• 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
#41
Eiichiro Ochiai, Hirochima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation (2014), p, 201.

“It might be pointed out that a high or low dose of radiation has nothing to do with the strength of radiation, but, rather, represents the number of radiation particles. The strength of radiation is dependent on the kinetic energy of the radiation particle. In other words, low-level radiation would produce the same kind of effects on biomolecules as high-level radiation, only that the number of affected areas would be smaller.”
 
Reply
#42
Killer 'hot particle': Sellafield coast 'like Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones'
Chris Busby
20th March 2017

“,,,There is no single measure of 'radiation'…

“Plutonium-241 is a major effluent from Sellafield, a beta emitter with a half-life of just 14 years turning into the alpha emitter Americium-241 with a half-life of 432 years….

“So what about the individual particles? The one in the picture is about 50 microns diameter. Marco says the XRF suggests about 50% Americium and perhaps 20% Plutonium. I can use these figures to calculate that the activity of the particle itself is about 150,000 Bq of alpha radiation and about 500,000 Bq of beta radiation.

“This is a single particle of diameter slightly smaller than the average human hair, invisible to the naked eye. Such a particle is easily resuspended in the air by wind, and indeed will automatically fly itself into the air as a result of the electrostatic charge it builds up as it emits charge in the form of beta and alpha radiation.

“That such material is brought ashore over kilometre distances by 'sea-to-land' transfer was discovered by scientists from Harwell in the 1980s. Plutonium from Sellafield has been measured in childrens' teeth right across England [2].

“Radiation levels on Sellafield beach 50 times inland levels…”

https://theecologist.org/2017/mar/20/kil...sion-zones

Wolves of Water: A Study Constructed from Atomic Radiation, Morality, Epidemiology, Science, Bias, Philosophy and Death Paperback – Import, January 1, 2007
by Chris C. Busby (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Water-Cons...1897761260

First Tuesday 01 11 1983 Windscale The Nuclear Laundry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...QmFeAGCpC0

Radioactive waste: Dumped and Forgotten

“…It discusses the effects of sea dumping of radioactive waste on the health of people living on the local coasts, like the Irish Sea and the Baltic Sea, which is the most radioactive sea in the world….

“…they balance childhood cancer cases against the advantages of cheaply disposing of nuclear waste….”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaOX2rW0gc
 
Reply
#43
freebywill
January 5, 2017 at 2:04 pm

On the Unique DNA Damage Done by Ionizing Radiation-Nuclear Materials (and on Metting, Hultgren, et.al. Misleading the US Congress in this Matter)

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...is-matter/

" As explained to US Congress in September by Dr. Weatherwax, Ph.D. in biochemistry: “To date, there are no studies that have been able to establish with sufficient certainty a threshold level of radiation below which a risk of cancer is zero, despite decades of research in this area."
The US DOE’s own Los Alamos National [Nuclear] Lab (LANL) wrote the following in 1995, several years before the Dept. of Energy’s “Low Dose” program begin. It clearly shows that nuclear discharges are lethal and hence criminal. Thus, the almost 20 year long “low dose” program never should have been funded by the Dept. of Energy in the first place. Any funding should have been NIH or CDC. From LANL, 1995: “Although single-strand breaks, abasic sites, and base alterations are induced by both ionizing radiation and normal metabolic processes, one particularly dangerous type of DNA lesion, the double-strand break, is induced preferentially by ionizing radiation. This is due to the manner in which radiation creates radical species within the cell, versus that of metabolic processes. "

[ huge article, very informative ]

https://web.archive.org/web/201701061638...ent-812923

freebywill
January 5, 2017 at 2:06 pm ·

It has been estimated from cell-culture studies that approximately twenty to forty double-strand breaks occur per genome at 100 rad of exposure. At that rate, exposures equivalent to ordinary background radiation (typically about 0.3 rad per year) should produce only one double-strand break per ten cells per year… A double-strand break is usually a mess, and repairing it can be problematic. Even a fairly clean double-strand break, wherein the two backbones are broken directly opposite from each other, results in at least a one-base-pair deletion and a disruption of the linkage between the two DNA segments. The passage of densely ionizing particles, such as alpha particles or neutrons, may break several proximal DNA molecules and cause base damage within each strand that can span several nanometers, or fifteen to twenty base pairs. Not surprisingly, the damaged bases are often excised as the free DNA ends are made ready for repair. The excision permanently removes bases. Simple rejoining of the exposed DNA ends is probably the major mechanism for the repair of double-strand breaks, but this mecha-nism would result in a loss of genetic information…

https://web.archive.org/web/201701061638...ent-812924
 
Reply
#44
Japan Professor: ‘Really shocked’ they found contaminated fish by U.S. coast — Urgent situation to get samples, but stopped by Customs — They need to understand just how critical this is (VIDEO)
: October 2nd, 2013

Title: Joint Tuna Survey in Pacific
Source: NHK Newsline
Date: Sept. 30, 2013

"Professor Hideo Yamazaki, Kinki University: We estimated concentration levels to be so low they wouldn’t be detectable in the U.S., but the fact they found contaminated fish off the coast of the U.S. really shocked us […]

"NHK: Researchers at Stanford University in April sent twenty 3-gram slices of tuna to Japan, but Customs agents at Kansai International Airport stopped them. They said proper documentation was missing. […]
Yamazaki: This is an urgent situation. We need Customs officials to understand just how critical this is, and facilitate the timely transportation of materials that need to be studied."

https://web.archive.org/web/201503182133...his-is-and

Nuclear Expert: Plutonium from Fukushima in Pacific fish presents health risk — Study: “Long-distance transport” of Fukushima-sourced plutonium should be addressed

October 3rd, 2013 at 2:37 pm ET
By ENENews

"Georgia Straight (Canada), Oct. 2, 2013 (Emphasis Added): [...] Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers. [...] That could be the toll, [Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear-policy lecturer at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said in a phone interview], if all factors are taken into account, including: future fish consumption; highly damaging isotopes that were released in the disaster but aren’t being monitored, such as strontium 90 and plutonium 239; consumption of contaminated fish caught in the entire Pacific; and research suggesting that radiation causes many more cancers than official formulas predict. [...] “Apologists say it’s a large ocean and dilution is the solution to pollution [...] Dilution actually does nothing except expose a larger population.” [...] The cancer numbers also don’t include other possible health impacts from radiation in the fish, such as heart disease, stillbirths, and genetic damage to subsequent generations. [...]

"Release of Plutonium Isotopes into the Environment from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident, July 31, 2013: [...] the contamination situation within the 30 km zone around the plant remains unknown. A recent numerical modeling study indicated that Pu contamination originating from the FDNPP accident could be present in marine sediments near Fukushima inside the 30 km zone. Further studies on the determination of Pu isotopes in seawater and sediments within the 30 km zone are required to make a more comprehensive assessment on the environmental impact of the FDNPP accident and to understand the marine environmental behavior of Pu isotopes derived from the FDNPP accident. [...] the following aspects should be addressed in future studies: [...] the possibility of Pu release into the ocean from the direct discharge of highly radioactive liquid waste remains unknown. Considering the fact that a continuing release of radionuclides to the sea from June 2011 until September 2012 has been reported, long-term monitoring of Pu activity and isotopic composition in seawater, sediment and marine organisms is critical to strengthen consumer confidence in seafood safety. […] Highly sensitive particle analytical techniques for Pu isotopes should be developed to verify the possible long-distance transport of the FDNPP-sourced Pu isotopes in the environment.

See also: Study: "Fuel materials" introduced to Pacific Ocean via drains of Fukushima plant resulting in potentially serious contamination of marine environment"

https://web.archive.org/web/201503182050...-addressed

Fukushima Cover-Up: Extraordinary amount of kids have thyroid cancer — Officials say NOT caused by Fukushima since Chernobyl’s cancers took 4-5 yrs to appear — Yet data shows it started soon after ’86 meltdown… number of cases still rising 25 years later

September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By ENENews

"No cancers found until 4-5 years after nuclear disaster?

"Kyodo, June 5, 2013: Researchers at Fukushima Medical University [...] said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis. They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later. [...]

"Wikipedia: As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole, but these cancers are not attributed to radiation from Fukushima [...] if Chernobyl is anything to go by the increase in thyroid cancer rates won’t begin until approximately 4–5 years after the accident.

"Actual data shows cancers 'occurred almost immediately within 1 year'

"Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Fukushima, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): “12 out of 174.000 children” [...] is much higher than that seen in the Chernobyl incident [...] If 15 more likely cases were taken account of, the thyroid cancer incident rate among Fukushima children would be about 7.8/100.000/year, extraordinarily a high rate. (Note: this number is still an underestimate. This number would he 21/100,0110/y if the data is more properly analyzed). The authority denies that they were caused by the radiation released from the TEPCo NPP on the basis that thyroid cancer would emerge only 4-5 years after such an incident. However, the data on the Chernobyl incident show that thyroid cancer did show up even just one year later (see Fig. 14.4) [...]

""Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Chernobyl, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): [...] a few cases of thyroid cancer seem to have occurred almost immediately within 1 year. In children, the incidence [...] has kept increasing, even after 25 years. A similar trend has been observed for the groups aged 15 years or more (Ukraine report 2011). This continuous rise suggests that radiation sources other than the short-lived I-131, such as I-129 and Cs-137 may also be involved. In a highly contaminated area. Gomel of Belams, the annual incidence of thyroid cancers among children 2-18 years of age in 1998 was 58 times higher than that in 1973 [...]

"See also: Japan Professor: Fukushima crisis is leading to surge in thyroid cancers... First signs of health catastrophe -- NHK: Trend seen in new cancer tests is 'suspicious' (VIDEO)"

https://web.archive.org/web/201503182132...ws-it-appe

Fukushima Cover-Up: Extraordinary amount of kids have thyroid cancer — Officials say NOT caused by Fukushima since Chernobyl’s cancers took 4-5 yrs to appear — Yet data shows it started soon after ’86 meltdown… number of cases still rising 25 years later
Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article
144 comments
________________________________________
No cancers found until 4-5 years after nuclear disaster?
Kyodo, June 5, 2013: Researchers at Fukushima Medical University [...] said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis. They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later. [...]
Wikipedia: As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole, but these cancers are not attributed to radiation from Fukushima [...] if Chernobyl is anything to go by the increase in thyroid cancer rates won’t begin until approximately 4–5 years after the accident.
Actual data shows cancers “occurred almost immediately within 1 year”
Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Fukushima, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): “12 out of 174.000 children” [...] is much higher than that seen in the Chernobyl incident [...] If 15 more likely cases were taken account of, the thyroid cancer incident rate among Fukushima children would be about 7.8/100.000/year, extraordinarily a high rate. (Note: this number is still an underestimate. This number would he 21/100,0110/y if the data is more properly analyzed). The authority denies that they were caused by the radiation released from the TEPCo NPP on the basis that thyroid cancer would emerge only 4-5 years after such an incident. However, the data on the Chernobyl incident show that thyroid cancer did show up even just one year later (see Fig. 14.4) [...]
Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Chernobyl, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): [...] a few cases of thyroid cancer seem to have occurred almost immediately within 1 year. In children, the incidence [...] has kept increasing, even after 25 years. A similar trend has been observed for the groups aged 15 years or more (Ukraine report 2011). This continuous rise suggests that radiation sources other than the short-lived I-131, such as I-129 and Cs-137 may also be involved. In a highly contaminated area. Gomel of Belams, the annual incidence of thyroid cancers among children 2-18 years of age in 1998 was 58 times higher than that in 1973 [...]
See also: Japan Professor: Fukushima crisis is leading to surge in thyroid cancers... First signs of health catastrophe -- NHK: Trend seen in new cancer tests is 'suspicious' (VIDEO)
Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By ENENews

https://web.archive.org/web/201503182132...ws-it-appe

Fukushima Cover-Up: Extraordinary amount of kids have thyroid cancer — Officials say NOT caused by Fukushima since Chernobyl’s cancers took 4-5 yrs to appear — Yet data shows it started soon after ’86 meltdown… number of cases still rising 25 years later
Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article
144 comments
________________________________________
No cancers found until 4-5 years after nuclear disaster?
Kyodo, June 5, 2013: Researchers at Fukushima Medical University [...] said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis. They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later. [...]
Wikipedia: As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole, but these cancers are not attributed to radiation from Fukushima [...] if Chernobyl is anything to go by the increase in thyroid cancer rates won’t begin until approximately 4–5 years after the accident.
Actual data shows cancers “occurred almost immediately within 1 year”
Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Fukushima, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): “12 out of 174.000 children” [...] is much higher than that seen in the Chernobyl incident [...] If 15 more likely cases were taken account of, the thyroid cancer incident rate among Fukushima children would be about 7.8/100.000/year, extraordinarily a high rate. (Note: this number is still an underestimate. This number would he 21/100,0110/y if the data is more properly analyzed). The authority denies that they were caused by the radiation released from the TEPCo NPP on the basis that thyroid cancer would emerge only 4-5 years after such an incident. However, the data on the Chernobyl incident show that thyroid cancer did show up even just one year later (see Fig. 14.4) [...]
Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Chernobyl, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): [...] a few cases of thyroid cancer seem to have occurred almost immediately within 1 year. In children, the incidence [...] has kept increasing, even after 25 years. A similar trend has been observed for the groups aged 15 years or more (Ukraine report 2011). This continuous rise suggests that radiation sources other than the short-lived I-131, such as I-129 and Cs-137 may also be involved. In a highly contaminated area. Gomel of Belams, the annual incidence of thyroid cancers among children 2-18 years of age in 1998 was 58 times higher than that in 1973 [...]
See also: Japan Professor: Fukushima crisis is leading to surge in thyroid cancers... First signs of health catastrophe -- NHK: Trend seen in new cancer tests is 'suspicious' (VIDEO)
Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By ENENews

https://web.archive.org/web/201503182132...ws-it-appe

https://nuclear-news.net/2013/10/02/rapi...of-causes/
 
Reply
#45
Extremely Cautionary Catastrophes: Fukushima And Chernobyl
By Robert Snefjella
28 May, 2016

“…The total amount of radioactive cesium-137 alone, contained in the spent fuel assemblies at Fukushima, is estimated by Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser at the US Department of Energy, as reported by Washingtonsblog.com, and referred to by the author of Allegedly Apparent Blog, Michael Van Broekhoven, to be roughly 85 times the amount released by Chernobyl. [26]…

“Over the last months of 2015 and in 2016, Michael van Broekhoven's Allegedly Apparent Blog has shone a near solitary public light on evidence indicating that some globally significant nuclear catastrophe has occurred recently. He also offers evidence that radiation monitors around the world are routinely used to hide, not reveal, high radiation readings, as well as evidence that the situation at, and radiation from, the nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima, far from winding down, may be worsening. His work deserves serious attention. [34]…

“And what about the health impact from Fukushima on the Japanese people? In Sept. of 2015, the Asia-Pacific Journal published a study by Eiichiro Ochiai titled 'The Human Consequences of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plants Accidents'. [36] Ochiai's document includes the important point that damage from chronic exposure to radioactivity is strongly related to whether that exposure is through internal contamination. This critical difference between internal and external exposure to radioactivity has been largely ignored by 'official' bodies and pronouncements and standards regarding the health impact of radiation.

“Another key defect in the conventional depiction of the dangers of chronic radiation exposure is that genetic damage, reproductive problems, mutations, chromosomal abnormalities and the like – the entire spectrum of DNA damage, which may endure for generations – is largely ignored. [37] Cancer risk is highlighted, then minimized. Little mention is made of the hundreds of other serious ailments which increased exposure to artificial radionuclides is implicated as contributing to.

“From Ochiai's document: [“... as a result of the Fukushima accident”] “All indications are that incidence of many diseases is increasing not only in Fukushima but also all over Japan.” Ochiai shows charts based on data from Japanese hospitals for incidents of various diseases for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
“At the Fukushima Prefectural Medical School, data is for the years 2010 to 2012. Here are the figures for 2010 (before Fukushima) compared to 2012 (two years after Fukushima) : cataracts up 227%; angina up 157%; bleeding in brain up 300%; lung cancer up 163%; esophagus cancer up 122%; stomach cancer up 129%; cancer in small intestine up 400%; colon cancer up 297%; prostate cancer up 300%.

“Ochiai included data from fifteen Prefectures re thyroid cancer. Rates went up in all areas, with Japan as a whole having a 148% increase from 2010 to 2013. Incidents of myocardial infarction increased in all 13 prefectures listed; Japan as a whole 151%. Acute leukemia increased 142% overall. The author comments that his data represents only the “tip of the iceberg”.

“On Oct. 15, 2015, Japanese Professor Toshihide Tsuda announced the results of an epidemiological study of thyroid cancer in Fukushima prefecture since the catastrophe, and described the increase as “drastic”. The increase was 20 to 50 times 'normal', depending on the specific area and amount of contamination, and this increase was far beyond what the WHO had predicted. And based on the Chernobyl experience, cited below, an estimated 1000 additional thyroid problems can be expected for every cancer, as a result of heavy radioactive contamination. Tsuda pointed out that preventative iodine had not been given to vulnerable people after the Fukushima disaster, which might have prevented many of the subsequent thyroid problems. [38]

“In an interview published Mar. 18, 2016 Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds has disclosed that there has been “a huge spike in the death rates within Fukushima Prefecture for young children....” This information has been suppressed. [39]…”

https://www.countercurrents.org/print.html
 
Reply
#46
From Hiroshima to Fukushima: Nuclear Weapons and the Dangers of Nuclear Radiation

We Need to Expand the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty (NWBT) to A Comprehensive Nuclear Ban Treaty (NBT)
By Eiichiro Ochiai

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-danger...weapon-ban-
treaty-nwbt-to-a-comprehensive-nuclear-ban-treaty-nbt/5613430

Significant for what is happening now in the Pacific,a study published in 1971, authored by E. J. Sternglass, titled 'Fallout and Reproduction of Ocean Fish Populations', showed the huge impact that nuclear fallout from atomic bomb testing had on life in the oceans.

From the study's summary statement: “...very large declines of fish-populations after low-altitude nuclear tests … have been observed in the Atlantic and Pacific, strongly suggesting that the eggs of fish and the developing young are far more sensitive to internal radiation … than had been anticipated, very much as is the case of the human-embryo and fetus.” [21]

http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/05...nobyl.html

Sternglass, ‘Fallout and Reproduction of Ocean Fish Populations' 1971

http://www.leurenmoret.info/waves/fallou...on-of.html
 
Reply
#47
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. And have the nuclear countries given up their nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons? Warnings of the complete destruction of the earth and the annihilation of all live by nuclear fission have been obvious since the 1940s from the most educated scientists and the most ardent environmentalists.

Engineers Knew Fukushima Might Be Unsafe, But Covered It Up …

And Now the Extreme Vulnerabilty of NEW U.S. Plants Is Bein

“,,,In 2004, Leuren Moret warned in the Japan Times of the exact type of nuclear catastrophe that Japan is now experiencing:

“’Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list.
***
“’Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates, at the edge of the subduction zone, and is in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world.
***
“’Many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan — the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors.

“’“I think the situation right now is very scary,” says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. “It’s like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode.”
***
“’On July 7 last year, the same day of my visit to Hamaoka, Ishibashi warned of the danger of an earthquake-induced nuclear disaster, not only to Japan but globally, at an International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics conference held in Sapporo. He said: “The seismic designs of nuclear facilities are based on standards that are too old from the viewpoint of modern seismology and are insufficient. The authorities must admit the possibility that an earthquake-nuclear disaster could happen and weigh the risks objectively.”
***
“’I realized that Japan has no real nuclear-disaster plan in the event that an earthquake damaged a reactor’s water-cooling system and triggered a reactor meltdown.

“’Additionally, but not even mentioned by ERC officials, there is an extreme danger of an earthquake causing a loss of water coolant in the pools where spent fuel rods are kept. As reported last year in the journal Science and Global Security, based on a 2001 study by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the heat-removing function of those pools is seriously compromised — by, for example, the water in them draining out — and the fuel rods heat up enough to combust, the radiation inside them will then be released into the atmosphere. This may create a nuclear disaster even greater than Chernobyl.
***
“’It is not a question of whether or not a nuclear disaster will occur in Japan; it is a question of when it will occur.’…”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/engineers-...t-up/27624

I don’t agree with everything she says or with all her conclusions. I believe that it was gross negligence that is responsible for the Fukushima disaster. But her scientific research is invaluable. Putting MOX fuel in any reactor especially the worn-out reactors of Fukushima and creating tons of plutonium are not rational decisions. Creating and sustaining nuclear fission contribute to depopulation and kill equally both the innocent and those who support and are members of the nuclear community.

The purpose of this thread is to create a scientific bibliography, not to argue over straw arguments.
 
Reply
#48
Surge in babies being born with extra arms, legs after Fukushima

by The Daily Coin · April 19, 2016

"from ENENews “I feel officials know the cause is radiation” — Nurse says many are getting abortions to avoid ‘inconvenient’ babies — “High number of stillbirths” — Many people reporting cancers, even far away from Fukushima LaborNet TV (subtitles by Emiko Suehiro), Feb 24, 2016 (emphasis added):

https://web.archive.org/web/201707071959...porting-ca

"• Satomi Horikiri, Host (8:30 in): Have you heard of any health hazards in Fukushima?

"• Hisae Unuma, evacuee Futabamachi: I know many saying they have cancers, even in Saitama Prefecture…

"• Setsuko Kida, evacuee from Tomiokamachi: My daughter [got] pregnant in the fall of 2013, but she was diagnosed
with tethered miscarriage… the womb grew… but her unborn baby didn’t grow at all. She… got a second opinion from another clinic in Mito, only to get the same result. When the Mito doctor asked her why she came for the second opinion, she told she couldn’t trust the doctor in Fukushima… Many with a birth defect were born after Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-bomb, but the number dropped in one or two years. I only knew the reason in 2013; many women had to have an abortion, so that inconvenient babies wouldn’t be born… One month later, I was happy to know my daughter got pregnant. But in only 3 months my daughter told me the bad news and my mind got flooded with that story of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That’s where I started to doubt. Although I asked the doctor to wait and see since my daughter could give birth if she tried, but the doctor said that the unborn child inside her was not alive anymore… So she had the abortion. My daughter called and told her friend about her abortion… She was told that out of 4 in her friends group, 3, including herself, had abortion during early pregnancy. The only one who could give birth was told by her doctor that she was unable to give birth because of the baby’s weak heart sound. So my daughter began to doubt her doctor, thinking her unborn baby could have made it. I became doubtful as well. A nurse I knew told me that many get abortions in Fukushima. My daughter and friends are just a few of those.

"• Host: That is a painful story.

"• Kida: A year later I got to hear first hand cases of babies with a structural birth defect or polymelia [“Birth defect… in which the affected individual has more than the usual number of limbs” –Source] twice as many. I feel our gov’t or the medical university knows the cause is the radiation… My daughter remembers the words by her doctor… “We’ll send this cell to Fukushima Medical”… Why do they have to send a cell of aborted fetus? Is that what they had been doing? For what?

"• Host: So many doubtful things going on…

"• Kida (23:15 in): I just shared the story about my daughter’s abortion and high number of stillbirths. Whenever I deliver such a message I’m told to shut up. People say it’s a delicate issue, bad influence on Fukushima reconstruction or no data to back up. But more than 10 girls had similar experience as my daughter’s. Actually one woman was recommended to get an abortion at 6 months pregnancy last summer, and her unborn baby lacking one arm, one leg, with only 3 fingers on its foot… The nuclear reactors exploded, melted through… contaminated water keeps flowing into the Pacific Ocean. That’s the reason they asked not to restart nuclear plants. But isn’t the real reason the health hazard caused by radiation coming out? Health hazards are actually caused, and we have to send out such messages. But if we denied health problems… that would be the same as what Tepco or the gov’t is doing.

"Watch the broadcast here"

https://thedailycoin.org/2016/04/19/surg...fukushima/
 
Reply
#49
“Depleted uranium is actually a misnomer.

“It is uranium , incredibly hard and a very dense metal, yes.

“But it is still very much radioactive.

“The US is quick to defend the use of DU’s and scorns all scientific finds that indicate there might be serious lingering problems.

“Weapons using DU can be rightfully called a ‘dirty bomb’.

“The US classified a ‘dirty bomb

“As an explosive device that permeates the surrounding are with radioactive/biological/chemical material.

“Such is the fears of the US homeland Security.

“The bomb itself is not the object of fear; it is the spread of the radioactive/biological/chemical material that encases the bomb that brings Homeland Security the night sweats.”

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/deplet...lkans.html

“Weapons using DU can be rightfully called a ‘dirty bomb’.

“The US classified a ‘dirty bomb

“As an explosive device that permeates the surrounding are with radioactive/biological/chemical material.

“Such is the fears of the US homeland Security.

“The bomb itself is not the object of fear; it is the spread of the radioactive/biological/chemical material that encases the bomb that brings Homeland Security the night sweats.”
 
Reply
#50
Unsafe at Any Dose
By Dr. Helen Caldicott, M.D.

https://www.helencaldicott.com/unsafe-at-any-dose/

Nuclear apologists play shoot the messenger on radiation
By Dr. Helen Caldicott, M.D.

“…Internal radiation, by contrast, emanates from radioactive elements that enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer….

” a US National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 2007, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative, so that each dose (whether, for example, from a medical x-ray or from passing through the whole-body scanners soon to be introduced in Australian airports) adds to an individual’s risk of developing cancer during his or her lifetime….

“In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks, such as its 1956 warning: ‘Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation.’…”

https://www.helencaldicott.com/?s=shoot+the+messenger

Helen Caldicott on Fukushima Disaster

“All radiation is damaging. It’s cumulative — each dose you get adds to your risk of getting cancer. The americium is more dangerous than plutonium — I could go on and on. Depends if it rains if you’re going to get it or not. If it rains and the radiation comes down, don’t grow food, and don’t eat the food, and I mean don’t eat it for 600 years.

“Radioactive waste from nuclear power is going to be buried, I hear, next to Lake Ontario. It’s going to leak, last for millions of years, it’s going to get into the water, and into the food chains. Radioactive waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease for the rest of time. This is the greatest public health hazard the world has ever witnessed, apart from the threat every day of nuclear war.

“Einstein said ‘the splitting of the atom changed everything, save man’s mode of thinking”’– very profound – ‘and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.’ We are arrogant, we have a lot of hubris, and I think the reptilian mid-brain of some men’s brains is pathological.(18)

“We are in a situation where we have harnessed the energy of the sun. It is totally out of control. And there’s

https://web.archive.org/web/201105180050...14987.html

Depleted uranium trans-generational curse
Professor Christopher Busby,
Scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risks:

“It’s actually very difficult to decontaminate an area that’s been affected by depleted uranium, because it spreads so uniformly across the area and in the form of these very fine particles.

“So, it’s not a case of going somewhere and finding something that’s radioactive and removing it.

“You can do that, but the thing that are causing the problem is the inhalation of these dusts. And once the dust is created, it goes all over the place.

“The damage that’s been done to the DNA, ou can’t clean that up, it’s already there.

“The continuing level of congenital malformations and cancer presumably is an indicator of the fact that the genome of these people has been affected, and that’s like a sort of trans-generational curse that will go on for a very long time, for generations.”

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/deplet...lkans.html

Fallujah 12 years on: Americans ‘last people to consider’ generations crippled by depleted uranium

“…’The people who control or try to control the understanding of the health effects of uranium are the people who are associated with the military and governments who need to show that they didn’t do anything wrong and can continue to use this stuff. So, yes, there is a cover-up, no question about it. And it’s at a very high level. It will have to stop because evidence that’s emerging in periodic literature is absolutely massive. It doesn’t only come from Iraq and from exposure to depleted uranium. It comes from exposure to uranium from uranium workers in France and from uranium miners in Namibia, and nuclear test veterans who were exposed to uranium,’ Busby said….”

https://www.rt.com/news/365671-fallujah-...ranium-us/

Why the WHO report on congenital anomalies in Iraq is a disgrace
Christopher Busby

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/who-iraq-report-disgrace-461/
 
Reply
#51
(12-22-2018, 12:33 PM)Code Wrote: This is a debatable sentence;

" a US National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 2007, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation"

A person can disagree with the CONCLUSION, but not with the STATEMENT itself.  The pro-nuclear industry disagrees with the CONCLUSION, because they want no liability for the ill effects of radiation.  But it is impossible to disagree with the statement because it is a statement of fact that BEir VII concludes that there is no safe dose of radiation, background or otherwise:

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase ... Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and ...

“…this book draws upon new data in both epidemiologic and experimental research. Ionizing radiation arises from both natural and man-made sources and at very high doses can produce damaging effects in human tissue that can be evident within days after exposure. However, it is the low-dose exposures that are the focus of this book. So-called “late” effects, such as cancer, are produced many years after the initial exposure. This book is among the first of its kind to include detailed risk estimates for cancer incidence in addition to cancer mortality. BEIR VII offers a full review of the available biological, biophysical, and epidemiological literature since the last BEIR report on the subject and develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation….”

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340/health...-radiation

There is a difference in specific activity between natural occurring radon and K-40.  There is a different between internal radiation and external radiation.  There is a different between the biological effect of radioactive cesium in the human body and that of K-40.  A molecule of radioactive cesium is much larger than that of a molecule of radioactive potassium of the body.  Also the amount of radioactive potassium is less than projected because the gamma rays escape through the skin.

The bystander effect is due to the body being composed of 70% of water.  The effect of a radioactive particle is communicated to nearby cells due to water transport.

In addition the fetus is many times more vulnerable to radiation than that of an adult. Women and girls are twice as vulnerable to radiation than men and boys. A girls is twice as vulnerable to radiation than an adult women. Children are 10 to 38 times more vulnerable to radiation than adults.

And, in addition, when the genomic stability caused by radiation is taken into account, there is no safe dose of any kind of radiation.

The genomic instability at Ramsar, Iran, with higher levels of background radiation, is greater than in areas with lower levels of background radiation. Women in Ramsar, Iran, on average get cancer 10 years earlier than women in Europe.

The nuclear industry deceptively compares two geographical areas on just one kind of cancer, but doesn't compare other factors between those two geographical areas. For example, on comparing Ramsar, Iran, to another area in Iran where they manufacture nuclear weapons, but results will be skewed.

CHAPTER THREE: THE PETKAU EFFECT

THIS CHAPTER DISCUSSES THE FACT THAT
SMALL AMOUNTS OF RADIATION DO HARM.

“A number of independent researchers have demonstrated that long-term, relatively low levels of radiation may wreak up to 1000 times more biological havoc than the currently accepted "risk levels" that are being used as reference points for decisions about licensing and operating nuclear plants. …”

http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter3.html

“…But humans evolved in an environment that contained naturally occurring radiation. So why is radiation so hazardous to us? The answer to this has to do with the type of radiation. Radon, which was always around (see below), is known as alpha radiation. The particles cannot travel very far. Strontium 90, which is a man-made radiation, is a beta particle. It can travel far. So how does this affect us? Our bones are hollow inside, they have a space for the bone marrow. This is the place where the white blood cells, which are key operatives in the immune system, are made. Nature did a brilliant design here because the bone protected the delicate bone marrow from the then-prevalent type of alpha-radiation. Nature did not foresee that humans would come up with a type of radiation that did not suit its original design. Because beta particles can travel through bone, they are able to zap the white blood cells. What happens? We gradually have a more and more weakened Immune system. What is the answer to this dilemma? This seems to be the question confronting humanity.
In his ground-breaking book The Petkau Effect (Four Walls Eight Windows, NYC 1992) Ralph Graeub describes the mechanism whereby small doses of low level radiation are far more damaging in their cumulative effect than previously thought. He says in the forward: …”

http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter3.html
 
Reply
#52
(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.
 
Reply
#53
“…According to Dr. John Gofman (former director of biomedical research at Lawrence Livermore Lab and author of the recently published book Radiation and Human Health), the presence of even one one-millionth of a gram of plutonium in the lung virtually guarantees the development of cancer there within 20 years.
Radon's Dangerous Daughter

“The specific alpha-emitter in tobacco smoke is polonium 210, a naturally occurring product — or "daughter" — of the decay of radium 226, which is, itself, a natural radioisotope. Polonium 210 was first isolated in cigarette smoke, in minute but significant amounts, by Dr. Edward P. Radford (professor of environmental epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the prestigious Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation — BEIR — Committee of the National Academy of Sciences) and Dr. Vilma Hunt (now a senior official in the Environmental Protection Agency).
“In 1965, Radford and Hunt — along with several other researchers — published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that related their findings of significant concentrations of polonium 210 in smokers' bronchial tissues. The article suggested that the cumulative dose of alpha radiation from years of smoking and inhaling polonium 210 might well be a key factor in the development of lung cancer….”

https://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-...az82mazglo

What is the composition of background radiation? Here is one definition:

“Background radiation is a measure of the ionizing radiation present in the environment at a particular location which is not due to deliberate introduction of radiation sources.

“Background radiation originates from a variety of sources, both natural and artificial. These include cosmic radiation and environmental radioactivity from such as naturally occurring radioactive materials including radon and radium, and man-made fallout from nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

What is the composition of background radiation that you are talking about?

Scientific research uses precise language, not just vague undefined generalities.

Here is a graphic from the NRC published pre-Fukushima:

Sources of Radiation Exposure in the U.S.
https://goo.gl/images/KLuZHT
 
Reply
#54
“...In geochemistry, geophysics and geonuclear physics, primordial nuclides, also known as primordial isotopes, are nuclides found on Earth that have existed in their current form since before Earth was formed. Primordial nuclides were present in the interstellar medium from which the solar system was formed, and were formed in the Big Bang, by nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae followed by mass ejection, by cosmic ray spallation, and potentially from other processes. They are the stable nuclides plus the long-lived fraction of radionuclides surviving in the primordial solar nebula through planet accretion until the present. Only 286 such nuclides are known. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_nuclide
 
Reply
#55
“Airborne sources. The biggest source of natural background radiation is airborne radon, a radioactive gas that emanates from the ground. Radon and its isotopes, parent radionuclides, and decay products all contribute to an average inhaled dose of 1.26 mSv/a (millisievert per year).“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
“Medical Definition of thoron. : a heavy radioactive isotope of radon of mass number 220 that is formed as a decay product of thorium, decays by emission of an alpha particle, and has a half-life of less than a minute.“

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/thoron

In the NRC graph I posted, radon and thoron are 74% of natural background radiation and 37% of all radiation exposure in the US.
.
Sources of Radiation Exposure in the U.S.
https://goo.gl/images/KLuZHT

Internal natural background radiation is only 10% of natural background radiation exposure, 5% of total radiation exposure in the US, and K-40 is only one part of that 5%
 
Reply
#56
“Polonium is a radioactive substance that can be found throughout our natural environment. ... Polonium-210 has a half-life* of 138 days, and it decays to stable lead-206 by emitting an alpha particle (an alpha par- ticle has two protons and two neutrons).May 3, 2010”

https://hps.org/documents/po210factsheet.pdf
 
Reply
#57
Have you listed all 286 primordial radionuclides and their specific activities?

http://www.iem-inc.com/information/tools...activities
 
Reply
#58
Once any man-made radioactive material is released it becomes part of a location's background radiation.  This is convenient for taking measurements with a Geiger Counter but it has confused the issue of what that radiation is composed of because a Geiger Counter can't tell you that.  

“Background radiation originates from a variety of sources, both natural and artificial. These include cosmic radiation and environmental radioactivity from such as naturally occurring radioactive materials including radon and radium, and man-made fallout from nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents."  

So if I had a Geiger Counter back in 1920 and measured the background radiation at a certain location and then took a measurement of the background today, they would not be the same.  That man-made fallout from nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents has been added to the background radiation levels we measure today.  Unfortunately, radioactive elements that were not a major component of background have increased.  The term background radiation is not as precise as the scientific community needs, to have an understanding of radiation contamination.  Would you want to be living in the background radiation of Fuku or Hanford?
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#59
I wish we had baseline measurements to tell us exactly. I have seen calculated estimates but I'd have to go looking for citations. I have to go but have fun anyway.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#60
Of course, after inhaling radioactive plutonium, the plutonium doesn't exit the body and the the most radiation exposure internally doesn't not come from natural K-40.

Also there is a difference between the specific activity of natural K-40 and the specific activity of K-40 created by nuclear fission.

This is the pre-Fukushima graph of the NRC of exposure to radioactive isotopes. It is, of course, an average for the whole US. It will vary considerably by geographic location and by individuals whether they have received medical radiation or inhalation of hot particles or ingestion of hot particles.

And within the individual a hot particle is affecting the cell where it resides and nearby cells and is a measure for that cell, not the whole individual.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Unanswered Documented Environmental Impact Issues DUDe 0 227 09-18-2019, 12:21 PM
Last Post: DUDe

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)