• 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
#81
Radiation and Its Effect on Living Organisms
Eiichiro Ochiai
April 4, 2014

“…Y. I. Bandazevsky, a Belarusian doctor, studied several hundred corpses of people killed by radiation contamination.9 He measured radioactivity due to cesium (Cs)-137 in individual organs. These studies showed that the radioisotope Cs-137 tends to be concentrated in certain organs and tissues. It is most concentrated in the thyroid gland, followed by skeletal muscle, the small intestine, the myocardium, the brain, the spleen, the kidneys, and the liver. It tends to accumulate more in children than adults…”

https://www.juniata.edu/offices/juniata-...iation.pdf
 
Reply
#82
Iraq : silent death
Author: Christian P. Scherrer.

Publisher: Pulau Pinang Universiti Sains Malaysia 2011.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/iraq-sile.../769072173

https://books.google.com/books/about/Ira...ylCgAAQBAJ
 
Reply
#83
Trump-Perry DOE Plan To Reclassify High Level Nuclear Waste As Low Level Through An Orwellian Stroke Of A Pen – Comment By Wed. Night 11:59 PM Eastern Time (January 9th)

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...nuary-9th/
 
Reply
#84
State opposes federal plan to reclassify Hanford nuclear waste

https://komonews.com/news/local/state-op...lear-waste

High-Level Radioactive Waste

"“Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct from nuclear reactors. The actual product is forever deadly radioactive waste.”

—Michael Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes

"Highly radioactive wastes include solid irradiated nuclear fuel assemblies (euphemistically called “spent” or “used” by the industry that creates them) and liquid high-level radioactive wastes resulting from the “reprocessing” (extraction of fissile plutonium and uranium) of solid irradiated fuel rods. The vast majority of highly radioactive wastes generated in the U.S. come from commercial nuclear power reactors.

"Irradiated nuclear fuel rods discharged from commercial nuclear power plants are highly radioactive, a million times more so than when they were first loaded into a reactor core as “fresh” fuel. If unshielded, irradiated nuclear fuel just removed from a reactor core could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to a person standing three feet away in just seconds. Even after decades of radioactive decay, a few minutes unshielded exposure could deliver a lethal dose.

"Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millenia.

"Highly radioactive wastes are dangerous and deadly wherever they are, whether stored at reactor sites (indoors in pools or outdoors in dry casks); transported on the roads, rails, or waterways; or dumped on Native American lands out West.

"NIRS strives to prevent the generation of highly radioactive wastes in the first place, and to isolate what’s already been generated from the living environment."

https://www.nirs.org/radioactive-waste/hlw/

Don’t Waste America!

Source: The Waste Control Specialists
Overview

"Our Don’t Waste America campaign focuses on preventing decades of massive and dangerous high-level radioactive waste—irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors—transport across the United States on our rails, roads, and waterways.

"Such large-scale transport, which could affect 100 million Americans who live within a mile or two of proposed transport routes, would occur if efforts to revive the proposed scientifically-indefensible Yucca Mountain, Nevada waste dump are accomplished, or if a Centralized or Consolidated “Interim” Storage (CIS) site for high-level radioactive waste is created….”

https://www.nirs.org/campaigns/dont-waste-america/
State opposes federal plan to reclassify Hanford nuclear waste

https://komonews.com/news/local/state-op...lear-waste

"Comment here till January 9, 2019, 1159 pm Eastern Time (DC, NYC, etc):

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=D..._0001-3696

"This also opens up the door for the United States becoming dumping ground for the world’s nuclear waste. Think it can’t happen? It’s been underway:

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...of-nuclear
"
 
Reply
#85
« Dangers of ionising radiation shown in fruit fly experiments in the 1920s

“No safe dose of ionising radiation – Dr John Gofman »

"High rate of anencephaly in area around Hanford nuclear facility
'New data shows babies missing brains at 2,500% national rate in county by nuclear site — Mother: Officials 'shut me down the minute I mentioned Hanford!… WE NEED ANSWERS!' — Experts: No birth defect is more extreme; It’s the most significant impact of radiation on developing embryos

(AUDIO) http://enenews.com/79334?utm_source=feed...gy+News%29

'Nothing [is] more extreme than anencephaly' –Dr Michael Grodin, Boston U. School of Medicine
‘Fatal Birth Defects Surge’ …”

https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com...-facility/

Nuclear power station cancer warning: Breast cancer rates are FIVE TIMES higher at Welsh plant - and twice as high at Essex and Somerset sites, experts reveal

• Studies looked at rates of various cancers in people living close to Trawsfynydd, Bradwell and Hinkley Point power stations
• At the Welsh plant breast cancer rates were five times higher than expected
• At Bradwell and Hinkley Point they were twice as high as UK average
• Researchers warned their 'very clear' findings are 'remarkable'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic...eveal.html
 
Reply
#86
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912
301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291
nirsnet@nirs.org
http://www.nirs.org

NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION

"There are many reputable scientists who believe, based on their research, that there is no threshold for radiation damage to humans- no dose which is harmless. These are just a few of their words:

“'There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy s zero'--Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, dubbed the father of Health Physics.1

“’...there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for quantifying such a safe level is in vain.’—Rosalie Bertell, PhD.

“In 1940, several members of the US Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection ‘proposed that the [radiation exposure] standard be lowered by a factor of five in response to the accumulating evidence that ANY amount of radiation, no matter how small, can cause genetic damage, injuring future generations.’ Gioacchino Failla argued against the lowering of the standards saying that ‘if genetic damage were to be a consideration for standard-setters, then logically no radiation exposure should be allowed.’3

“’...the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate...the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.’ Dr. John.W. Gofman 4

“'’One thing we should take from this (1991 study of Oak Ridge weapons workers by Steve Wing, et al.) is that there isn’t any safe level of radiation exposure...’ Dr. Carl Shy 5
.
“’The reanalysis (of Hanford worker data) provides no support for the idea that...there is reduced cancer effectiveness of radiation at low dose levels...’ Drs. G.W. Kneale and A. Stewart 6
.
“’There is evidence that single tracks of all types of ionizing radiation can induce a variety of damage including DNA double-strand breaks which are believed to be critical lesions in radiation exposure. There is also a body of experimental evidence that argues against an error-free DNA repair system operating at low doses of ionizing radiation that might result in a dose threshold for the induction of gene and chromosomal mutations.’ MP Little and CR Muirhead.7

“’'An important feature of alpha irradiation is that, no matter how low the total dose to the whole body, substantial dose of radiation (approx. .5 Gy) is delivered to an individual cell if it is traversed by a single alpha particle.’ E Wright 8
.
“The U.S. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation concludes that, despite some evidence of a partial repair mechanism, recent low-dose radiation data "do not contradict the hypothesis, at least with respect to cancer induction and hereditary genetic effects, that the frequency of such effects increases with low-level radiation as a linear, no-threshold function of the dose." (National Research Council BEIR V 1990)

“Works Cited:

“1.”Cancer and low level ionizing radiation” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. September 1978.

“2.No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. Women’s Educational Press, Toronto, Ontario. 1985: 45. isbn 0-88961-092-4

“3 Caufield, Catherine. Multiple Exposures: Chronicles of the Radiation Age. Harper and Row, New York. 1989: 48. isbn 0-06-015900-6.

“4.Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. 1990:18-16, 18-18. Isbn 0-932682-89-8.

“5 Garloch, Karen. “Repeated low radiation doses hike leukemia risk, UNC study finds.” The Charlotte Observer. Wednesday, March 20, 1991.

“6 Reanalysis of Hanford Data: 1944-1986 Deaths.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 23:371-389 (1993).

“7.Curvilinearity in the Dose-Response Curve for Cancer in Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 105 (6): 1505. (1997)

“8.Chromosomal instability in the descendants of unirradiated surviving cells after alpha particle irradiation.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.95: 5730 (1998).

“The following are additional studies are not quoted above:

“Epidemiology:

“Stewart, A.M., et al. ”Radiation Exposures of Hanford Workers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes.” Health Physics. Nov (1977).

“Stewart, A.M, et al. “Delayed Effects of A-bomb radiation: a review of recent mortality rates and risk estimates for five-year survivors.” Journal Epidemiology and Community Health. 36(2):80-6 (1982).

“Morgenstern, H., et al. “Epidemiologic Study to Determine Possible Adverse Effects to Rocketdyne/Atomic International Workers from Exposure to Ionizing Radiation” Report by the UCLA School of Public Health. September, 1997.

“Wing S., et al. “Mortality Among Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.” JAMA, 26 (11):1397 1991) .

“Cell studies:

“Lorimore S. A., et. al. “Chromosomal Instability in the descendants of unirradiated surviving cells after alpha particle irradiation.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 95: 5730-5733 (1998). (Eric Wright is co-author)

“Kadhim M. A., et al. “Transmission of chromosomal instability after plutonium alpha particle irradiation.” Nature. 355:738 (1992). (Eric Wright is co-author)

“**Many more published studies (especially cell studies) and entire books show scientific evidence for the tightening of radiation standards in order to adequately protect human health. Those listed above are in no way wholly representative, but merely provided as reference.** "

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/...fedose.pdf
 
Reply
#87
Atomic Radiation is more harmful, to girls and women

https://gender-summit.com/attachments/ar..._GS9Eu.pdf

Japan admits Fukushima workers dying of cancer!
October 20, 2015

http://www.blindbatnews.com/2015/10/japa...ncer/42907

NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE
http://www.nirs.org

NIRS FACT SHEET—Disproportionate
Impacts of Ionizing Radiation

Women & Children Require More Protection from
Ionizing Radiation than Men

“…first regulations were made, it was because
soldiers and scientists in the U.S. (virtually all
male to begin with) were working on building
nuclear weapons. The first standards were
‘allowable’ limits for exposing these men to a
known hazard.

"Radiation Levels v Dose

"Geiger counters and other devices can detect
levels of radiation and concentrations of
radioactivity. It is much more difficult to say how
much of that energy has impacted a living body
(dose). Dose is calculated based on body size,
weight, distance from the source and assumptions
about biological impact. Gender is not factored in
a typical determination of a dose. Historically the
"dose receptors" were male, and were of a small
age range. It is somewhat understandable that the
‘Reference Man’v was based on a "Standard
Man"--a guy of a certain height, weight and age.
Clearly such assumptions are no longer valid
when there is such a striking gender difference--
40% to 100% greater likelihood of cancer or
cancer death (depending on the age) for females,
compared to males.vi

"Not Only Cancer

"Radiation harm includes not only cancer and
leukemia, but reduced immunity, reduced fertility,
increases in other diseases including heart disease,
birth defects including heart defects, other
mutations (both heritable and not). When damage
is catastrophic to a developing embryo,
spontaneous abortion or miscarriage of a
pregnancy may result.vi..."

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/...arm2pg.pdf
 
Reply
#88
Dr. John W. Gofman
His Life, and Research on the Health Effects
of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

by David T. Ratcliffe
23 September 2015

"...The Gofman-Tamplin Reports

“…’I took the] 178 pages of scientific stuff ... over to the Information Division at Livermore Lab. They nearly had a conniption fit. They had heard all the flack about this….’…”

https://ratical.org/ratitorsCorner/09.23.15.html#s11
 
Reply
#89
Graph from:

The Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium
Steven Starr
Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program
Helen Caldicott Foundation Fukushima Symposium
New York Academy of Medicine, 11 March 2013

https://ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/...Starr.html

Cf.:  https://nuclear-news.net/2018/10/18/gend...t-project/


Attached Files Image(s)
   
 
Reply
#90
Correlation between ;location of breast cancer clusters and
location of nuclear power plants <img src="https://goo.gl/images/YsfPnn”>

   

from:
WHY MARIN COUNTY HAS THE HIGHEST BREAST CANCER RATE IN THE UNITED STATES

http://berkeleycitizen.org/radiation/radiation1.htm
 
Reply
#91
Table of Contents of Iraq: Silent Death

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy13pdf...332398.pdf [this two page index is upside down]

Subjects: 

636 pages https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/162274258?...=176856920
 
Reply
#92
(12-22-2018, 05:37 PM)antirad Wrote:
(12-22-2018, 05:20 PM)Code Wrote: A key question; why do nuke fallout radionuclides cause metabolic disturbance when background radiation does not?
This is a false premise.  Radioactive polonium does cause metabolic disturbance and it is part of background radiation.

Code raises an important question here.  Polonium was a component of the radioactive fallout from the 60's bomb testing; one of many man-made radionuclides.  It was absorbed by nicotine plants that turned tobacco cigarettes into cancer sticks.  It was not a part of Earth's background radiation until it was added by nuclear fallout.  The nuclear industry has been adding man-made radionuclides for some 80 years to the Earth's radiation background and now says with a straight face that they are all just a part of background radiation.  The amount of polonium found to cause cancer was very small, indeed, only a small amount of polonium was added by 60's fallout and it is an insignificant portion of Earth's current background radiation levels.  The American Cancer Society proceeded to demonize cigarettes and smoking has dropped from three quarters of Americans smoking to less than a quarter of Americans smoking today.  One would expect that lung cancer rates would fall as well, but they have not, and instead lung cancer rates even among non-smokers have increased significantly.  Of course, we are all still breathing in small amounts of polonium whether we smoke or not.  It is the nuclear industry that keeps saying that radioactive particulate matter from man's nuclear activities is less than the background radiation all around us and is safe because background radiation is safe.  Clearly, polonium at levels far below background levels cause metabolic disturbance.  The American Cancer Society did not know or say that the polonium was not natural to nicotine plants and they didn't mount a campaign against the real source of polonium, the nuclear industry.  If we don't make a distinction between man-made radiation and the so called background radiation then the nuclear industry can continue to add man-made radionuclides to the environment and claim that it's safe because it's now part of background radiation.  Background radiation before the Atomic Age was probably safe enough but it is no longer safe given the addition of man-made radionuclides.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#93
“,,,Nuclear power is no use whatsoever against global warming, being in reality, highly carbon emissions intensive, and prohibitively expensive, even if it were any use. It is also intrinsically connected to nuclear weapons, and produces unfixable radioactive trash.

“But, from the climate point of view, what is arguably worse, is that the nuclear industry takes money, human energy, and attention, away from the real solutions – energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is, therefore, not only dangerous to life on this planet, but a very dangerous distraction away from what really needs to be done.”

https://nuclear-news.net/2018/12/15/clim...or-jan-19/
 
Reply
#94
Storage of nuclear waste a 'global crisis': report

https://www.france24.com/en/20190130-sto...sis-report
 
Reply
#95
Antirad, some vetting of this scientific bibliography seems to be required If, as you say, the purpose of this thread is to create a scientific bibliography.  Some of the credible scientific researchers referenced might be offended to be lumped in with ENENews posters and conspiracy theorists.  

http://caferadlab.com/thread-3074-post-6...ml#pid6730
Quote:I am reading a book and it says that healing comes not from a person's rational brain. That trauma is stored in the body and healing has to come from freeing the subconscious. This means that healing is initiated by the self and not by another. And probably knowledge is also self initiated and why it is so difficult to get people to accept scientific studies. Also, because the worst studies are generated and paid for by industry which doesn't care about the truth.
Gaining knowledge requires work that most people are too lazy to do. They believe what others say without questioning because they lack discernment.  Most people don’t have access to scientific studies because most research is behind pay-walls.  Most studies are paid for by government and industries but that doesn’t negate their value.  


http://caferadlab.com/thread-3074-post-6...ml#pid6757
Quote: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"
These quotes are from ENENews posters that are referring to information from Bob Nichols at Veterans Today.  Many question the interpretation and methodology of his radiation studies. Many consider VT to be a disinformation site, speculative, and not a credible scientific resource.  Official government sources report that background radiation has doubled from the addition of 60’s bomb testing fallout and the accident at Chernobyl.


http://caferadlab.com/thread-3074-post-6...ml#pid6866
Quote:Leuren Moret does not have a depopulation agenda. Quite to the contrary. She tried to save Japan and the rest of the world seven years before the Fukushima disaster. As a geoscientist it was obvious to her that there have been many nuclear accidents in Japan and many catastrophic earthquakes. …

The purpose of this thread is to create a scientific bibliography, not to argue over straw arguments.
There's a lot of controversy and concern about the legitimacy of Moret's contributions.
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2018/0...moret.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...en_K_Moret
Quote:The article begins with calling Moret a "Geoscientist". Moret has a BS in Geology and no known work experience as a Geologist in any capacity. She has no peer reviewed published papers in Geology.


http://caferadlab.com/thread-3074-post-6...ml#pid6998
Quote:My position agrees with all the anti-nuclear scientists and medical doctors that have proven that there is no threshold, no radiation hormesis, and that the response to radiation exposure is supralinear. This position is the position of someone who is totally anti-nuclear, someone who is against nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and mining for either nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

I agree with Dr. Maziar’s comment to the EPA on July 25, 2016:

http://envinfo.org/EPA%20Radioactivity%2...202016.htm

from her website which is not pro-nuclear in any way:

http://envinfo.org/
The link to Dr. Maziar’s comment to the EPA is broken.  The correct link is:
http://envinfo.org/EPA%20Radioactivity%2...202016.htm
Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar was a frequent poster at ENENews.  While there were some experts that posted to ENENews, as a whole, it was only a news aggregate website reporting on the Fukushima nuclear disaster that included social media commentary forums where many people voiced their opinions.  

It is my opinion that some citations in this thread constitute disinformation which confuses truth found in the many citations of actual scientific studies and research.  We want CRL to be a credible source of information and not another ENE rife with misinformation, disinformation and combativeness. A more careful selection of/vetting of credible resources would be appreciated.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#96
Experts: 1959 meltdown worse than Three Mile

Rocket research site in Calif. has been focus of health studies

“…the independent advisory panel said the incident released nearly 459 times more radiation than a similar one at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island in 1979…”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15158753/ns/us...FPNJc1lB0I

Here is the article and the sources for the 500% increase in background radiation:

https://agrdailynews.com/2014/03/27/back...ming-from/

“Prof. Chris Busby and other nuclear professionals discuss how the background radiation is increasing all over the globe due to the huge radiation releases, leaks and nuclear plant accidents year after year of radioactive man made elements.

“The increase in background radiation documented below is due to DU weapons, nuclear plant accidents, plutonium releases, uranium mining and many other sources, most of which are kept secret, hidden or covered up.

http://www.llrc.org

"“A short movie clip from the movie On The Beach, about background radiation increasing..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj8qnt4CTFE

“HISTORY OF BACKGROUND RADIATION 1950 To 2014
Via i know March 26, 2014

"TIME PERIOD YEARLY BACKGROUND EXTERNAL RADIATION DOSE

"– 1950’s, average background radiation was 1 mSv (and maximum limit for public)

"– 1960’s, Due to 2,400 open air atomic bomb tests radioactive fallout, it doubled to 2 mSv

https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4402/

"– 1994, average background radiation, Chernobyl, TMI, other accidents and dumping 3 mSv

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/safe-0105.html

"– 2002, average background radiation, more accidents, spills, ocean/air dumping 3.6 mSv

http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Document...man_fs.pdf

"– 2014, average background radiation, Fukushima mega disaster and more dumping 6.2 mSv (max. limit for public has been raised 600%)

"…the average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 millirem (6.2 milliSieverts).”
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/...ctive.html

https://agrdailynews.com/2014/03/27/back...ming-from/
 
Reply
#97
World's 250,000-Ton Nuclear Waste Stockpiles a 'Global Crisis'

https://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-waste-s...28994.html
 
Reply
#98
Antirad, from one of your sources:

https://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documen...man_fs.pdf
Background Annual Average doses to the American public
   

2 mrem/yr from nuclear energy, fallout, air travel, occupational, etc. out of a 361 mrem /yr average annual total.  
 
Pro-nukers argue that the quantity of radiation added is insignificant to the amount of our annual dose and use this excuse to dilute more radio-nuclides into the background radiation.  I wouldn’t argue about the amount that background radiation has increased because no quantitative or qualitative baselines were ever made, background radiation varies by location, testing equipment varies in sensitivity, and the nuclear industry is the gatekeeper to most radiation data that has been collected.  

As an anti-nuker, I argue that it is the quality of source that has caused an added risk to health.  The risk from internalizing hot particles of man-made radio-nuclides is quite high yet a reading of background radiation fails to collect useful data on the quantity and quality of hot particles.  In order to detect hot particles, a volumetric measurement must be made.  A person's lungs are doing just that.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#99
Those are just averages and published by a government who wants to keep making nuclear bombs. Even so these averages are from July 2002, 9 years before the terrible meltdowns at Fukushima. Other nuclear facilities were also damaged at the same time in Japan--those nuclear facilities were damaged beyond repair The fallout circled the earth every 40 days and settled on the earth in very uneven patterns. The fallout especially comes down during rainfall or snow or sea spray. And it only takes one hot particle to cause a genetic mutation. There are already over 6,000 genetic diseases among humans that are inherited by future generations and passed down to offspring for generations.

The nanoparticles from depleted uranium weapons or Hanford and other nuclear waste or from nuclear energy reactors every day but especially every time they change the fuel cause the most mutated babies in the original locations, but those nuclear spread elsewhere. even worldwide.

Of course there is extremely wide variation between all the over 2,000 nuclear isotopes between a number of different variables. But even the ancient peoples knew that areas of natural uranium caused death. And the cosmic radiation in Australia is much higher there than near the equator and higher in higher altitudes.

Radiation is inimical to life and is not necessary for life. There are many chemical reactions in the human body, and all radiation from the lowest level acts in synergy with toxic chemicals that is the whole is greater than the sum of the radiation and a toxic chemical.
 
Reply
(02-01-2019, 02:19 PM)antirad Wrote: Those are just averages and published by a government who wants to keep making nuclear bombs.  

Oh, I agree, the nuke industry controls the narrative and the numbers that say one thing and mean another.

Even so these averages are from July 2002, 9 years before the terrible meltdowns at Fukushima.

Yes, unfortunately the actual emissions composition and quantity went grossly unmeasured and the best case scenario model was released to the public.  

Other nuclear facilities were also damaged at the same time in Japan--those nuclear facilities were damaged beyond repair  

Tepco let the focus on Fuku hide all the other damage from public view.

The fallout circled the earth every 40 days and settled on the earth in very uneven patterns.  The fallout especially comes down during rainfall or snow or sea spray.  And it only takes one hot particle to cause a genetic mutation.  There are already over 6,000 genetic diseases among humans that are inherited by future generations and passed down to offspring for generations.

The Fuke plumes heavily contaminated parts of Japan.  SPEEDI data wasn't used in making evacuation decisions and many people were evacuated into a plume, no doubt radiation then played a role in the stress on evacuees. Fuku fallout continues to add to our cumulative dose.  

The nanoparticles from depleted uranium weapons or Hanford and other nuclear waste or from nuclear energy reactors every day but especially every time they change the fuel cause the most mutated babies in the original locations, but those nuclear spread elsewhere. even worldwide.

Of course there is extremely wide variation between all the over 2,000 nuclear isotopes between a number of different variables.  But even the ancient peoples knew that areas of natural uranium caused death.  And the cosmic radiation in Australia is much higher there than near the equator and higher in higher altitudes.

And the new heavier atomic weight elements will cause death and destruction.

Radiation is inimical to life and is not necessary for life.  There are many chemical reactions in the human body, and all  radiation from the lowest level acts in synergy with toxic chemicals that is the whole is greater than the sum of the radiation and a toxic chemical.

Not all radiation is the same thing.  I think you mean ionizing radiation. Along with the chemical body, humans have an electrical body.  We're built pretty tough but the cumulative effects of all the toxic elements and chemicals are wearing us out faster.  
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)