Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Fear is potent risk of Japanese nuclear crisis
When it comes to the nuclear power disaster unfolding in Japan, there is far more to fear than fear itself. But fear is one of the biggest - and could turn out to be the most potent - dangers.
Although radiation escaping from a nuclear power plant catastrophe can increase the risk of many cancers and other health problems, stress, anxiety and fear ended up in many ways being much greater long-term threats to health and well-being after Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other nuclear accidents, experts said Monday.
"The psychological effects were the biggest health effects of all - by far," said Fred Mettler, a University of New Mexico professor emeritus and one of the world's leading authorities on radiation, who studied Chernobyl for the World Health Organization. "In the end, that's really what affected the most people."
Fears of contamination and anxiety about the health of those exposed and their children led to significantly elevated rates of suicidal thinking and anxiety disorders, and rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression about doubled, Mettler and others said.
"The effect on mental health was hugely important," said Evelyn Bromet, a professor of psychiatry at Stony Brook University who studied the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. "People's fears about getting cancer, or their children getting cancer, and family and friends dying from radiation exposure were very intense."
In the unprecedented disaster in Japan, where an earthquake triggered a tsunami that was followed by a major nuclear power plant emergency, all those negative psychological effects are being magnified in ways that no one can predict.
"You can imagine: There was an earthquake, and I survived that. And then here comes a tsunami, and I survived that. And then comes a nuclear reactor," said Mettler, the U.S. representative to the United Nations who studied Chernobyl. "With that kind of triple whammy, you can only imagine someone is going to be saying, 'What did I do? What's wrong with me?' "
Survivors of the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents in Japan and Brazil were stigmatized by their societies, which caused discrimination that intensified emotional distress.
"After almost every radiological emergency, anyone or anything seen as or perceived as associated with the emergency came to be seen by others as tainted or something to be feared and even the object of discrimination," said Steven Becker of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Such stigmatization can interfere with victims receiving care and recovering from the event, said Becker, who studied the psychological and social impact of a much less severe nuclear accident in 1999 in Tokaimura, Japan. In that case, people in other parts of Japan refused to buy products from that region, and travelers were turned away from hotels and asked not to use public baths and swimming pools. Similar discrimination occurred after a 1987 radiation exposure event in Goiania, Brazil.
In the long run, such incidents can negatively transform entire cultures. In the areas affected by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, a crippling sense of hopelessness set in and was passed down through generations.
"What we know from experience is the psychological footprint from a nuclear disaster can not only be massive but in many ways greater than the effect of radiation," Becker said. "On an individual level, these range all the way from anxiety disorders, depression and substance abuse to a kind of culture of fatalism and hopelessness that has gripped the population in many areas, and it continues today, decades later."
Among all the threats humans face today, radiation consistently ranks near the top of the list of what people fear and the emotional reaction it produces.
"As soon as we hear anything about 'nuclear,' our brain goes very quickly looking for danger and says, 'Alert?' " said David Ropeik, an instructor at Harvard University who studies risk perception and wrote "How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts." "That's just how we do it psychologically."
There are many reasons why humans fear radiation so intensely. One reason is because radiation is silent, invisible and odorless. Another is because radiation is associated with cancer, which itself is one of the most feared words. Another reason is that in accidents, as opposed to medical treatments, exposure to radiation is involuntary. Other reasons are the searing images of victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, a generation raised fearing Cold War-mushroom-cloud annihilation and the way radiation is portrayed by popular culture.
"In the movies and in comic books, people getting exposed to radiation turn into monsters," said John Boice Jr., a radiation expert at the International Epidemiology Unit in Rockville.
In fact, radiation is a far less potent carcinogen than other toxic substances. Studies of more than 80,000 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts have found that about 9,000 people subsequently died of some form of cancer. But only about 500 of those cases could be attributed to the radiation exposure the people experienced.
The average amount of radiation that victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exposed to would increase the risk of dying from lung cancer by about 40 percent, Boice said. Smoking a pack of cigarettes a day increases the risk of dying of lung cancer by about 400 percent.
"Radiation is a universal carcinogen, but it's a very weak carcinogen compared to other carcinogens," Boice said. "Even when you are exposed, it's very unlikely you will get an adverse effect. But fear of radiation is very strong."
Monday, April 15, 2013
Threatwatch: What the North Korean nuclear test means
Threatwatch: What the North Korean nuclear test means - environment - 14 February 2013 - New Scientist@import "/css/gridmain.css"; @import "/css/article.css";@import "/css/comlist.css";@import "/data/images/ns/haas/haas.css";/* specific to this article view */#maincol {border-top:solid #A7A7A7 1px; padding-top:15px;}/* Basic commenting CSS*/.combx {margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:10px 20px 10px 10px;}#compnl {border-top:solid #A7A7A7 1px;}/* comment styles for article page only *//* form styles */#comform {margin:20px 50px 20px 10px;}#comform label{width: 90px;text-align: right;}#comform div.userhelp {margin:0 0 2px 115px;}#comform input.textinput, #comform textarea {width:300px;}#comform div.floatclear, #comformlogin div.floatclear {margin-bottom:10px;}#comform input#comcancel{margin:0 10px 0 0;}#comform input#compreview{margin:0 10px 0 0;}#comform textarea {height:95px;}#comformlogin {margin:20px 100px 20px 100px;}#comformlogin label{width: 120px;}#comformlogin input.textinput {width:150px;}#snv_environment a {background: url('/img/bg/snv_environment.jpg') no-repeat; color:#fff;}/* article social media */#sharebtns {width:440px; margin-left:10px; margin-bottom:20px; padding:15px 0 15px 10px; background:#F2F2F2;}#sharebtns div.floatleft {margin-right:10px;}#sharebtns .stumble {margin-top:1px;}.grpTools img {margin-right:8px; margin-top:9px;}#fblike {margin-top:41px;} (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-B92N');
Environment Log inEmailPassword Remember me
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.Have your say
http://www.google.com
Making waves (Image: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty)ADVERTISEMENTMoreLatest newsSecret chamber under Old Faithful drives eruptions
11:18 12 April 2013
17:14 10 April 2013
15:04 10 April 2013
18:03 12 April 2013
Most readMost commented Alien megaprojects: The hunt has begun Drone-wrecking laser gun to sail on US warship The hidden costs of austerity Wind power delivers too much to ignore Feedback: Conspiranoid swapshop TWITTERNew Scientist is on Twitter
Environment Log inEmailPassword Remember meYour login is case sensitive
I have forgotten my password
Register nowActivate my subscriptionInstitutional loginAthens logincloseMy New ScientistHomeNewsIn-Depth ArticlesBlogsOpinionTVGalleriesTopic GuidesLast WordSubscribeDatingLook for Science JobsSPACETECHENVIRONMENTHEALTHLIFEPHYSICS&MATHSCIENCE IN SOCIETYCookies & PrivacyHome|Environment|News
Threatwatch: What the North Korean nuclear test meansUpdated15:31 14 February 2013 byDebora MacKenzieFor similar stories, visit theWeapons Technologyand The Nuclear AgeTopic GuidesThreatwatch is your early warning system for global dangers, from nuclear peril to deadly viral outbreaks. Debora MacKenzie highlights the threats to civilisation – and suggests solutions
It was the biggest bang yet. At 0257 GMT on 12 February, a magnitude 5 tremor with its epicentre in North Korea shook a worldwide network of seismic monitors. Hours later, North Korea announced its third official underground nuclear test. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) in Vienna, which runs the monitoring network, called the seismic signal "explosion-like" and declared it twice as big as North Korea's last test in 2009. That would make this bomb between 8 and 14 kilotonnes – approaching the 15-kilotonne bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. The test brought condemnation from all major governments and the UN. It was, however, no surprise. Satellites had detected activity at the site of North Korea's previous tests, in 2006 and 2009 – and maybe, unsuccessfully, in 2010. A new test there seemed to be on the cards. The CTBTO said the seismic data confirms that the location was "largely identical" to the previous tests. The similarity of the seismic signal to those suggests this was not a radically new design, such as a thermonuclear bomb, says the Institute for Science and International Security. Blast-related disturbances in the ionosphere seen by GPS satellites are still being analysed, say researchers at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and Ohio State University in Columbus. Resolution pending What can we expect now? Possibly another blast – satellite images show two tunnels were built at the site. The UN Security Council is said to be planning another resolution tightening sanctions. Paradoxically, though, the test might strengthen moves for the US to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Lack of US ratification is preventing the treaty coming into force. Ratification was a goal during President Barack Obama's first term, but was shelved as opponents claimed a test ban cannot be verified. North Korea's test has demonstrated, again, that it can. And the test poses two big questions. One is North Korea's claim that the device was "a smaller and light A-bomb unlike the previous ones". This means it might be delivered on a missile, such as the Nodong, with a range of 1300 kilometres. Siegfried Hecker, former head of the US weapons lab at Los Alamos, suspects this blast tested such a lighter device. However, unlike location and yield, its weight before detonation is unverifiable. The other question, whether North Korea has switched from a plutonium bomb to one using highly enriched uranium (HEU), might be verifiable. A switch would be bad news: North Korea stopped making plutonium in 2008 and is thought to have enough for only eight to 10 weapons, but it has its own uranium and is making HEU. It is also alleged to be collaborating with Iran, which makes HEU too. Iran insists its uranium enrichment is peaceful, so cannot test a device itself. Gaseous giveaway Which material this week's blast used will only be clear if it emits gaseous fission products. They should reach CTBTO monitoring stations in days, unless the blast fused surrounding rocks and so prevented gases from escaping, as seems to have happened in 2009. South Korea said this morning that it hasn't detected anything as yet, but a circulation model at the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna, Austria, predicts that relevant air masses should pass over monitoring stations in Russia and Japan today or tomorrow. Beyond these immediate mysteries, any long-term solution must address why North Korea feels it needs nuclear weapons at all, says Hecker. He argues that this is because it regards the US as an existential threat. Talks could calm these fears. Yet the US insists North Korea must give up nuclear weapons before it will talk. This insistence may make renewed talks – and thus any change of direction in North Korea – unlikely. "We have spent most of the past twelve years not talking to North Korea," says Joe Cirincione, head of the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund in San Francisco. "During that time they have conducted three nuclear tests and four missile tests. When we have talked to them, they haven't conducted any tests. They shut down their facilities. That should tell you something." Both talks without conditions, and ratifying the test ban treaty, require the US to take the initiative. North Korea's nuclear ball is now in Washington's court.If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.Have your sayOnly subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
email:password:Remember meOnly personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
Re-entry TechnologyFri Feb 15 00:06:09 GMT 2013 by Michael DowlingI don't believe NK will pose a direct threat to other nations anytime soon,even with a weapon light enough to mount on an ICBM.Without a working re-entry vehicle,the development of which is probably as tough a nut to crack as building a reliable missile,such a delivery system would be useless.
Of greater concern would be the possible sale of nukes to terrorist groups.
What is there to talk about?
The US, and indeed the western world, has two goals -- to prevent nuclear war and to get rid of the North Korean regime. As long as we don't attack North Korea they probably won't use their nuclear weapons. That doesn't achieve the other goal. But talks won't either.
http://www.google.com
We have a Armistice with North Korea. So techniclally we are still in a state of war with them. I think it is sixty years overdue that we sign a peace treaty with North Korea so we can move on to the nuclear weapons issue for discussion once for all.
login and replyreport this commentTalking With TyrantsSun Feb 17 18:46:22 GMT 2013 by Eric KvaalenBut we can't talk them out of nuclear weapons. We may be able to talk them out of further development and production of nuclear weapons, but only by bribing them with material support that will keep the regime in power. What's the point of that?
login and replyreport this commentview threadTalking With TyrantsMon Feb 18 16:14:39 GMT 2013 by Jamie W."The US, and indeed the western world, has two goals -- to prevent nuclear war and to get rid of the North Korean regime."
Agreed. We should, however, be asking which of those two goals takes precedence. If you agree that the first goal is more pressing, then parley is demonstrably (according to the article) a useful tool.
Otherwise we're left with one option - forced regime change for every state that doesn't follow the rules of the Official Nuke Club. Which doesn't seem altogether reliable, let alone desirable
As I said before, I don't see the point of talk. Why should there be a nuclear war just because we don't have discussions going on?
If we're serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, then yes, maybe we do have to bring about regime change in every state that doesn't follow the rule of not pursuing nuclear weapons. But in the case of North Korea, it's too late. And even before they got nuclear weapons, they were ready to wreak destruction on Seoul if they were attacked.
" When we have talked to them, they haven't conducted any tests. They shut down their facilities. That should tell you something."
I believe we should talk with them without the precondition of getting rid of their nukes,as is suggested by Cirincione. Talking is probably all we can do at this point,because provoking the Chinese with a military strike against NK might start WW3. If history is any indication,NK will take a less belligerent stance while engaged in discussions with the west
Talk about what, Michael?
It may be true that if we talk they won't do tests. But so what? The tests don't hurt anybody. And the only reason the North Koreans would suspend testing while talking would be if we were offering them more and more material support. How long shall we pay protection money like this?
You've got two cowboys pointing guns at each other. As long as they're talking they're not shooting.
Furthermore, if either of the cowboys throws his gun in the creek then the other cowboy is going to feel a lot less pressure to use his gun. If that cowboy opens fire on an unarmed man, the rest of the village is going to come down on him like a ton of bricks.
A tortured metaphor, but the point is that Mexican stand-offs are incredibly stupid; sooner or later someone will lose their nerve and pull the trigger. Lowering the guns and making a deal may not be a permanent solution, but it sure as hell delays the moment when the lead starts to fly.
But what can we offer the North Koreans to get them to give up the nuclear weapons they already have? You say we should throw our gun in the creek. That means we dismantle all our nuclear weapons. Would that achieve the goals?
login and replyreport this commentTalking With TyrantsTue Feb 19 05:58:21 GMT 2013 by Jamie W.Well, given the rumours that the citizens of NK are so desperate for protein that they're resorting to cannibalism -
(long URL - click here)
- you'd imagine food aid would be a potent bargaining chip.
Put it this way: NK is already a pariah state, and pariahs have nothing to lose. Any degree of engagement with the international community will raise the price of aggression for the pariah state
Do you really think the North Korean leaders would give up nuclear weapons in order to get food for their hungry masses?
login and replyreport this commentTalking With TyrantsWed Feb 20 01:18:38 GMT 2013 by Jamie W.Maybe, maybe not. It's got to be more productive than silently pointing your own nuclear weapons at them, even if only to convince wavering members of the Security Council of the sincerity of your concern for the North Korean people.
How about using stealth bombers to overfly NK, delivering massive payloads of rice and internet-enabled satellite phones? It's going to take the people of North Korea to solve this - they're the only ones who can.
Internet-enabled satellite phones. Now you're talkin'!
login and replyreport this commentTalking With TyrantsWed Feb 20 07:23:24 GMT 2013 by Jamie W.Every now and then I surprise myself with a not entirely stupid idea...
login and replyreport this commentview threadAll comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
Making waves (Image: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty)ADVERTISEMENTMoreLatest newsSecret chamber under Old Faithful drives eruptions11:18 12 April 2013A previously unknown side chamber under the Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone national park is changing our picture of this famously reliable geyser
New US education standards put climate in spotlight00:51 11 April 2013For the first time, national-level guidelines include climate science as a key topic for children to learn – but they are not enforceable
Global hard times in environmental photography show17:14 10 April 2013Our favourite images from the Environmental Photographer of the Year exhibition
Republican voters want action on climate change15:04 10 April 2013Just 35 per cent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents support the party's stance on climate change, according to a new poll
see all related stories
MoreLatest newsCould an airliner be hacked by a smartphone? 20:14 12 April 2013A commercial pilot with computer security expertise claims he has worked out a way of hacking into an airliner's flight deck
Google lets you bequeath digital assets when you die19:20 12 April 2013The new Inactive Account Manager feature is designed to take care of all of your Google assets - whether emails on Gmail or YouTube videos - when you die
New Japanese method for killing dolphins is inhumane18:03 12 April 2013Fishermen in Japan have adopted a new way of dispatching dolphins in drive hunts but the method is no more humane than previous techniques
Today on New Scientist: 12 April 201317:26 12 April 2013All the latest stories on newscientist.com: the map of the Internet, our closest non-human ancestor, and more
see all latest news
Most readMost commented Twist in dark matter tale hints at shadow Milky Way New Japanese method for killing dolphins is inhumane Astrophile: A handy guide to planetary parking spots Map of the internet could make it stronger Drone-wrecking laser gun to sail on US warship Most readMost commented Alien megaprojects: The hunt has begun Drone-wrecking laser gun to sail on US warship The hidden costs of austerity Wind power delivers too much to ignore Feedback: Conspiranoid swapshop TWITTERNew Scientist is on TwitterGet the latest from New Scientist: sign up to our Twitter feed
LATEST JOBS I-Pharm Consulting Ltd: Senior Director of Project Management, Poland or CEE St. Jude Children's Research Hospital: Preclinical Research Technician Paramount Recruitment: Software Developer - Scientific - Perl Paramount Recruitment: Senior Account Director - Healthcare Advertising Paramount Recruitment: Senior Account Manager - Healthcare Advertising This week's issueSubscribeFor exclusive news and expert analysis, subscribe to New Scientist.
Gain full online accessCurrent issue contentContent of past issues13 April 2013ADVERTISEMENTBack to topLoginEmailPassword Remember meYour login is case sensitive
I have forgotten my password
Register nowActivate my subscriptionInstitutional loginAthens logincloseAbout usNew ScientistSyndicationRecruitment AdvertisingStaff at New ScientistAdvertiseRBI JobsUser HelpContact UsFAQ / HelpDisclaimerTs & CsCookiesPrivacy PolicySubscriptionsSubscribeRenewGift subscriptionMy accountBack issuesCustomer ServiceLinksSite MapBrowse all articlesMagazine archiveNewScientistJobsThe Last WordRSS FeedsOnline StoreAndroid AppMobile site homeScience JobsBiology JobsChemistry JobsClinical JobsSales JobsEarth & Environment JobsEngineering JobsMaths & IT JobsGraduate Jobs© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.Thursday, April 11, 2013
[Report] Nuclear Actin Network Assembly by Formins Regulates the SRF Coactivator MAL
Christian Baarlink, Haicui Wang, Robert Grosse*
Institute of Pharmacology, Biochemical-Pharmacological Center (BPC), University of Marburg, Germany?*Corresponding author. E-mail: robert.grosse{at}staff.uni-marburg.deFormins are potent activators of actin filament assembly in the cytoplasm. In turn, cytoplasmic actin polymerization can promote release of actin from megakaryocytic acute leukemia (MAL) for serum response factor (SRF) transcriptional activity. Here, we found that formins polymerized actin inside the mammalian nucleus to drive serum-dependent MAL/SRF activity. Serum stimulated rapid assembly of actin filaments within the nucleus in a formin-dependent manner. Endogenous mDia was regulated using a optogenetic tool, which allowed for photoreactive release of nuclear formin autoinhibition. Activated mDia promoted rapid and reversible nuclear actin network assembly, subsequent MAL nuclear accumulation, and SRF activity. Thus, a dynamic polymeric actin structure within the nucleus is part of the serum response. Received for publication 11 January 2013. Accepted for publication 26 March 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)