후크시마 오염수 문제가 국제사회의 문제로 떠 올랏습니다.
자유 민주주의 화신 윤성열 정권을 씨버 조지기 위한 민주당+ 종북좌파, 주사파 놈들의 개 지뤌 정도로 끝 낫을 일이
국제사회에서 깡깡거리는 문제가 된 것입니다.
오렴수 문제에 대한 한인들의 저항이...중국과 북한등 그 동안 이념적인 적대국들이 내 놓은 반응과 같습니다.
한국의 민주주의 정권은 오히여 정 반대에 섯습니다..
동방의 한 작은 나라내의 그저 그런 정치 쌈질정도로 묻혀 버릴 문제가 국제사회의 문제로 비약 한 것입니다.
이런 국제사회의 그 어떤 문제도 정치적이지 않은 것은 없습니다.
그들의 전략 전술이 무엇이던 간에.....후크시마 방유에 대한 대립각을 세우고 잇다는 것은 중대한 일인것이지요.
과학이란 단어가 이리도 함부러 죶 꼴리는 대로 사용 될 수 잇다는 것이 황당무개 하기도 하지만
민주주의라는 단어도 꼭 같이 함부러 죶 꼴리는 대로 사용 되고 잇다는 것을 생각하면 사실 뭐 성질날 것도 없습니다.
트럼프는 지구 온난화 라는 과학 그 자체를 거부 햇습니다.
코로나 백신도 일소에 붙혓고...방역도 거부 햇습니다..
지금 후크시바 오염수 방류에 과학을 주장 하고 잇는 찌지리들의 거의 대부분이 트럼프에 환장한 수구 꼴통들이라는 점에서
이들의 과학에 대한 변신은 ....노무현교 쥐쇄끼때들의 민주주의에 대한 변신 만큼이나 구역질 납니다..
-우리 교주님이 청와대에서 받아 처 드신 640만 불은 생계형 범죄이셧다...
-아 너무나 인간적이고 겸손하셔고 민주적이셧던 우리 교주님 ,,,존나 보고 싶돠..
-취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ
다른소리가 보는 후크시마 사건 또한 ...지겹게 반복되는 흔하디 흔한 정치판 쌈질입니다.
그런데 중국과 북한의 가세로 생각이 쏵 바꿧습니다..
아.....이런 정도라면 쌈판 한번 벌려 볼 만 한 것이지요..(노무현교 쥐쇗끼때들이야 눈 감고 안 보면 되는 것이고)
Is the Release of Radioactive Contaminated Water From the Fukushima Nuclear Site to the Sea Acceptable? Is It Safe?BY CHRIS BUSBY
Simulated model for dispersal of Cs-137, 81 days after release of water from Fukushima reactors. Source: Geomar.
The Japanese government, having apparently run out of storage space for the million tons of radioactively contaminated water have decided to pour it into the sea. This upsets a lot of people, including the governments of China and Korea,(이런 표현은 윤성렬 정부도 후크시마 폐수 방유에 반대 한다는 뜻이 됩니다.....이런 잘못된 내용을 외국인 필자들의 글에선 너무 쉽게 볼 수 잇습니다......뭐 어짭니까....그들이 한국의 일 거수 일투족을 관찰만 하고 잇는 사람들도 아니고) who understandably (on a moral level, perhaps) regard this decision as unacceptable. The Japanese (also the entire nuclear industry, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a long list of self-identified experts) collectively say: no problems, the quantities are very small and pose no risk to health, neither to people nor marine life. The water has apparently been treated to remove the radioisotopes that the regulators believe pose the greatest risk, Strontium-90, Caesium-137, and Carbon-14. But to take out the Tritium is too expensive, and so the radioactive water is largely contaminated with large amounts of Tritium Oxide, in the form of Tritiated water HTO.
Tritium is the largest contaminant in terms of radioactivity, disintegrations per second, clicks on a counter, from the operation of all nuclear energy processes. The neutrons, which are central to nuclear energy, produce Tritium by various processes in reactors, and even outside reactors, where the nuclide, a radioactive form of Hydrogen, is formed by adding neutrons to cooling water and various other processes. Tritium is interesting stuff. Its radioactivity is extremely weak: it emits a very short-range beta electron and itself then changes into Helium-3. What? Yes, it is a form of hydrogen, but shoots off an electron and turns into Helium-3. But we are mostly made of hydrogen, you say. Just So.
In terms of radioactivity, because the decay electron is so weak, the method that the risk agencies use to quantify radiation effects has classed Tritium as almost a non-event, in terms of health effects. This is most convenient for the nuclear industry, as it means that the exposure limits for Tritium (in terms of Becquerels per litre) are truly enormous, when compared with other radioactive waste. Tritium has a 12-year half life, so it hangs about. And since all life depends on water, and indeed all life mostly is water, hydrogen and oxygen, introducing radioactive water into the environment might seem to be a bad idea.
But No! The low beta energy of Tritium allows the regulators to argue that the releases of huge amounts to the sea and rivers is safe. But the regulators are wrong. The system of analysis using the concept of “Absorbed Dose” is unscientific, dishonest and at the origin of a huge historic public health scandal that has caused hundreds of millions of deaths from cancer due to badly regulated releases of certain specific contaminants, and this includes Tritium, Carbon-14, Uranium (as particles) and certain other substances produced by nuclear processes. Many years ago, the regulator BEIR committee in USA under Prof Karl Z Morgan tried to change the limits for Tritium, but he was overruled because it would make the operation of nuclear power very difficult.(이미 이런것 부터 과학이 아닌 정치라는 증거입니다) He wrote about this in his book The Angry Genie. He was convinced that Tritium was a serious hazard.
핵 실험을 구경하고 잇는 미군들..
자본주의 국가 미국의 자본가들은 이 핵실험 구경을 관광상품으로 개발 해서 팔기도 햇지요.
소련에서는 핵 실업으로 파인 구덩이에 쌓인 물에서 인민배우가 수영을 하는 영상을 만들어 전국에 뿌리기도 햇습니다.
스잔 헤이워드과 존 웨인..
이들은 핵 실험장소에서 200KM떨어진 곳에서 영화 촬영중이잇고...아무렇지도 않게 피폭 되엇습니다.
존 웨인은 패암으로 죽엇고...
스잔 헤이워드는 피부암 자궁암 유방암 각종 암에 시달렷고 영화 촬영 관계자들의 반 이상이 백혈병에 걸렷습니다.
당시로써의 최고의 과학이 만들어낸 신념의 비극입니다.
과학 만능주의 정신질환은 ....인삼의 효능을 무우에 비교 하는 어처구니 없는 짓을 하게 만들엇고
핵 발전에 대한 무한한 사모곡은 핵 발전을 세계 최고의 과학의 성취라는 정신질환자들을 배양 햇습니다.
성여리 보세요.....
야는 핵발전만 존나 좋아 한 탓인지 영락없이 방사는 처 맞은 것 처럼 사고 하고 행동합니다..
So, lets look a bit closer at the quantities. The water in the tanks contains about 1500Bq/litre. A Becquerel is one decay per second. A litre of this water would produce 1500 clicks on a suitable measuring instrument (not a Geiger Counter, you won’t measure this stuff with a Geiger counter). Does that sound a lot? Would you drink this water? Even if the IAEA say it’s OK? Would They?
The total amount to be released is 1.3 million tons. Or we are told, 22 TeraBecquerel. That is 22,000,000,000,000Bq. Sounds a lot. It is a lot. But of course, the Pacific Ocean is large, and hopefully it will just go away through dilution. And it seems 22TBq, is small compared with the quantities released by the nuclear reprocessing plants in Europe. Sellafield in the UK pumped out 432 TBq a year (20 times more) to the Irish Sea and La Hague in France 10,000TBq/y (450 times). So that’s OK then. The experts say (and you can Google them on the Science Media Centre), or you can believe the IAEA, or the Japanese, that this stuff has never shown any health effects in places where it is poured into the sea.
Wrong.
I have spent a lot of my research life on looking at the effects of releasing radionuclides including Tritium to the sea. I spent three years in the late 1990s looking at cancer and child leukemia near the Irish Sea supported by the Irish State. Tritium is measured in surface water. This water is driven inshore to be inhaled by populations living within 1km of the sea. The radionuclides concentrate in the coastal sediment which is also driven ashore. You find the Tritium in fish, in shellfish, in blackberries, everywhere near the Irish Sea, near the Bristol Channel. My Irish Sea study looked at small areas of Wales between 1974 and 1990 and found a clear and significant sea coast effect on cancer, particularly childhood cancer. I also, from, 1999 to 2006 studied cancer near the Bristol Channel, where there are also significant quantities of Tritium, and again, found a distinct increase in cancer near the sea. About 30% near the coast. That is a lot of dead people.
I also studied leukemia in populations living near the nuclear submarine dockyard in Plymouth. Nuclear submarines are contaminated with Tritium and Carbon 14. They released it to the River Tamar and it ended up in the sediment. There was a significant leukemia cluster near the dockyard. This nuclear submarine operation was moved to Scotland some years ago. The Navy have a licence from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency to discharge Carbon-14 and Tritium (1 million Becquerels a year from about 8 submarines). I have shown in a published paper in 2017 that sailors in nuclear ships in the USA Navy have a 10-fold excess risk of cancer.
There is another clincher: Professor Awadhesh Jha (who I met in Plymouth when I gave my report on the leukemia study, together with the UK Environment Minister Mr Michael Meacher) has studied the effects of Tritium on the genetic development of marine invertebrates living in the Tamar mud. Very small amounts of Tritium have profound effects of chromosomes and on development in these creatures. You can Google his research.
This is a big subject. But one I have studied in some depth. I was expert witness on a case in Korea some ten year ago where I was asked to advise the Korean parliament on the health effects of Tritium. The Koreans use the Canadian CANDU reactors which emit huge amounts of Tritium; there is a big cancer cluster around these sites.
Tritium is very dangerous. It gets inside you easily. It exchanges with normal hydrogen, sometimes it becomes organically (covalently) bound. It causes genetic damage at tiny conventional doses (calculated using the energy per unit mass, Joule/Kg formula of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, employed by the IAEA). Those people living near the seaside near the east coast of Japan, especially the estuaries, need to watch out. Don’t eat anything from the sea, or inside 1km from the coast. The radiation risk model that regulates Tritium is obsolete and wildly incorrect. The experts that say there are no effects in populations living near Tritium contamination need to look out of the window.
Finally, I was told something fascinating about Tritium by a colleague from Germany in 1998. Tritiated water has a much higher freezing point than ordinary water. So, when a fog appears as the air temperature drops. The initial fog is a pure Tritiated water vapour.
But I want to add something here. We have heard a lot about fake news. But there are scientists out there spinning the issue of radiation and health to levels of hysterical nonsense. An outfit called the Science Media Centre was set up by one Fiona Fox in the early 2000s. It was an operation intended to support the polluters and contaminators by fielding dishonest scientists posing as experts to head off media stories about public health hazards. In examining this issue of Fukushima and the Tritium, I could not fail to google up three of these “experts” writing for the Science Media Centre on the issue. Tracking down their qualifications and experience as “experts” or their affiliations, was not hard—you can do this yourself. The funniest of the three was a certain Associate Professor Nigel Marks of Curtin University, Perth (What??Where??). Nigel tells us that on the basis of dose (and I suppose he has done the sums) that a “lifetimes worth of seafood from Fukushima is the radiation equivalent of one bite of a banana”.(윤석열과 그 개들이 줄창 씨불리는 말 입니다....과학이란 이름으로..지들이 권력이며 돈 이니 개 소리 하는 과학자들 따위는 얼마든지 동원 할 수 잇쓰니 그 자신감으로 토론 하자고 함시롱)I am not going to unpack this nonsense—just to point out that it is wrong, dishonest, absurd and tendentious. And to warn everyone against these scientists. The web is stuffed full of them. The ordinary people are correct to view them as idiots, and to ignore everything they say. Nuclear industry science is cartoon science, based on nonsense, and supported by twisted epidemiology.(결론입니다....윤석열이 아닌 니들 교주 노무현이 핵 발전소 팔아 처 먹은 것도 개 죶 같은 짓이라는 것이나 쫌 알고.....깽깽질들 떨그라......씨발놈드라) It is now dead in the water. But not before it has historically killed hundreds of millions of people.
Dr Chris Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Riskand the author of Uranium and Health – The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout (Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2, Brussels, 2010). For details and current CV see chrisbusbyexposed.org. For accounts of his work see greenaudit.org, llrc.org and nuclearjustice.org.