• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Nuclear energy and environmental justice
#21
Two PA nuclear power plants scheduled to close

https://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/two-...1628073786

San Onofre plant aims to resume transfers of nuclear waste in January

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/bus...story.html

France to retire 14 nuclear reactors while Japan restarts 5 of its reactors
Nuclear has struggled worldwide, while offshore wind could offset some retirements.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018...-reactors/

Russia starts cobalt-60 production at Kursk plant

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articl...ursk-plant

Radioactive water threatens Fukushima fishery's fragile gains
Plant operator plans to dump contaminated water into the ocean

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Radioact...gile-gains

Japan reactor delayed 2 years in blow to plutonium reduction
New safety standards push back Oma plant's start date to 2026

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Compani...-reduction

France halts joint nuclear project in blow to Japan's fuel cycle

Move comes as tensions mount over Renault-Nissan

“TOKYO -- The French government has informed Japan it will halt joint development of advanced nuclear reactors, Nikkei has learned, dealing a blow to the fuel cycle policy underpinning much of the East Asian country's energy plans.

“France is expected to halt research from next year into the Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration project, or Astrid, and stop setting budgets for the fast breeder reactors from 2020.

“French President Emmanuel Macron revealed plans Tuesday to cut France's nuclear reliance to 50% from the current 70%. Under that plan, the Astrid project, which has faced ballooning construction costs and cutbacks, appears to have been viewed as less urgently needed.

“The French government denied it has made an official decision on the matter, according to Reuters. But the consideration comes at a time when tensions between Tokyo and Paris are mounting over the arrest of former Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn, and Renault's control over the Japanese automaker.

“Japan viewed Astrid as a keystone of its plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel. The country pulled the plug in 2016 on its own prototype fast breeder reactor. That reactor, known as Monju, encountered a great deal of trouble and incurred heavy costs over its decades-long history.

“Nuclear reactors generate power by using nuclear fission reactions to vaporize water and create steam that rotates turbines. Fast breeder reactors can run on so-called mixed-oxide fuel made with plutonium gathered from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and are more efficient than light-water reactors, a common variety.

“Japan's government is hurrying to ascertain the details of France's revised nuclear plan. In the meantime, it appears to be against giving up on the fuel cycle policy. It is widely expected to keep research alive through government-linked organizations and continue exploring possibilities of realizing fast breeder technology even decades down the road.

“Even so, the loss of Astrid is significant. Just a few of Japan's nuclear reactors currently use mixed-oxide fuel, and the country's plutonium stores continue to pile up far faster than it can be consumed -- driving the U.S. to express concern, as the fissile material can be used in nuclear weapons.

“The blow to the fuel cycle policy may trigger calls from Japan's government and from opposition parties to revise national energy policy.”

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/France-h...fuel-cycle
 
Reply
#22
France abandons plans for the Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration)

"Reuters 29th Nov 2018 , The French government has informed Japan that it plans to freeze a next
generation fast-breeder nuclear reactor project, the Nikkei business daily
reported on Thursday. Japan, which has been cooperating with Paris on the
fast-breeder development in France, has invested about 20 billion yen
($176.27 million) in the project, the report added. The French government
will halt research into the Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor
for Industrial Demonstration) project in 2019, with no plans to allocate a
budget from 2020 onwards, the report said, without citing sources...."

https://www.reuters.com/article/france-n...pc=401&

https://nuclear-news.net/2018/12/01/fran...nstration/

Norilsk Nickel cautiously opening the conversation with environmentalists

"Environmentalists are at last hearing something encouraging from" Norilsk Nickel, one of Russia’s biggest polluters –which last week delivered a grudging acknowledgement of its past mistakes and offered the beginnings of a transparent plan Norilsk Nickel cautiously opening the conversation with environmentalists..."

http://bellona.org/news/industrial-pollu...mentalists

Murmansk region aims to be the driver of Russia’s e-car and renewable energy economy

http://bellona.org/news/renewable-energy...gy-economy

10,000 Tons Of Nuclear Waste Removed From Sequoyah County

"SEQUOYAH COUNTY, Oklahoma - The Cherokee Nation says 10,000 tons of nuclear waste has been moved off the Sequoyah Fuels site near Gore.

"The Cherokee Nation announced Friday that the waste was removed after the tribe and the state of Oklahoma sued Sequoyah Fuels...."

http://www.newson6.com/story/39568177/10...yah-county#
 
Reply
#23
2 comments on background radiation {found on archive of enenews]

Dr. Goodheart
April 26, 2015 at 1:40 am
Background Radiation Has Increased 600 Percent – 1 mSv In 1950 To over 6 mSv In 2014; Where Is This Coming From?
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/b...d-600.html

• Wyakin
April 26, 2015 at 2:37 am Log in to Reply
DGH-+1
"Background Radiation Has Increased 600 Percent – 1 mSv In 1950 To over 6 mSv"
Where is it coming from? Man made fission trash.
Bioaccumulation in the food chain exponentially magnifies the effect on DNA sharing organisms.
Organically bound radioisotopes with long lived atomic half lives are released into the biosphere upon destruction of the organism for recycle and absorption into the environment.
The man made fission radionuclide will be will us for as long as it is exists in the atomic decay chain.

Thank you for your site and all your efforts. Great information.

https://web.archive.org/web/201604291139...ent-663072

https://web.archive.org/web/201604291139...ent-663078
 
Reply
#24
Thanks for contributing, antirad.  You might fix up your signature by removing those empty lines.  It's not too hard, look up at the top of the page on the right side and find where it says Welcome, antirad and a down arrow.  Click on the down arrow and click on Change Signature in the drop down menu.  In the edit signature box you will be able to remove the extra lines.  Put your cursor at the bottom and backspace up to your signature, How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming.  You can use Preview Signature to make sure the empty lines are gone.  Click on Update Signature to finish.

The ENENews archive is better than nothing.  My full backup performs like the ENENews website did, making it easier to use; well, as easy as it was to navigate ENENews.  The ENENews format was simple and easy to post on, but it never was a good research tool.  CRL has a much better search function that makes it useful as a library.  I've been learning to put keywords into my posts to make information easier to locate; it's as simple as putting titles and a blurb to links.  Pia has done a great job of organizing CRL to make things easier to find.  In the Fukushima Daiichi forum there is a section for historical observations.  Excerpts from ENENews would fit in there nicely.  http://caferadlab.com/forum-56.html
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#25
(11-29-2018, 06:06 AM)Horse Wrote:
(11-29-2018, 04:46 AM)antirad Wrote: I followed a link that majia gave on her blog and found a complete archive of the articles and headlines of enenews.  With one link, all the pages are at the bottom and linking on a page brings up another page of headlines, and every headline when linked on gives the article with comments.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181019142635/http://enenews.com/

The "last" page is the first chronologically, and is page 367.

Thanks, I'll include this link in the first post for the December Chat.  Trying to keep things a little organized.  The database would be useful and we could keep the ENE info alive.  Maybe someone could sort out some of the links ENE had on Ocean life die-offs to compliment the Pacific Genocide thread.  Glad we haven't lost the ENENews database.

Using the wayback machine archive of enenews.com is tricky. After page 8 you have to click at the previous article at the right above the headline of the article page and tediously go back one article at a time to find a date you want to see. I think it is because articles were saved at different times so the page numbers at the bottom of the page don't correspond to a date a person might want to see.
 
Reply
#26
Christopher Busby (May 22nd 2013). Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides, New Research Directions in DNA Repair, Clark Chen, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/53942. Available from:

https://www.intechopen.com/books/new-res...ionuclides

Genetic radiation risks: a neglected topic in the low dose debate
Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake,1 Christopher Busby,2 and Sebastian Pflugbeil3

US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

Environ Health Toxicol. 2016; 31: e2016001.
Published online 2016 Jan 20. doi: [10.5620/eht.e2016001]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870760/
 
Reply
#27
"...Twenty of the 29 studies directly support the principle that even low-dose exposures cause a significant increase in cancer rates, said Roy Shore, chief of research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a joint project of the United States and Japan. Scientists found most of the other studies were inconclusive and decided one was flawed.
None supported the theory there is some safe threshold for radiation, said Shore, who chaired the review."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-proposed-r...e.html#jCp
 
Reply
#28
It's not just cancer! Radiation, genomic instability and heritable genetic damage

“,,,The rules say that no one is allowed to receive more than 1mSv of dose in a year from man-made activities. The ICRP's scientific model for heritable effects is based on mice; this is because ICRP states that there is no evidence that radiation causes any heritable effects in humans.

“The dose required to double the risk of heritable damage according to the ICRP is more than 1000mSv. This reliance on mice has followed from the studies of the offspring of those who were present in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Japanese/ US Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC).

“These studies were begun in 1952 and assembled groups of people in the bombed cities to compare cancer rates and also birth outcomes in those exposed at different levels according to their distance from the position of the bomb detonation, the hypocentre. The entire citadel of radiation risk is built upon this ABCC rock.

“But the rock was constructed with smoke and mirrors and everything about the epidemiology is false. There have been a number of criticisms of the A-Bomb Lifespan Studies of cancer: it was a survivor population, doses were external, residual contamination was ignored, it began seven years after the event, the original zero dose control group was abandoned as being "too healthy", and many others.

“But we are concerned here with the heritable effects, the birth defects, the congenital malformations, the miscarriages and stillbirths. The problem here is that for heritable damage effects to show up, there have to be births. As you increase the exposures to radiation, you quickly obtain sterility and there are no pregnancies. We found this in the nuclear test veterans.

“Then at lower doses, damaged sperm results in damaged foetuses and miscarriages. When both mother and father are exposed, there are miscarriages and stillbirths before you see any birth defects. So the dose response relation is not linear. At the higher doses there are no effects. The effects all appear at the lowest doses.

“Bad epidemiology is easily manipulated

“As far as the ABCC studies are concerned, there is another serious (and I would say dishonest) error in the epidemiology. Those people discarded their control population in favour of using the low dose group as a control.

“This is such bad epidemiology that it should leave any honest reviewer breathless. But there were no reviewers. Or at least no-one seemed to care. Perhaps they didn't dig deeply enough. In passing, the same method is now being used to assess risk in the huge INWORKS nuclear worker studies and no-one has raised this point there either.

“Anyway, the ABCC scientists in charge of the genetic studies found the same levels of adverse birth outcomes in their exposed and their control groups, and concluded that there was no effect from the radiation….”

https://theecologist.org/2016/mar/17/its...tic-damage
 
Reply
#29
This a copy of a post I made by "from a distance" on enenews on April 29, 2015.

"Dr. Ernest Sternglass explains how low dose radiation is more dangerous than realized:

"'And the nature of this curve is such that if you
decrease it by 10, the risk per millirad goes up tenfold. If you
go down another 10, the risk keeps going up, and therefore we
have a strange situation that the weaker the radiation intensity
is, the more deadly it is, and nobody anticipated this and
present radiation standards do not believe in this and have not
accepted this because it goes against the existing regulations,
which govern all uses of radiation everywhere, and nobody wants
to touch this, although the BEIR Committee of the National
Academy called attention to it years ago in the earlier report,
BEIR III, and, so, we now find that we have a situation where we
have far greater health effects than we ever thought.'

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/radiation/dir...nsc12a.txt

"credit to "unincredulous" for the link"

[ from a distance
April 29, 2015 at 10:21 pm ]

• rogerthat
• May 1, 2015 at 3:13 am
• thanks to from a distance/unincredulous for this:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/radiation/dir...nsc12a.txt

[Transcript - March 15, 1995 - The National Security Archive]

https://web.archive.org/web/201603210129...ent-665570

Ian Fairlie: A 100 mSv threshold for radiation effects?
November 27, 2012

"In recent years, some scientists have promoted the view that there are no observable effects from radiation below 100 mSv, usually in their criticisms of the Linear No Threshold theory (I discuss the LNT here).

"However, many studies show radiation effects well below 100 mSv. It is true that these effects are often numerically small, so that large studies are needed to yield findings which are statistically significant, but they do exist. These studies are conveniently set out in the table below: those with statistically significant findings are highlighted in green. The other studies are included because non-significant findings should also be shown, as they can indicate or support a trend. This is because the lack of statistical significance is often due simply to small numbers and not the absence of effect….”

https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-100-ms...n-effects/

Wyakin
April 19, 2015 at 2:30 am

“…Single α particle emitted from one atom of 239P contains 5.1 MeV. 238U atom emits 4.2 MeV particle. The average α particle travels between 30 and 40 microns, the equivalent of 3-4 cell diameters.

“Double strand breaks can be caused by as little as 10 eV. “Never heard of the term ‘densely ionizing?’ Look it up. The energy of a single α particle is sufficient to break hundreds of thousands chemical bonds. …”

https://web.archive.org/web/201603200034...ent-659916
 
Reply
#30
Wyakin
April 26, 2015 at 1:14 am

“Transgenerational accumulation of radiation damage in small mammals chronically exposed to Chernobyl fallout.” Ryabokon, et. al.

“…the authors suggest that, along with the biological damage attributable to the individual exposure of each animal, the observed cellular and systemic effects reflect the transgenerational transmission and accumulation, via genetic and/or epigenetic pathways, of damage attributable to the chronic low-dose rate exposure of the preceding generations of animals.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16862...d_RVDocSum

Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides

“Ionising radiation, however it is delivered, creates harmful effects by causing mutations in genetic material both at the somatic level (cellular DNA) and germ cell level (heritable mutations)… [including a mechanism] termed “Genomic Instability” which is an inducible cell-cell signal consequence of the production of ROS in the cytoplasm (non-DNA region) of an irradiated cell. This process is communicable between cells in some way and even between individuals and has been termed the ‘bystander effect’…” (p. 600)

http://www.nuwinfo.se/files/InTech-Aspec...clides.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/201604290934...ent-663056

Wyakin
April 26, 2015 at 1:18 am ·
Nuclear Veterans Child Health Study

“Results showed high levels of miscarriages, stillbirths, infant mortality and congenital illnesses in the veterans’ children relative both to control children and expected numbers. There were105 miscarriages reported in the veteran mothers compared with 18 in controls OR = 2.75(1.56, 4.91; p = .00016). There were 16 stillbirths compared with 3 in the controls (OR=2.70 (0.73, 11.72; p = 0.13). There were 57 veteran children with congenital conditions compared with 3 controls (OR = 9.77 (2.92, 39.3); p = 0.000003) these rates being also about 8 times those expected on the basis of UK EUROCAT data for 1980-2000 suggesting that the control children had not been selected for healthiness. In the grandchildren, these high levels of congenital illness also occurred with 46 veteran grandchildren recorded with congenital conditions compared with 3 controls OR = 8.35(2.48, 33.8) p = 0.000025.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149211100/Busb...alth-Study

https://web.archive.org/web/201604290934...ent-663058
 
Reply
#31
Wyakin
April 27, 2015 at 4:03 am

I respect all those who came before us who passed down and taught their knowledge on the effects of LLR. Many here are great teachers, whether or not they admit or recognize it.

Were it not for those who sacrificed their careers and livelihoods (Dietz, Diehl, Gofman, Gold, Gouldman, Caldicott, Sternglass, Gunderson, Makhijanis, et al.) to bring us the truth, we would be having an inconclusive debate on the real effects of LLR.

Not now. LLR is understood as dangerous in any quantity.

ECRR has been instrumental in presenting the scientific truth. A substantial and valuable body of work on LLR is here:

http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

I recommend taking the time to read the entire document.

Use this information to understand and craft your regulatory comment responses.

Although the greatest industrial and nuclear accident in history occurred on 03/11, everyone needs to treat today like the last day they will be alive, and live in the moment.

Peace, ~W~

https://web.archive.org/web/201604290934...ent-663445

Dietze, Gunther

Compendium 2: evidence of higher than expected radiation hazard
Gunther Dietze describing remit of an action ... and Effects in Man". Dr Dietze is Co-chairman and Co- ... Programme of the European Commission.(Dietze 1997 ) The whole concept of

http://www.llrc.org/llrc/health/subtopic...ndium2.htm

Compendium of evidence: peer review and (self)publication
Issue 1, September 1999. Dietze G. 1997 EULEP EURADOS UIR / European Radiation Protection Research newsletter No. 1 August 1997, p 13 Doll R. Editorial to Dickinson HO Parker L

http://www.llrc.org/llrc/health/subtopic...m_refs.htm

Gunther Dietze describing remit of an action group dealing with "Dose and Effects in Man".

Dr Dietze is Co-chairman and Co-ordinator of "Environmental and Occupational Dosimetry: an Integrated Approach to Radiation Protection Covering Radioecology, Dosimetry and Biological Effects".

This is a Joint Concerted Action of EULEP, EURADOS and UIR in the Nuclear Fission Safety Programme of the European Commission.(Dietze 1997)

http://www.llrc.org/llrc/health/subtopic...tze%201997
 
Reply
#32
Depleted Uranium: A Post-War Disaster For Environment And Health
With contributions of:
Felicity Arbuthnot · Rosalie Bertell · Ray Bristow · Peter Diehl · Dan Fahey · Henk van der Keur · Daniel Robicheau
Laka Foundation
May 1999
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...le4406.htm

Low Level Radiation and Cancer
Vol. 23, Issue No. 18, 30 Apr, 1988

Arjun Makhijani

https://www.epw.in/journal/1988/18/discu...ancer.html

Nuclear Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and Its Health and Environmental Effects
by Arjun Makhijani (Editor), Howard Hu (Editor), Katherine Yih (Editor)

https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Wasteland...d+a+global

Fissile materials in a glass, darkly: Technical and policy aspects of the disposition of plutonium and highly enriched uranium Paperback – 1995
by Arjun Makhijani

https://www.amazon.com/Fissile-materials...839&sr=1-9

The Nuclear Power Deception: US nuclear mythology from electricity "too cheap to meter" to "inherently safe" reactors Apparent First Edition Edition
by Arjun Makhijani (Author), Scott Saleska (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094525...UTF8&psc=1

Carbon-Free And Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy Paperback – November 15, 2007
by Arjun Makhijani (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157143...taft_p1_i0

From Global Capitalism to Economic Justice: An Inquiry into the Elimination of Systemic Poverty, Violence and Environmental Destruction in the World 1st Paperback Edition Edition
by Arjun Makhijani

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094525...taft_p1_i7

Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age : The Health and Environmental Problems of Plutonium Production and Disposal
by Howard Hu (Author), Arjun Makhijani (Author), Katherine Yih (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Plutonium-Environ...jani+arjun
 
Reply
#33
In 1990 Gofman states that the last 3 follow up studies of Atomic Bomb survivors show a supra-linear shape of dose-response. And Fairlie states that the 2003 study of Japanese bomb survivors shows both supra-linearity and 5 data points below 100 mSv

Gofman Radiation-Induced Cancer F. Low-Dose Exposure

https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html

CHAPTER 14
Shape of the Dose-Response Relationship,
and Low-Dose Cancer-Yields Based on the Best-Fit Curve

https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/ch...tml#tab14b

"... The supra-linear shape of dose-response has been showing up in the A-Bomb Study for at least three consecutive follow-ups: 1950-1974, 1950-1978, and 1950-1982 (Go81; Go89a; Ncrp80 -- details in our Chapter 22, Part 2). In other words, supra-linearity is not a characteristic which appeared only with the addition of the 1978-1982 observations. And, according to RERF analysts (Shi87; Shi88), it is still showing up in the revised database when they add some observations through 1985 (see this chapter, Part 2). …”

https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/ch...tml#tab14b

Go81
Gofman, John W., October 1981. RADIATION AND HUMAN HEALTH. (San Francisco, CA 94109: Sierra Club Books, 730 Polk Street.) Available also from CNR Books, pob 11207, San Francisco, CA 94101, USA. Price is U.S. 30 dollars. Orders must be prepaid in U.S. dollars. No extra fee for worldwide shipping by surface mail.

Go89a
Gofman, John W., January 1989. "Warning from the A-Bomb Study about Low and Slow Radiation Exposures," letter in HEALTH PHYSICS 56, No.1: 117-118.

Ncrp80
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1980. INFLUENCE OF DOSE AND ITS DISTRIBUTION IN TIME ON DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS FOR LOW-LET RADIATIONS. NCRP Report 64. Prepared by NCRP's Scientific Committee 40. Individual authors are acknowledged in our Chapter 37. (Bethesda, Maryland, USA: NCRP.) Indexed.

Fairlie: " A 100 mSv threshold for radiation effects?"

“…Perhaps the most important of these studies (at least for risks from external exposures) is the Life Span Study of over 120,000 Japanese A-bomb survivors. The graph below reproduced from Preston et al (2003) shows the risks of solid cancers among the Japanese survivors. The data points are the mean of each dose category; the solid line is the weighted moving average of data points; the dotted line = ± 1 SE, and the dashed line is a linear fit to all data 0 – 2 Sv. This reveals 5 data points below 100 mSv.

“Interestingly this graph appears to suggest that radiation rusks are supralinear between 250 and 350 mSv, ie even more hazardous than a linear model would suggest….”

https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-100-ms...n-effects/
 
Reply
#34
Enenews July 9, 2014

"Dr. Herbert Abrams, Harvard and Stanford University professor of radiology & principal researcher for the National Research Council’s study ‘Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation’ who testified before Congress about its conclusions: “'The underlying premise that has to be considered as you talk about radioactivity, the water and people being exposed to it, is that the effects of radiation are cumulative [...] what is the turning point? [...] common sense is to avoid radiation as much as you can.” [...] With the radiation from Fukushima predicted to [linger here for years] Abrams said the potential dose should not be dismissed as negligible. “Am I concerned? Yes I am. And that’s because I know radiation pretty well [...] It shakes up the cell and it goes after the genetic material … The bottom line is that (radiation) is a carcinogenic agent [...] there is increased risk. But how do you translate that into an understandable discussion of what’s going to happen to guys on their surfboards? I don’t know.” [...] Abrams issues his own warning about those scientists declaring the low-level radiation to be absolutely “safe” [...] “Physicists, or at least some of them, are the people in the nuclear industry itself. They play down (the risks) at such low doses, but they never talk about it as being cumulative'.....”

https://web.archive.org/web/201509151656...lly-scared
 
Reply
#35
• Jebus
July 20, 2014 at 9:34 pm

Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude

Date: November 13, 2012
Source: University of South Carolina

Summary: Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded, reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years. Variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...134224.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/201504080239...ent-551874

Jebus
July 20, 2014 at 9:38 pm

The National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremen¬tal increase in the risk of cancer.” The Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.” The Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer … any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” The National Academy of Sciences, in its “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,” says, “… it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ….”
Long story short, “One can no longer speak of a ‘safe’ dose level,” as Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. Marvin Resnikoff said in their report “No dose too low,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/23-1

https://web.archive.org/web/201504080239...ent-551883

Jebus
July 20, 2014 at 9:41 pm

The military says:

Commanders Brief Low Level Radiation OEG

Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer.

The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:

ACE Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level Radiological Hazards during Military Operations, 2 AUG 96

AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99

FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01

JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00

NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00

USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation...owerpoint/

https://web.archive.org/web/201504080239...ent-551888

Jebus
July 20, 2014 at 9:45 pm

What Is The ACTUAL Risk for Pacific Coast Residents from Fukushima Radiation?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/f...coast.html

There are over 50 links to studies in this report. Citations abound

https://web.archive.org/web/201504080239...ent-551893
 
Reply
#36
The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms

Anders P. Møller
Timothy A. Mousseau
First published: 08 November 2012
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x
Abstract

“Natural levels of radioactivity on the Earth vary by more than a thousand‐fold; this spatial heterogeneity may suffice to create heterogeneous effects on physiology, mutation and selection. We review the literature on the relationship between variation in natural levels of radioactivity and evolution. First, we consider the effects of natural levels of radiation on mutations, DNA repair and genetics. A total of 46 studies with 373 effect size estimates revealed a small, but highly significant mean effect that was independent of adjustment for publication bias. Second, we found different mean effect sizes when studies were based on broad categories like physiology, immunology and disease frequency; mean weighted effect sizes were larger for studies of plants than animals, and larger in studies conducted in areas with higher levels of radiation. Third, these negative effects of radiation on mutations, immunology and life history are inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms. Fourth, we reviewed studies of radiation resistance among taxa. These studies suggest that current levels of natural radioactivity may affect mutational input and thereby the genetic constitution and composition of natural populations. Susceptibility to radiation varied among taxa, and several studies provided evidence of differences in susceptibility among populations or strains. Crucially, however, these studies are few and scattered, suggesting that a concerted effort to address this lack of research should be made.”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...12.00249.x

“…The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down's Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.

“The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

"There's been a sentiment in the community that because we don't see obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to be small and localized, that maybe there aren't any negative effects from low levels of radiation," said Mousseau. "But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."

"It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation," he added. "A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold -- radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand…."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...134224.htm
 
Reply
#37
No hormesis, no threshold.

From "The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms" by
Møller and Mousseau , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x

"...Radiation causes mutations even at the modest levels of natural radiation. There is extensive evidence for naturally high levels of radiation being associated with increased rates of genetic damage, including mutations. This effect was the predominant finding in most studies, showing a small, but highly significant effect size (Tables 1 and 2). In other words, effects of natural radiation are reported at a much higher frequency than would be expected by chance alone. This implies that natural radiation effects like those reported here are frequent and significant. The magnitude of the overall effect was ‘only’ small, accounting for less than 1% of the variance. However, in an evolutionary context even a small effect may have large consequences when considered across the large number of generations of evolutionary time scales. It is important to notice that we found a mean difference in effect size of almost an order of magnitude between animals and plants, suggesting that the sessile habits of plants subject them to chronic radiation. However, the difference in effect size for mutations between animals and plants was not statistically significant, although the difference in mean effects was large, probably due to low statistical power. More studies are required to assess this effect. In addition, reduced levels of migration in plants compared to mammals should result in greater levels of local adaptation in plants. Indeed, recent studies of DNA repair and gene expression in plants in Chernobyl seem to be consistent with such an interpretation (Boubriak et al., 2008; Danchenko et al., 2009; Klubicová et al., 2010). Despite this expectation we still found stronger negative effects of radiation on plants than on animals. Therefore, we can conclude that there is current selection for local adaptation in plants to cope with elevated levels of background radiation. Forster et al. (2002) showed that human mutation rates in naturally radioactive areas were seven times higher than in control regions, at a background radiation level ten times higher than the worldwide average. This is a typical level of radiation in so‐called high‐level radiation areas across the world, and this level of radiation is typically what is reported in the studies reviewed here (Table 1). In addition, Forster et al. (2002) showed that mutations were strongly aggregated at specific locations on the chromosomes that have had an evolutionary history of high mutation rates. This observation provides evidence that these radiation‐associated point mutations are associated with a radiation‐induced increase in the cell's normal mutation mechanisms or a decrease in repair mechanisms at these particular sites (Dubrova et al., 1997).

"Chronic exposure to radiation is associated with significant costs in terms of health. Here we have shown evidence of significant negative effects on immunology, mutation and disease frequency in a large number of studies (Tables 1 and 2). The observed high frequency of negative effects is very unlikely to reflect random chance. The findings reviewed here include reduced levels of antioxidants, weakened immune responses and elevated frequencies of disease including cancer. Antioxidant levels are typically suppressed in irradiated individuals as commonly reported from radiation accidents (e.g. Yablokov, Nesterenko & Nesterenko, 2009). Attar, Kondolousy & Khansari (2007) showed a similar effect on a number of different measures of immunity in humans in Iran exposed to elevated background radiation levels. This implies that elevated incidence of disease in contaminated areas may be caused by effects of radiation on the immune system rather than being a consequence of increased mutation rates directly causing disease. Three epidemiological studies link cancer to elevated levels of background radiation, even after controlling for potentially confounding variables (Ujeno, 1983; Tao et al., 2000; Körblein & Hoffmann, 2006). These findings about disease incidence and natural variation in background radiation have implications for studies of the effects of radiation accidents such as Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi and Three Mile Island. Given that natural levels of radiation typically are much lower than those reported for areas subjected to radiation accidents we can predict that the significant effects reported here for natural radiation will be even stronger in areas that are accidentally contaminated with high levels of radiation.

"There is extensive evidence of radiation‐resistance in bacteria and fungi, but also in higher organisms such as Caenorhabditis elegans, bdelloid rotifers, tardigrades, insects and mice (Table 3). Some of these results, such as the tardigrades, can be explained by an absence of replicating cells after birth. While bacteria and fungi can survive exposure to even 15000 Gy, sustainable levels for Metazoa are much lower. However, it remains interesting that there is significant variation in radio‐resistance even in mammals. Our review showed clear evidence of interspecific differences in resistance to radiation. Resistance to ionizing radiation in Dinococcus radiodurans and bdelloid rotifers appears to be derived from their desiccation resistance (Mattimore & Battista, 1996; Gladyshev & Meselson, 2008). A recent study showed that bacterial biofilms resistant to desiccation and ultraviolet radiation are pre‐adapted to cope with ionizing radiation from Chernobyl (Ragon et al., 2011), apparently because the same underlying mechanisms are responsible for resistance in both cases. In Deinococcus radiodurans there seems to have been an accumulation of genes involved in resistance to radiation that allowed it to cope successfully with different kinds of environmental stresses (or vice versa) compared to a closely related radio‐susceptible bacterium (Omelchenko et al., 2005). Even large amounts of DNA damage in D. radiodurans can be repaired without leaving any obvious trace of mutations through homologous recombination, use of single‐strand DNA for recombination, regulated DNA replication, and export of damaged nucleotides from the cell for mutation avoidance (Battista et al., 1999; Cox & Battista, 2005).

"The underlying mechanisms responsible for radiation resistance were originally thought to be efficient DNA repair; the current focus has switched towards mechanisms of repair of DNA damage caused by reactive oxygen species. Both desiccation and irradiation result in oxidative stress (França, Panek & Eleutherio, 2007). High levels of reactive oxidative species cause damage to DNA and proteins that require correction through repair (Minton, 1994, 1996; DiRuggiero et al., 1997; Battista et al., 1999). Daly et al. (2004) showed that Deinococcus radiodurans and other radio‐resistant bacteria differ from non‐radio‐resistant species in their level of accumulation of intracellular manganese and low levels of iron; melanin may play a similar role in fungi (Dadachova et al., 2007 and trehalose in cyanobacteria (Shirkey et al., 2003). In experimental settings manganese seems to facilitate recovery from radiation injury. When manganese combines with ligands, the resulting products can act as powerful scavengers of free radicals arising as a consequence of ionizing radiation (Daly, 2009). Because such bacterial cells rely on homologous recombination for rejoining double‐strand breakage of DNA, the presence of multiple copies of the genome in combination with antioxidant protection would allow cells to survive even with multiple double‐strand breakages. It is interesting that it appears that protection mechanisms against reactive oxygen species rather than DNA repair as such is the basis for radio‐resistance in bacteria such as Deinococcus radiodurans. Differences among bacterial taxa in their level of radio‐resistance appear to be related to the importance of manganese in such antioxidant defence (Daly, 2009). Thus, it is probably not a coincidence that interspecific differences in the ability to survive the impact of radiation at Chernobyl are associated with ecological factors closely linked to antioxidant status (Møller & Mousseau, 2007). The antioxidant status of individuals (Bonisoli‐Alquati et al., 2010), and the amount of pheomelanic plumage in birds (Galván, Mousseau & Møller, 2011) predicts the ability to sustain radiation, apparently due to the action of the powerful antioxidant glutathione. The effects of low‐dose radiation reported here emphasise a significant role of oxidative stress at even very low levels of natural background radiation. We hypothesise that limited availability of antioxidants and the associated physiological problems in terms of reduced ability to repair damage to DNA and other molecules may account for such effects.

"Hormesis is defined as a beneficial effect of normal background radiation on life‐history traits such as fecundity and longevity compared to levels achieved in the complete absence of radiation (reviews in Kondo, 1993; Luckey, 1991). If hormetic effects of radiation on fitness exist, we should expect that the optimal level of radiation should increase with background radiation level. If hormesis has evolved as a consequence of local adaptation to specific levels of radiation, we might even find that all populations should perform best at some local level of radiation; exceeding their performance in the absence of radiation. The latter scenario would suggest that fitness should be independent of level of natural background radiation. In either case, we should not expect to find increased mutation rates, impaired immune function, increased incidence of disease and increased mortality in areas with higher levels of normal background radiation. Our findings are clearly inconsistent with a general role for hormesis in adaptation to elevated levels of natural background radiation. We note that some effect sizes reported herein were negative, thereby deviating from this expectation. However, these effects were of a level that would be expected by chance, inconsistent with expectations for a hormesis hypothesis.

?In conclusion, reported rates of mutation caused by natural variation in radiation levels are almost exclusively restricted to studies of humans with only a few studies on other species available. Information on physiology, immunology and disease associated with radiation again are restricted almost exclusively to studies of humans. Note, however, that there is no evidence of radio‐tolerance or radio‐resistance in humans, and there are still no studies of disease and mutation rates in species in which radio‐tolerance or radio‐resistance has been documented. The present review provides evidence for interspecific variation in radio‐tolerance and radio‐resistance in a large number of taxa, suggesting that there has been selection for and evolution of such characteristics. The scarcity of studies on mutations and disease in organisms other than humans clearly should be addressed...."
 
Reply
#38
Eiichiro Ochiai, "The Human Consequences of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accidents", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 38, No. 2, September 28, 2015.

“Eiichiro Ochiai was born in Japan, and educated up to the PhD in Japan. He taught and conducted research in chemistry at college/universities in Japan, the United States, Canada and Sweden. Publications include “Bioinorganic Chemistry, an Introduction” (Allyn and Bacon, 1977), “Bioinorganic Chemistry, a Survey” (Elsevier, 2008), “Chemicals for Life and Living” (Springer Verlag, 2011), and “A Sustainable Human Civilization Beyond ‘Occupy’ Movements” (Kindle, 2011).”

https://apjjf.org/-Eiichiro-Ochiai/4382
 
Reply
#39
Hiroshima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation
By Eiichiro Ochiai

https://books.google.com/books?id=3lq6BA...34&f=false

"Fukushima Radiation Looms" by Eiichiro Ochiai

“…They are unaware of or ignoring the fact that radiation coming from the unavoidable byproducts of the nuclear power operation is indeed incompatible with living organisms.

“This fact, i.e., INCOMPATIBILITY OF RADIATION WITH LIFE, seems to be recognized by the nuclear industry. Hence, the nuclear industry and its associates (termed often ‘nuclear mafia’) are desperately trying to cover up the evil health effects of radiation. They have tried, and have so far been able to cover them up relatively successfully. This has been possible, only because the evil effects are basically subtle, not felt by the person affected, and have so far been confined to relatively small areas and few people (compared with the vast area of the entire earth and the majority of the human race).

“In the following short article we would like to show why radiation is incompatible with life, and hence that the ‘nuclear’ power reactors as well as weapons which produce radioactive material should not be on the earth….”

http://www.newagora.ca/fukushima-radiati...ro-ochiai/
 
Reply
#40
Enenews.com: New study reveals deaths and mutations ”increased sharply’ from exposure to Fukushima contamination, “especially at low doses” — ‘Small’ levels of cesium may be ‘significantly toxic’ — Smithsonian: “In other words, things don’t look good for the animals living around Fukushima”
May 15, 2014

"Smithsonian Magazine, May 14, 2014: Even Tiny Amounts of Radioactive Food Made Caterpillars Become Abnormal Butterflies...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new...66/?no-ist

Nature — Scientific Reports (pdf), Published May 15, 2014:
…Both the mortality and abnormality rates increased sharply, especially at low doses [...] the mortality and abnormality rates increased sharply, especially at low doses. Additionally, there seemed to be no threshold level below which no biological response could be detected. [...] the dose-response data suggests that the relatively small level of artificial cesium from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP may be significantly toxic to some individuals in butterfly populations…”

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04946

https://web.archive.org/web/201509052302...ntly-toxic

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/05/17/low-...fukushima/
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 2 Guest(s)