Radiation Health Risks from Nuclear Accidents - Facts and Fantasy

Professor Geraldine "Gerry" Thomas emphasises the prevalence of misconceptions related to radiological risk as well as the range of factors that can influence both dose and exposure to radiation.
Professor Thomas is a senior academic at the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London. She is an active researcher in fields of tissue banking and molecular pathology of thyroid and breast cancer.

[@brianmoran1196]

Imagine the Carbon footprint caused by antinuclear activists.

[@CapoRip]

They will tie themselves in pretzels to deny it.

[@miratussum6232]

It is fantastic to see some facts on the dangers of nuclear energy after years of misinformation. The question is just how do we get these fact “radiated” in to the public opinion so they can influence our politicians.

[@thaturaniumguy]

You get rid of the politicians.

[@canadiannuclearman]

It is clear at the end and in the Q&A part there is a dichotomy here as in nothing to fear but fear itself. a good example is such systems is the dichotomy of the brooklen bridge in New York. 27 people where killed building the bridge mostly from "the bends". thereby all bridges are bad as in if it was never built 27 lives would be saved. However in the past 100 years how many fire trucks and ambulances plus police have crossed this bridge to save a life? It must be 10's of thousands of lives have been saved by building that bridge. James Hanson and Columbia univercity claim 1.8 million lives have been saved by nuclear displaceing coal. how many more lives could have been saved ?

[@johnrysinga7812]

Radioactive Particulate that releases Alpha and Beta radiation inside the body kills in horrible fashion

[@kickstar126]

Are you sure your name is Gary, cos you talk more like Gerry, you are a real comedian.

[@canadiannuclearman]

@@kickstar126 yes it is my real name

[@doritoification]

This diserves so many more views and likes. The facts are so misunderstood Thank you for your work and for bringing it to the public the way you have

[@timjames8586]

Brilliant lecture.

[@jona_KardCiv1]

Fantastic work

[@charlesfkonkle6179]

Wow this presentation is overwhelming informative radiated by a true professional. One take away is the need for more study particularly in Hormesis. The day we accept radiation for what it is maybe the day we are going to our doctors to get our annual radiation booster to increase our survival rate

[@freakshow1997]

The fact that global media were focusing on the Fukushima accident was a disgrace, if you think about the 20.000 dead from the horrific tsunami. 2500 people are still missing today. Imagine that, not being able to bury your loved ones as their bodies were swept out to sea.....

[@oscariglesias9004]

Great talk, very explanatory and interesting. Only one thing to add. The Thorium bit. I know why she says that, I saw it in many pro nuclear videos, specially talking about LFTR. There is an increasing belief that US gov stopped the development of the thorium reactor for evil reasons. But is not exactly like that. The navy program was using the pressurize water reactor and the easiest step to make a nuclear power plant was to use the same design. And there is a big supply chain necessary to buid it that wasn't there for a liquid fuel or for a thorium reactor. Even the fast neutron reactor, or a breeder reactor is often attacked as the reason for MSRE to be cancelled, and is not exactly like this either. When the plutonium breeder reactor was proposed the main reason for it to exist was the scarcity of Uranium. Having a breeder would allow a much more sustainable use of the resources. But later on much bigger amounts of uranium were found, givin 100s of years of fuel so the scarcity factor was not a driver anymore.

[@johnrysinga7812]

the simple fact of the matter is that Thorium is converted into Uranium in a LFTR. LFTR's are extremely dangerous.

[@oscariglesias9004]

@@johnrysinga7812 on operational risks LFTR is not more dangerous than a PWR. But I'm afraid you are confusing LFTR with molten salt reactor or with the MSRE. Nuclear reactors running on fissile, well, what were you expecting?

[@meltingzero3853]

@@johnrysinga7812 Into Uranium-233. The Uranium that reacts in conventional reactors is Uranium-235, but nothing of this matters because no form of Uranium that is used is extremely dangerous in and of itself, as you seem to want to insinuate. You have to talk about the design of LFTR's much more extensively to prove whether they are dangerous or safe.

[@koypk1611]

wow, the best video on youtube.. we dont all have to live in fear after all. oh actually we do.. bummer Its a shame we used coal instead and now us and our children and grandchildren might have shortened lives due to global warming.

[@johneagle4384]

Very good talk, too bad number of views is too low.

[@Mark_Ocain]

I had a bone scan once and that was about a year's background LOL

[@user-if8um6lh7t]

Omg! This talk change my life understanding! Thank you so much! I am chemical/physics scientist, i am ukranian, lived near to NPP, and i DIDINT know that radiation from Chernobyl was like this! Wow! I have found this talk thanks to radiobioogical course in my university! Wow, shocked!

[@JurijFedorov]

Good talk. Could have been done professionally. But this is a random university not a studio. Very informative.

[@baronsaturday1]

Librarians and libraries put universities in high regard as the leading true sources of information over commercial sources that merely want to sell a product to you. These are scientists and not a super pop star like Rhianna. Rhianna has a stage. Scientists have universities as their stage.

[@CapoRip]

More Geraldine here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6vVloZ9ibF5rK8

[@JonathanSchattke]

Unfortunately, she doesn't clearly explain about how the body repairs low dose radiation, and it is _at least_ the same as getting NO radiation.

[@factnotfiction5915]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_damage#Repair or, if talking about DNA specifically, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_(naturally_occurring) (where each cell in the body has about 10,000 repairs a day)

[@canadiannuclearman]

The poash (potassium chloride) workers and miners of Saskatchewan Canada receive small does of radiation from the K40 an isotope of potassium. K40 has a half life of 1.251 billion years. The automated underground minning machines follow the potash layer by the use of Geiger counters on the side of the machine reading the K40. It would be interesting to see an epidemiological study of potash workers over time. Many that i talk to say they like working underground. I have not heard any ill effects like coal minners get. Still a study would be great because an hormesis effect may be at play.

[@pauldorfman4778]

She says that her friend measured radiation around Fukushima and it's the same as background in Cornwell. This is really astonishing, as there is no question but that the Japanese Nuclear Regulators after Fukushima have raised the acceptable level that babies, infants and children are now allowed to take has been driven up 10 times to the same level as an adult nuclear worker. This would be completely illegal in the UK.

[@JonathanSchattke]

You really don't understand how low the typical background radiation is, it seems. It is usually at least 100 times below the provable dangerous dose (i.e. the dose which actually can be shown to increase lifetime risk for cancer). You could raise the limits by 10x and still have a comfortable safety margin.

[@JonathanSchattke]

@WinMore no, go and check the readings online. The highest level recording now onsite is even lower than background radiation in some places.

[@peterselie1779]

Paul Dorfman "her friend measured radiation around Fukushima and it's the same as background in Cornwell." "now allowed to take has been driven up 10 times to the same level as an adult nuclear worker." They sound like they are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. Both statements are true. The difference here is that the first statement is talking about total levels of ionizing radiation. The second is talking about radiation from man made sources. And the levels of natural background radiation in Japan are among the lowest in the world, so the levels of radiation from man-made sources can be significantly higher than normal, while the total radiation levels are not compared to the rest of the world and you could still hit limits set by the government. There's nothing inherently more dangerous about a mSv from a man-made isotope than from a natural one, so the government limits are *very very* conservative. Therefore I would argue that it's total ionizing radiation that counts and there's not really anything to worry about, unless you are really very close to the power plant.

[@oskarcher9069]

SHILL BINGO! Professor Thomas is a distinguished academic www.imperial.ac.uk/people/geraldine.thomas Accusing professionals of shilling for industry when the knowledge they share contrasts with your beliefs, WinMore, is part of why expertise is dying in the West. Meanwhile, radiation limits are conservative, not dangerous pbs.twimg.com/media/DEVKtRJUwAAgBiO.jpg

[@AULIGAofBLEED]

Paul Dorfman apparently three missing fully meltdown cores are nothing to worry about

[@kickstar126]

Obviously Gerry is much more clever than Dr David Suzuki who holds contrary opinions on every facet of the subject..

[@odderlendsolvang3790]

He dont Know what he is talking about.

[@kopfjager9431]

Tell it to the French and the surrounding countries that rely on nuke power base load.

[@vladpetric7493]

Radiophobia.

[@georgebacovia9318]

Was making an interesting case, but then she blew her credibility completely out of the water with those HIGHLY revealing political comments.

[@jackieysoto798]

At the first 30 min and all she has done is manipulated statistics to show the contrary to every other lecture I have seen. Guess you really can't believe everything you see on the internet. Can I get my 30 minutes back, please.

[@benighted09]

Jackie Y'Soto this lecture was based on science. Lectures by: Harvey Wasserman, Thom Hartman, Helen Caldecott and Bill Nye are not.

[@canadiannuclearman]

Please respond, who do you believe? Names please.

[@daniellassander]

No she has presented actual statistics backed up by facts, you believe that facts are wrong because you feel something else. Now that is not a good way to look at the world. When i stand at a redlight, i dont feel my way to when its safe to cross i look at the sign or you know, use facts.

[@jackieysoto798]

@@daniellassander shut up moron.