ramblings, science

Fukushima Follow-up

The follow-up to the Fukushima accident, in the wake for the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, continues.

In the last week there has been a thoughtful essay in the Wall Street Journal by physicist Richard Muller looking at the likely additional rates of cancer in Japan as a result of the nuclear problems.


What he says, and I have to assume his numbers are correct, is quite revealing. First a bit of background, which is in the article:

  • The average American gets an annual dose of 0.62 rem of radiation.
    (“A rem is the unit of measure used to gauge radiation damage to human tissue”.)
  • Anyone living in Denver gets 0.3 rem on top of that due to Radon gas from the local granite.
  • Yet Denver has a lower cancer rate the the US as a whole, despite its high radiation figures.
  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuating an area if the excess dose of radiation is just 0.1 rem. Yet people still live in Denver.
  • Following the accident the Fukushima evacuation zone showed radiation at the level of 0.1 rem.

So what does this mean? Well here is Muller’s explanation:

If you are exposed to a dose of 100 rem or more, you will get sick right away from radiation illness. You know what that’s like from people who have had radiation therapy: nausea, loss of hair, a general feeling of weakness. In the Fukushima accident, nobody got a dose this big; workers were restricted in their hours of exposure to try to make sure that none received a dose greater than 25 rem … At a larger dose — 250 to 350 rem — the symptoms become life-threatening … and your chance of dying (if untreated) is 50%.

Nevertheless, even a small number of rem can trigger an eventual cancer. A dose of 25 rem causes no radiation illness, but it gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer — in addition to the 20% chance you already have from “natural” causes. For larger doses, the danger is proportional to the dose, so a 50 rem dose gives you a 2% chance of getting cancer; 75 rem ups that to 3%. The cancer effects of these doses, from 25 to 75 rem, are well established by studies of the excess cancers caused by the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 …

Here’s another way to calculate the danger of radiation: If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance). We can call this a cancer dose. A dose that high would kill you from radiation illness, but if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average, the 2,500 rem would still induce just one extra cancer … Rem measures radiation damage, and if there is one cancer’s worth of damage, it doesn’t matter how many people share that risk.

In short, if you want to know how many excess cancers there will be, multiply the population by the average dose per person and then divide by 2,500 (the cancer dose described above).

In Fukushima, the area exposed to the greatest radiation … had an estimated first-year dose of more than 2 rem. Some locations recorded doses as high as 22 rem …

How many cancers will such a dose trigger? … assume that the entire population of that 2-rem-plus region, about 22,000 people, received the highest dose: 22 rem. (This obviously overestimates the danger.) The number of excess cancers expected is the dose (22 rem) multiplied by the population (22,000), divided by 2,500. This equals 194 excess cancers.

Let’s compare that to the number of normal cancers in the same group. Even without the accident, the cancer rate is about 20% of the population, or 4,400 cancers. Can the additional 194 be detected? Yes, because many of them will be thyroid cancer, which is normally rare (but treatable). Other kinds of cancer will probably not be observable, because of the natural statistical variation of cancers.

Sadly, many of those 4,400 who die from “normal” cancer will die believing that their illness was caused by the nuclear reactor.

Sure these numbers are regrettable, and tragic for those affected. But by and large they will be indistinguishable from the variation in the normal background cancer rate, especially if the 194 excess cancers is (as Muller suggests) an over-estimate. It is the psychological effect on the people which is potentially the greater danger.

Let’s put this in a different context. One nuclear accident in 20 years is likely, over time, to result in somewhere around 200 deaths in Japan.

Compare that with coal mining where in China alone in 2004 there were over 6000 deaths of miners due to accident — plus any resulting from later pneumoconiosis. In fact it is estimated there are annually 4000 new cases pneumoconiosis just in the US. (Data from Wikipedia.)

Another comparison. We all take air travel for granted. Yet in the 12 years since 2000 plane crashes have caused on average 1183 death a year worldwide. (Data from the Air Crashes Record Office.)

(OK, a real comparison would cover far more data and causes, but you get the picture.)

Now there are other approaches to calculating the excess cancers caused. Another approach cited in Muller’s article suggests that Fukushima will cause 1500 excess cancers over a 70 year period. But I suggest that over such a long time period that number too is going to be pretty indistinguishable from the background. And anyway it is still a factor of at least 10 less than the number of people killed directly by the tsunami.

All of which leads Muller to conclude:

The reactor at Fukushima wasn’t designed to withstand a 9.0 earthquake or a 50-foot tsunami. Surrounding land was contaminated, and it will take years to recover. But it is remarkable how small the nuclear damage is compared with that of the earthquake and tsunami. The backup systems of the nuclear reactors … should be bolstered … We should always learn from tragedy. But should the Fukushima accident be used as a reason for putting an end to nuclear power?

Nothing can be made absolutely safe. Must we design nuclear reactors to withstand everything imaginable? What about an asteroid or comet impact? Or a nuclear war? No, of course not …

It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis …

Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer … but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.

The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves.

Indeed. And hence I still believe — nuclear waste disposal problems not withstanding; I acknowledge that as an unsolved challenge — nuclear is our best and friendliest hope of managing our power requirements for the foreseeable future.

history, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

If Scotchmen can wear kilts …

Well indeed! If Scotsmen (and Irishmen) can wear kilts, and females of all ages can wear trousers, why in blazes can’t boys wear frocks?

It makes no sense. Except as a means of perpetuating the male dominant status quo.

There was an interesting, and rather worrying, article a few weeks back in the New York Times about the angst that parents go through when their son wants to wear what they think of as “girl clothes”. Of course, being America, whole families are in analysis rather than just getting on with life.

And do you know what? Most of these kids are no more than four or six years old. But they’re still seen as deviant, or worse. The article even acknowledges that few of them continue to want to dress as girls beyond the age of about 10.

And so what if they do? Why on earth does it matter?


Read this for another scary example of sexist reaction
to a 15-year-old boy in a dress.
Doesn’t the lad look rather good?
It is really only in the western world that we’ve become wedded to the idea than men have to wear trousers, and to do anything else is either deviant or at best a huge joke. See most people’s reaction to the aforesaid Scotsmen in kilts, or actors in drag.

Until about 100 years ago effectively all small boys, regardless of class, would have been routinely dressed in frocks until they were at least five years old. In Arabia and northern Africa men and women still wear loose robes. In Japan men traditionally wore kimono the same as women. Not to mention the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians … or monks.

OK, it’s easy for me. I’m not a parent and I haven’t had to cope with it. But I would hope that if I had I might have been a bit more level-headed. And yes, I do concede that it must be hard — especially for the young kids — when most of society doesn’t understand and people are so spiteful. So they need strong and sympathetic parents, not analysis!

But FFS why do parents have to worry when the kids are only six, or in one case in the article as young as three!? Kids of both genders, especially young kids, like to dress up. Whether that’s in mum’s high heels, as Davey Crocket, or Spiderman, or My Little Pony. And some kids are more comfortable in some clothes than others; some (heaven help us!) are most comfortable in no clothes. Where’s the problem?

When I was young we didn’t have much choice in clothes. There were no t-shirts, sweatshirts, football strip, trainers, batman outfits, jeans, … Today kids can have a whole range of choice, so no wonder a few will pick something a section of “society at large” thinks unsuitable. Most of them grow out of it, just as they grow out of collecting Pokemon, plastic pigs or used tea bags.

Even if they don’t grow out of wanting to wear dresses, WTF does it matter?

Society is able to accept many things that were formerly seen as deviant or unacceptable — men with earrings, homosexuality, bikinis, tattoos … So why can’t we be more comfortable with boys wearing dresses?

personal, pleasures

Reasons to be Grateful: 42

OK, so it’s week 42 of the experiment. Which means I have to find another five things which have made me happy or for which I’m grateful this week. Some weeks this is incredibly easy and other weeks it is hard. For no obvious reason this is just one of those hard weeks.

  1. Hypnotherapy. As I’ve said before, I always enjoy my hypnotherapy sessions. That’s party because it is quite relaxing; in fact so relaxing I almost always fall asleep when I get home. And this week Chris was able to push me deeper than ever before.
  2. Smoked Chicken Salad. Here’s another regular. We always keep a couple of smoked chicken breasts in the fridge. They make a quick, delicious salad.

    Autumn
    Click the image for larger versions on Flickr

  3. Alpine Mornings. Thursday night was an exceptionally cold night for August and Friday dawned bright a chilly: really autumnally alpine. Which I love even if it shouldn’t be happening in August!
  4. Lamb with Port. One of our occasional treats from Waitrose is a piece of butterflied leg of lamb (ie. boned and opened out), dressed with some herb and garlic before being vacuum-packed. We only buy it if it is reduced (ie. near it’s sell-by date) — it is just too expensive otherwise. The piece we had this week I sliced into steaklets and pan-fried with a little olive oil and a generous glass of port. It was just so tender and went down extremely well with some mixed rocket salad and steamed new potatoes.
  5. Food with Friends. Last evening we went to a local Thai restaurant with our friends Sue and Ziggy, plus their two boys — a last chance before the boys go back to school and everyone’s’ diaries get impossible to shoehorn anything else into. Good food, a few beers, excellent company as well as fun watching Sam (14) and his mother wind each other up! We wound up the evening early-ish partly because young Harry (10), having put away a gargantuan amount of food, was visibly beginning to wilt — and I knew if we went back to S&Z’s for postprandials then Harry would likely resist bed and they’d all regret it. A good evening nonetheless.
thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2 #1

So as promised let’s get this show on the road and try to answer the first of the questions in Series 2.

Question 1. What happened at the beginning of the universe?

Oh good God, that’s an impossible question. And I’m not sure my brain’s up to it today. But let’s try.

The first question we have to ask in trying to answer this is: was there a beginning?

Well logically of course there was a beginning. But for there to be a beginning there had to be something before it. Even if one assumes that a universe could pop up out of nowhere — and physics does allow matter to be created from “the vacuum”, at least in terms of sub-atomic particles — then one has to ask (a) is the generation of an entire (embryonic?) universe allowed and (b) where did the vacuum come from?

In our understanding stuff cannot magically appear out of nothing. As I understand it Quantum Physics even says that the vacuum of space isn’t actually a vacuum but is at least pervaded by some form of energy field and it is that which occasionally spawns particles. And presumably the quantum fluctuations inherent therein could, incredibly rarely, spawn something particulate which could become a universe. Now that energy field has to come from somewhere. But where? And how? Basically we have no real clue other than it is a property of the universe.

So for the energy field to exist there has to be a universe, and probably vice versa.

Hence it is at this point that many people get stuck and find that in some form or another they have to invoke a God to do the dirty work. But … where does God come from? Because according to our logic he cannot create himself from nothing, because if he did, the it wouldn’t be nothing (and hence all we do is push the question further back into the distance) … or he wouldn’t be there to do it.

Duh! <bangs head on wall>

So at this point our logic systems break down. It matters not what sort of logic system we’re using: theological logic, drug induced logic, scientific logic all break down.

Yes, even our most advanced and sophisticated cosmological theories all break down at this boundary. What’s even harder is that in my opinion they always will. Now that may be a failing in my logic or my understanding, but I don’t think it is.

Basically it means that we not only don’t know what happened “before” the universe, or what caused it to spring into being, or how this happened … but that we can never know.

We can never know simply because it is a question that is just not amenable to an answer.

Either that or we have to postulate that there just was no “before”. And that opens up all sorts of other even harder questions about things like time.

I think I need cake!

thoughts

Follow My Leader

Here are a few more thoughts on the ways of people …

Basically there are two types of people: leaders and followers.

In this world most people are followers. And that’s fine because there are only so many “L for Leader” t-shirts to go round.

But what is it that differentiates leaders and followers? There is some fundamental difference between them; a difference in the way they think or how they look at the world. What is it?

Reading a recent article by Emily over at The Dirty Normal, she proposes, and I think she is right, that the difference is vision.

Look at the people around you. Lots of those people are angry, annoyed, upset, pissed off with something; generally moaning, or worse. They are in this state pretty much permanently. And they never move beyond it. They meander around grumbling but never really doing a lot about it.

But leaders are different. So now look at the real leaders you know, or have come across. Whether you like(d) them or not, or agree(d) with them or not, think about people like Winston Churchill, Richard Branson, Freddie Laker, the Dalai Lama, Field-Marshal Montgomery. They have/had a vision of how things should be. They can move through their anger to think through what the vision means and are then pulled towards it, taking people with them.

Sure they may sometimes get annoyed by something, but they move through and beyond it. They can do this because they have that vision of how things should be different and they’re going to try to get there. They don’t get stuck in the anger.

As Emily says being angry means you’re paying attention. That’s good and necessary. But too many people let it burn them out and are never able to move on.

[C]onsider letting your fires burn quietly […] and rather than pushing against the pressures that want to constrain you … figure out what you want to move toward, and pull the world toward that vision. Imagine the world you want, and move toward it […] leaders are motivated by a vision, not by rage.

That vision is something beyond a self-interest and personal gain. It is a bigger and more holistic thing. Something which affects a wider audience.

Leaders don’t always succeed in achieving their vision. And different leaders have different ways of getting there — some quietly, others much more blatantly. But without that vision they aren’t leaders and they never start on the journey. Without visions there are no leaders.

And there probably aren’t any working thinkers either. Leaders and working thinkers are not identical, but it seems to me they do tend to feed off each other.

ramblings, science

A Special Day

Today is special. It is a red letter day. Well … no … actually it’s a blue moon! So anything could happen — allegedly.

The mostly used definition of a blue moon is where there are two full moons in a calendar month. But that it appears is a more modern definition, the older one being applied where there were four full moons in a season. Various older belief systems give each of the three normal full moons in a season a name. Where there are four full moons the third of the four is called a blue moon so that the last may keep it’s “correct” name and rightful place in the season.

Which might suggest to you that blue moons aren’t that rare. And you’d be right. They occur every 2-3 years (actually 7 times in the moon’s 19-year Metonic cycle), because of the mismatch between the 28 day lunar cycle and months of 30 or 31 days in our solar calendar.


Curiously it seems no-one really knows why it is called a blue moon, but it almost certainly isn’t because the moon suddenly becomes Smurf-coloured for the day. Smurf-coloured moons can happen but only as a result of significant atmospheric pollution, like the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

One theory for the name is that “blue” in this context is derived from the Old English word belewe meaning “betray” which was used to describe “false” moons entering the calendar. Well I suppose that’s possible, but given that the earliest known English reference dates from only 1524 it is perhaps unlikely.

Well, anyway, enjoy the last day of summer. In London it is bright and sunny but Autumnally cool, which is actually rather nice in what in the UK has been the wettest summer for 100 years. And if the sky is clear this evening go and bathe in the light of the blue moon! Sadly you’ll have to provide your own Blue Moon Cocktail.

You can find more on Blue Moons at:
Wikipedia : Blue Moon
Wikipedia : Full Moon Names
Wikipedia : Metonic Cycle
Jodrell Bank : Night Sky in August
And in various news stories, eg. here

photography

Buggered Britain 13

Another instalment in my occasional series documenting some of the underbelly of Britain. Britain which we wouldn’t like visitors to see and which we wish wasn’t there. The trash, abused, decaying, destitute and otherwise buggered parts of our environment. Those parts which symbolise the current economic malaise; parts which, were the country flourishing, wouldn’t be there, would be better cared for, or made less inconvenient.

This garage area is at the back of one of the houses near us and opens onto the main road. Here it is just before last Christmas.

Buggered Britain 13a
And this is the same area around Easter time.

Buggered Britain 13b
Now I know I’m not the tidiest and most organised person in the world, but at least the rubbish at the bottom of my garden isn’t visible to the whole world.