Nuclear Power, Radioactive Fallout And The Issue Of Informed Consent

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/28/nuclear-power-radioactive-fallout-and-the-issue-of-informed-consent/

* Sounds like some of the discussions that go on here!

------------ snip
But there is a fundamental difference between ingesting radionuclides—no matter how tiny the exposure—and flying in an airplane—no matter how great—and that difference is informed consent.

The issue of informed consent has occasionally emerged in the debate on this page and others, but more often it fuels the anger invisibly, an unarticulated difference between those willing to accept hazards and those who are not.

When industry, government, academics and some journalists try to calm public emotions by downplaying radiation risks, they often cause greater offense by disregarding the issue of informed consent. Have a look, for example, at this story by William Cole, well-intentioned reporter for the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, who tries to calm his readers as he breaks the bad news. And then look at the reader comments. They’re not willing to be calmed, and the effort just loses their trust.

I don’t believe you—is a common response to such efforts—but behind disbelief is unwillingness to believe because behind the technical argument is an ethical one: I am not willing to wash down tiny amounts of radiation with great volumes of reassurance because I did not give consent.

------------------------ snip

thanks for posting it.

They are poisoning me without my consent.

Every coal power plant should be required to list the exact amount of radioactive material that comes out the smokestack and exact number of tons of Uranium and Thorium they dump into open pits and ash ponds.

Did I say TONS? Yes. Yes I did. Each coal power plant puts out 5 tons of Uranium and 12 tons of Thorium every year.

I'm sure you want "informed consent" about the coal pollution as well, right? Because all I hear is crickets from the anti-nuke fear mongers.

It seems to me that it is a fairly well understood quantity that can be fairly accurately calculated by knowing how much coal fuel is used in a given plant. This is the complete opposite of knowing how much nuke filth has spewed out of four exploded reactors in Japan. See the difference?



No, you do not. You're challenged every step of the way and at every turn for your continued illogical ranting, lack of comprehension of simple mathematics and general stupidity.

Struggle4progress did a very nice job of attempting to present the basic mathematics about what you're shouting out in every thread, and it starts here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=291642&mesg_id=292136

But you just didn't understand, anything, as usual.

Eventually after his/her attempt at educating you, he/she just quit because you resorted to your usual bullshit of putting words and arguments in other peoples' mouths. Exactly, as I might add, like how you claimed I somehow support coal power generation in a thread discussing Fukushima.

You clearly live next to a coal power generation plant and resent it like the plague. You also resent anyone who is against an expansion of nuclear power generation because in your cloudy little brain it's a solution to your problem, despite the reasoned arguments (as discussed in many Fukushima related threads) to the effect that the Nuke power renaissance is dead and should be buried.

And YES, count me in with the crowd that wants informed consent about anything that enters their bodies.

* As per usual, this message does not constitute and endorsement of coal power generation.
** The author of this message still laughs and thinks your idea of floating cities for evacuees is stoopid.

You said, "It seems to me that it is a fairly well understood quantity that can be fairly accurately calculated by knowing how much coal fuel is used in a given plant. This is the complete opposite of knowing how much nuke filth has spewed out of four exploded reactors in Japan. See the difference?"

You do not understand the difference between an "average" and the lower and upper bounds in thousands of data samples. The Uranium and Thorium in coal varies between 1 ppm and 2.5 ppm respectively to 10 ppm and 25 ppm. This information is in my post responding to the poster you claim is "correct" -- shown incorrect by data and facts from the same link they were cherry picking the data.

But it gets worse: coal ash concentrates the Uranium and Thorium between 10 and 100 times the amount that is naturally found in coal.

Please tell me where you have found the exact amount of Uranium and Thorium that is in the coal that *your* local coal power plant spews out or dumps into open pits and open "ash" slurry ponds. It could be the average... or it could be 10 times higher, which means that it's possible that the ash from that power plant contains 1000 times the natural amount of Uranium and Thorium.

You said, "You're challenged every step of the way and at every turn for your continued illogical ranting, lack of comprehension of simple mathematics and general stupidity."

Now there you're way off base. I am not "challenged" with factual data nor truth. Most anti-nukers have only the talking points that they've been programmed with and when those are easily brushed off with truth, facts, and data then it's down to junior high school debate tactics, logical fallacies, name-calling, or the glorious sound of crickets.

You then said, "blah, blah, blah You live next to a coal power plant and up is down and wrong is right. Got that???"

How does one respond to an attempt to turn the truth in my posts to lies, to turn coal --the deadliest and least controlled energy source in the world-- into the an innocent victim of "the terrible pro-nuclear posters on DU." If you have a specific claim to make then please make it. You have just as many keyboards at your disposal as I do (gray matter perhaps not so much).

You clearly don't understand the concept of orders of magnitude, amongst other simple concepts.


This a difference of x10, or 10^1 or one order of magnitude.


This is a difference of 10 (10^1) or 100 (10^2), or 1-2 orders of magnitude.

I think I have to type out the zeros for you, since you are so thick.

3 x 10^6 = 3,000,000
3 x 10^11 = 300,000,000,000

For an estimate of 3x10^6 to be equal or more than an estimate of 3x10^11, then there must be an error of a factor of 10^5, five orders of magnitude, or 100,000.

Is 3 million or 30 million anywhere near 300 billion? No.
Did you point out a flaw that mean a possible error of 5 orders of magnitude? No.

SINCE YOU NEED A FURTHER SMACK WITH THE CLUEBAT, the discussion stated that 3 MILLION was the estimate for 100 years of coal, VERSUS the estimate of 300 BILLION for a few days of Chornobyl. Do you comprehend how that reflects on the probable underestimation of 300 BILLION? No.

You claim, falsely as it was pointed out in the thread, that...


It doesn't matter. Even if your made up numbers were correct, you are still off by a factor of 100. Even if you were to succeed in demonstrating it contained 100,000 times more, you might then be on the track to showing 100 years of coal equals a few days of Chornobyl. Are you anywhere near showing that coal is worse than all the nuclear power plant releases in the last 100 years? No. Epic fail.

And worse, how did you respond? With paragraphs of BS as you have to me, as per usual. You tried putting words in someone's mouth and they politely told you to get bent. You probably misconstrued that as winning the argument which is just idiotic.


Your claim of "cherry picking" is just the usual sort of parroting of what you think is clever use of phrases used by others who are capable of making rational argument. There was no cherry picking. There was just simple math that pointed out you couldn't possibly be correct with your claims.


No. All you have is the faulty conviction that you are correct. And heaps of insults for people who disagree with you, or who do not support nuclear power generation. Grow up.


Your posts are full of logical fallacy, bad math and illogical ranting and insults. You're your own worse enemy at ruining and grain of truth that might have accidentally found it's way into your posts.


Here you are trying to put words in someone's mouth, again. It's really tiring.

Snuggle4progress quite succinctly sums things up in the following statement...


So the strawman argument that we're all somehow defending coal and claiming it's an innocent victim is as patently false as everything else you say.

Do us all a favour and think thrice before you hit that "Post Message" button in the future.

Lots of words jumbled together from older posts proves you can rant with the best of them. No informational content.

The only thing I agree with you and Struggle on is that radiation is not the biggest reason to end coal immediately. That's no surprise, I've posted a large number of times that we need to begin closing down coal power plants now and stop using all other fossil fuels -- ASAP.

I demand they cease operation right now. :rofl:

What a pantload.

Go to any airport and ask the passengers waiting around about their radiation exposure. Chances are they'll talk about the TSA scanners and not their flight.

Does any airline tell them they face radiation exposure while in the air? Do any of them know what the exposures are?

I'm all for people being better-informed, but in making this argument you can't be selective. In other words, I'd like to see everyone better informed in general about all the risks they face, and have some notion of the relative magnitudes of those risks. The author quoted in the OP is dead wrong in writing, "...there is a fundamental difference between ingesting radionuclides—no matter how tiny the exposure—and flying in an airplane—no matter how great—and that difference is informed consent."

Really? Passengers know about their radiation exposure while in a plane? And have some reasonable way to assess the risk associated with that? Basically, the public is ignorant in both instances. That's not a good thing, but in a world where so many believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11 or Obama was born in Kenya, and even those who are politically savvy are scientifically ignorant, the situation is not likely to change materially.

And as others have pointed out, it's at best silly to single out nuclear contamination when there are myriad pollutants we take in daily with zero consent - pollutants known to kill hundreds of thousands of people annually. I'd love to see this kind of informed consent principle applied across the board, with a scientifically literate citizenry. Sadly, this isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

really how come you keep trying to sell that to me when I already shot this argument down?

You forgot huh.

Well for next time there is a difference between exposure and ingestion.

No reason to patronize people like they can't tell the difference.

That's part of the consent issue, one type is created by a mostly corrupt industry, the other is part of day to day life where there are varying amounts of cosmic or natural radiation.

Most can't. That's the point of the post.

"cosmic or natural radiation."

radiation is radiation.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would like to have a good conversation about it. You folks make that impossible. "you're a liar" "you're a shill" "how much does the industry pay you" some of the group against nuclear greatest hits.

Mostly insults since there is no science to back it up.

You've pushed this argument a couple of times and it's still nonsense.

Death is death. So why do civilized societies differentiate between murder and death of natural causes?
It's simple. One is a human act and the other is an unavoidable consequence of being alive.

Nuclear power plants are man-made disasters.
Cosmic radiation is outside the control of humankind as far as I'm aware of.

How hard is that to understand?

Radiation is Radiation. If it's alpha, beta or gamma, it has the same effect. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

The uneducated go into spasms whenever they hear the word. They also say it's still nonsense.

If you want to talk about safe levels, there's something there. But I'm going to say, if it doesn't rise above average background levels or somewhat above, or I may have an increased chance of cancer when I'm one hundred and fifty years old, don't bother me about it.

It's that nature does a pretty good job of making those on it's own also. Radon, tritium, etc..

The body has developed ways to handle what it has been exposed to for hundreds of years better than what was developed at Los Alamos, etc

Doesn't matter where it comes from. Radiation is Radiation.

Maybe someday it'll sink in. Probably not.

I have a particularly satisfying image of the way I'd like to see all that radiation enter your body, if you don't mind. Same place I'd like to see TEPCO management receive theirs, and that's by violating standard operating protocols and it going-in-through-the-out-door, so to speak. It's more of an "up" vector.

And all because I disagreed with you. That reminds of some fanatics throughout history (all the more true due to your statement)...

Paragons of virtue aren't you. :sarcasm:

It's all the more poignant seeing as I was shot through the leg three weeks ago. Would you like to tell me how you wish the bullet went through something else?

Aren't you one of the vocal proponents of "radiation is nothing to fear and worry about"? And since informed consent isn't an issue for you, I thought it would be reasonable to assume that I might inform you of the way that I prefer for you to get all that radiation=radiation goodness from the cosmos, bananas and mother's milk in a particularly amusing (to me) way.

Now, if you take that as a call to violence and construct another fantasy straw man argument about my statement being the equivalent of something Mao or Stalin or Hitler would have said, well, frankly that's your (mental) problem. I didn't mean it in any but the most gentle and caring of ways.

I take it you won't be sticking all that wholesome good radiation in an "upward" vector?
Maybe you could substitute your lack of an argument for radiation?

"I hope you die, and I mean that in the most gentle and caring way."

Is that about right?

As far as informed consent, don't they already give that by voting for people that build these reactors, and use the electricity?

America sucks when it comes to scientific literacy, and they wouldn't know what to do with the numbers anyway. I'm sure it would serve your purposes by creating a panic, but I don't really see any reason to tell people if it doesn't rise above the average. The fallout from fukishima in California is a PERFECT example. Idiots stocking up on iodine, and a few probably taking it, doing damage in the process, when it really didn't help anything.

Why stop with radiation? why not everything? There are 1ppb of arsenic in the soil your tomatoes were grown in. Wouldn't that be fun!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

while I was out with my leg. They're not very nice, you aren't very polite, and from that, I took your meaning. seeing how this is the first time we've interacted, it's par for the course to anyone that disagrees with you.

Now, you come back and deny what you meant, but that was expected also.

If you'd like to change that perception, I'm all eyeballs.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Par for the course.

Your writing, you inferred I should get the same dose as the managers there. If that's not what you meant, then maybe next time you should be more clear in your writing.

If it wasn't that, then it was just an insult, which, again, is par for the course, and I should just ignore it.

I said had a preference for the place you receive your radiation, and it is the...


When you figure out where that place is, you will have figured out the riddle.

Your misinterpretation of that statement to be...


is a fairly good example of your failure to comprehend what people are saying to you and probably why you write one line quips in place of reasoned arguments.

You've illogically concluded that place and dose are equivalent. Doesn't seem hard to grasp why you consider all sources of radiation equal. Furthermore, you've incorrectly concluded without help on my part that the amount implied is a large, lethal dose, and that I wish you to die.

This is both comical and sad at the same time.

Still trying to justify your post.

look up place, then look up dose. Alternatively, check a thesaurus.
You have worn out your mileage on this, so store it with the radiation and the invalid argument referenced above.

History

Tritium was first predicted in the late 1920s by Walter Russell, using his "spiral" periodic table,<26> then produced in 1934 from deuterium, another isotope of hydrogen, by Ernest Rutherford, working with Mark Oliphant and Paul Harteck. Rutherford was unable to isolate the tritium, a job that was left to Luis Alvarez and Robert Cornog, who correctly deduced that the substance was radioactive.<27> Willard F. Libby discovered that tritium could be used for dating water, and therefore wine.<28>

Tritium is created naturally.

Tritium occurs naturally due to cosmic rays interacting with atmospheric gases. In the most important reaction for natural production, a fast neutron (which must have energy greater than 4.0 MeV<10>) interacts with atmospheric nitrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Cosmic_rays

buy maybe not

It's got one proton, two neutrons. Doesn't matter where it comes from, they are all the same.

There are no "special" protons, there are no "special" neutrons.

Your goal is to attempt to put others down but all you do is attempt to play games.

Very unnecessary and time wasting.

END OF DISCUSSION

If that's how you think, that explains a lot.

"Informed consent" is a term borrowed legitimately from the ethics of performing research studies on human subjects. It's meaning is transparent and has two elements, both of which are absolutely essential. A person has given "informed consent" to exposure to something if and only if the following two conditions obtain:

1. They understand the nature and magnitude of likely risks of the exposure, be it to radioactivity, a psychological experiment, a new drug, etc. This should also include uncertainties in the best scientific knowledge of those risks.

2. They agree to the exposure.

In order for "informed consent" to be a relevant concept in distinguishing exposure to contaminants from a nuclear plant from exposure from flying, it's necessary to show that both conditions are met for the case of flying and either condition is violated in the case of a nuclear accident.

In the case of the nuclear accident, it's clear that nobody has an opportunity, as individuals, to choose whether or not to consent to exposure. I'm sure you agree with me here! So we need not even consider whether people are informed regarding such exposures.

My argument is simply that exposures incurred in air travel also fail to meet the necessary conditions for "informed consent." The average air traveler has no idea what the nature and magnitude of the risks of exposure to radiation are in the course of a typical trip by plane. They are uninformed and therefore incapable of giving informed consent because they are uninformed. To meet the standards one would apply in research, at a minimum one would need to provide air travelers with a pamphlet outlining the sources of radiation exposure and their likely consequences prior to flying (thus "informing" them), and have them sign a form acknowledging that they've read and understood the pamphlet (giving "consent"). By the standards applied by the research community, if one considered radiation exposure due to air travel as a hazard of a research study, air travelers patently do not give "informed consent" when they fly, failing on both counts. Applying a looser standard, one might argue reasonably that the choice to fly implicitly involves consenting to exposure to whatever hazards arise due to the travel, but with respect to radiation risks that consent is still not informed in any meaningful way.

Since neither case (exposure to reactor-generated radionuclides from an accident or radiation exposure due to air travel) passes the test for "informed consent," the difference between the two cases cannot be captured by saying one involves informed consent and the other does not.

I do think one can base the difference between the cases on the concept of consent alone. But "informed consent" has a meaning beyond "consent." Please do make the case that nobody consents to exposure to radioisotopes from an accident; just don't muddy the waters by bringing in a concept that actually weakens the case!

Your immediate reply to my post suggests you did not read it carefully. There is no mention of bananas in the post to which you replied. Air travel was discussed specifically because the entire argument in the OP is based on the comparison to air travel; I did not drag it in to make some risk comparison. The distinction between inhalation and ingestion is irrelevant to my point, which simply involved the concept of being informed. I know enough radiation physics and biology to recognize that ingestion/inhalation certainly results in different exposure profiles than exposure to external radiation sources; the post to which you reply makes no assertion to the effect that there exists no difference.

My hope is that you would prefer to have a discussion rather than tilt at straw men. I think there are genuinely important differences between the two kinds of exposure described in the original argument, to which I was simply responding. I just think the "informed consent" concept doesn't correctly capture them.

Some of you are more hostile than the others.

It doesn't negate the idea of the OP; what it does is to refine and clarify its application to the circumstances at hand.

I think there is room to include some aspects of "informed" that caraher hasn't addressed, however, such as the possibility that the entire body of knowledge supporting nuclear power deployment is a product of a system that is more mercenary than academic.

I find it is a waste of time and I'm not interested in arguing.

It is the type of dialog that strengthens your arguments if you take the time to engage. However, given all the pure bullshit we have to endure here from the fission fanatics, I understand your perspective perfectly.

that your reaction does seem terribly knee jerk and perfectly understandable given all the pro-nuke participants who weigh in at the drop of a hat. I'm guilty of having done similar a while back. I've reflected on a number of caraher's posts and believe s/he actually interested in discourse and discussion and regularly makes valid points and arguments.

At least if there is blind pro-nuke agenda, it's at levels completely undetectable in comparision to the usual suspects.
Let's try to at least reasonably attempt to have discussion in 2% of all threads.