson warned before his death that yes, the Lord may be coming back; but we could also just go into another Dark Age, too. Seems to me the wise would be prepared for either eventuality, as both are 100% certain at some point.
You might want to check with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Dr. Jane Orient, on this topic, as they have been involved in the radiological threat for decades.
Personally, I eat a lot of fish, incl salmon from the Pacific, so I am concerned. However, if I recall, DDP thinks the threat is more muted. See linear no-threshold model (LNT model) a conservative model used in radiation protection to estimate the health effects from small radiation doses. Radiation Dosimetry. LNT model allows for the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose. They also discuss hormeisis, where tiny amounts of radation, which the earth normally has, may in fact be salubrious.
However, I may have the DDP position wrong, or they may have changed. I'm doing this from memory and an article from several years ago, so I suggest checking them out. Joining them is $20/year https://www.ddponline.org/
My particular problem here is less with the threat itself and more with the language of the narrative.
I've done disaster recovery and business continuity planning for 25 years, and before that I was in Cost Accounting doing operations research among other things.
It is a fatally false argument to present anything with a non-zero risk factor as "safe". A particular modality of action might be the "safest" choice, or perhaps merely a "safer" choice, but so long as the risk is not zero it should never be thought of as "safe".
That is what the Japan Times piece presents--that this dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean is "safe". It isn't. Even the experts in favor of this procedure acknowledge a non-zero risk factor, but calling the procedure "safe" shuts down all discussion about that risk factor. As another reader has asked, tongue in cheek, "what could go wrong?"
What indeed. That is always the question that should be asked. And the question that isn't being asked in far too many situations. TEPCO failed to ask that question when they put the generators for the cooling pumps in the basement of the reactors at Fukushima Daichi, and the price of that failure is the worst nuclear accident on record, rivaling that of Chernobyl.
TEPCO isn't asking that question (at least not publicly) again with this water release. They're saying they need to clear space for decommissioning facilities to finish the cleanup of the reactors themselves, but having that need does NOT eliminate the risks attendant upon adding to the levels of tritium already occurring in the Pacific Ocean--levels which likely are already elevated due to radioactive disposal protocols elsewhere in the world.
Will the radioactive elements accumulate in various species as animals and plants ingest the radionuclides, and then are eaten by other animals? Will that pose a radiological threat to consumers of Japanese fish three decades hence? Will that negatively impact the abundance of fish species in the Pacific, which in turn will negatively impact the fishing economies of Japan, China, South Korea, and the Phillippines?
The short answer to all of these questions right now is "we don't know". An intellectually conservative risk assessment of the wastewater dumping plan is to presume that every such potential risk has a non-zero probability of happening, which means this is not "safe".
It's very possible, and perhaps even probable, that this disposal method is the safest option available to TEPCO given the current state of nuclear technology and the current state of the Fukushima reactor site. It is very possible this is the best course of action available.
Saying something is the safest choice, and the best option, is a far cry from saying that it is a safe choice, and a good option.
Everything you write is always great! Thanks! Respectfully, though, where you note the issue of "safe," I have - again, respectfully - some issues, as of course nothing is safe (unless you are some leftist Karen reporting a black man "looking at you" in NYC! or you are on your 35th Covid booster - then you are safe... or not!)
Perhaps "safe" is just shorthand for those that don't have time to delve into things deeper. I consider, since I don't drink and drive, keep my car in full repair, am VERY defensive driving, driving safe. I have driven 50 years with ZERO accident claims. Similarly, I consider flying safe. However, if one wants to discuss this more deeply, then literally none of this is safe, strictly speaking.
Of course, your concern is with them shutting down an informed, scientific conversation , which I am on board with. You are spot on. But practically speaking, for the layman, is the that linear no threshold thing an issue or not? But, as noted, this is really a SEPARATE question.
In sum, I am on board with you. Everything you do is great! But on a practical level, my concern right now is are the fish safe to eat - i.e., will it significantly increase my cancer risk. And what will it do to the ecosystem long term? But your distinction of safest vs safe is a valid one; unfortunately, in our whiny, everything must be 100% safe world (thus meaning I am getting my idiot Covid booster shots once every week!), that valid, important distinction you make will be lost on our mollycoddled, dumbed down, somnolent wokester population.
Everything you do is GREAT! My one constructive critique would be, where possible, to try to keep things shorter... the bane of all writers! Kind regards, JR
What you define as "safe" should be your choice.
Corporate media and government experts keep wanting to take that choice away from you. That's not okay. It's not okay for anyone to tell you "X" is safe; you need to be able to make that decision for yourself.
(Thanks for the praise and the constructive criticism!)
What could go wrong? (Sarcasm)
Gojira, maybe?
Wow, what a complicated problem, may God intervene with the right solution. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
We are at a critical point in the history of the world, incl man's attempt the create a new, fake
"god" at "First, do only evil" Google. I seriously expect His return, or serious intervention from Him, and soon. What is going on now cannot, ontologically, continue, nor can it continue financially, despite the idiot MMT (modern monetery theory)
Those of a theological bent are inclined to view our current situation as the End of Days--and not without reason.
But even without the eschatological emphasis, the trend in every system is invariably towards equilibrium: the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems, physical and otherwise. The further people try to push structural disequilibrium, the greater the inevitable reversion to mean must be. There will be a "Great Reset", and we know there must be, because sustained disequilibrium in the world admits of no other outcome.
What people fail to realize is that a Great Reset means exactly that: crash everything, shut down every system, every technology, every car, every plane, every ship, every computer, and only then can society begin to build anew. (Think Snake Plissken shutting down the world at the end of "Escape From LA")
Whether we are heading for that Great Reset or the Second Coming, what must happen in either scenario is going to be pretty damn horrific for most people.
Yes. Indeed I am of a theological bent as well; i.e., a practicing Christian (as is Dr. Orient, of DDP; for $20 year, you might enjoy her newsletters; she also has yearly meetings of MDs, PhDs, etc. that is a real brainiac convention.) But, as you note, in conjunction with the eschatalogical side it the physical world, what you cite in the Second Law of thermodynamics. Indeed, Newton wrote more on theology than on physics, and all the early scientists, Faraday, Bacon, etc. were all Christian. Indeed, as Dr. John Lennox, prof emeritus of math at Oxford Univ. and a praticing Christian wrote:
How Many Nobel Prize Winners Believed In God? Dr. John Lennox (Short answer: about 2 out of 3; Religious Forums says 65.4%, and here are 25 famous scientists who believed in some kinds of God, some Christian, some not ). See https://www.johnlennox.org/resources/145/how-many-nobel-prize-winners and https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/
If you listen to some commentators today, you get the impression that science has replaced religion as the only credible way of learning about the world, and that few academics now believe in God. So what then do we make of Prof John Lennox’s claim, made in a recent Radio 4 interview, that over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God? Could such a surprising statement really be true, given what we know of the culture around us?
The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim.3 Although the author’s methodology is not explained in detail, it is certainly significant if the Nobel Laureates identified as such, even though some may have been associating themselves with a religion in more of a nominal or cultural sense. The Jewish figure is particularly striking, as they only represented about 0.02% of the world’s population, whereas, by contrast, Muslims made up around 20%. Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Indeed, one of the fascinating features of the research is some of the differences across the subjects. Rather than being less represented in the scientific disciplines, Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%). As for the peace prize, if you exclude those going to organisations, 78% of them went to Christians, 11% to Jews, 4% to non–believers, 2% to Buddhists, 2% to Muslims, 1% to Quakers and 1% to those holding Shinto beliefs.4
The study certainly raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we account for the differences, as it is important to acknowledge, for example, the way in which the prize is awarded, how people identify themselves, as well as factors like the age and location of the recipients. Nevertheless, although the findings do not include the past two decades, they do at least support John Lennox’s contention that science and religion are not considered to be opposed to one another, and that, up until very recently, many of the world’s most eminent academics believed in God.
one estimate made by Weijia Zhang from Arizona State University and Robert G. Fuller from University of Nebraska–Lincoln, between 1901 and 1990, 60% of Physics Nobel prize winners had Christian backgrounds.[2] In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1]
Note: Note: Einstein is a big of an enigma, stating "I believe in Spinoza’s God" but not a personal God. He stated "I am not an atheist" then also called himself an agnostic or a "religious nonbeliever." On the other hand, Nobels weren’t around then, but November 23, 1654: French scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal experiences a mystical vision and converts to Christianity. The creator of the first wristwatch, the first bus route, the first workable calculating machine, and other inventions then turned his life to theology .
So... what you say is the Great Reset or Second Coming is going to be horrific. And we look to people like you to help guide as as truly awake vs. the somnolent wokesters. Charles Colson warned before his death that yes, the Lord may be coming back; but we could also just go into another Dark Age, too. Seems to me the wise would be prepared for either eventuality, as both are 100% certain at some point.