• 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


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear energy and environmental justice
#81
British Scientist: There’s no doubt Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl

https://web.archive.org/web/201509240611...cers-video

Cesium-137 levels 100 times normal levels in Osaka, 350 miles SW of Fukushima — First-ever detection of cesium-134
Published: May 19th, 2011 at 4:27 pm ET
By ENENews

https://web.archive.org/web/201509250752...cesium-134
 
Reply
#82
NHK: Internal radiation exposure damages DNA — Plutonium hot particle seen in cell — Avoid touching the “death ash” (VIDEO)
Jan 22, 2012

https://web.archive.org/web/201509120546...wsubtitles
https://web.archive.org/web/201509220809...m/page/250
 
Reply
#83
MOX Scandal: Japan Times on “latest revelation of attempts to rig public opinions on nuclear power” — “Collusive ties” between gov’t and nuke industry
Nov. 27, 2011

https://web.archive.org/web/201604030213...e-industry
 
Reply
#84
Nuclear power will exacerbate climate change, not solve it

"Fairwinds 29th Dec 2018 Relicensing old nuclear power plants and building new nukes will not
resolve any climate change issues. View our well-researched film,
Smokescreen, created with data from university analyses and independent
international economic reports. Also, check out Arnie’s speech at McGill
University where he discusses how building new nuclear power plants will
actually exacerbate climate change as well as his Truthout article"

https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify//cl...the-answer

https://nuclear-news.net/2018/12/31/nucl...-solve-it/

Radiations and male fertility
Kavindra Kumar Kesari,1 Ashok Agarwal, 2 and Ralf Henkel3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/

“…RF-EMF exposure and Genotoxicity: Many in vitro and in vivo studies showed that EMF induced genotoxic single- and double-strand DNA breaks, micronucleus formation, chromosomal abbreviations, changes in gene expression, cell proliferation and apoptosis [25, 26, 94–97]. Such changes are responsible for genomic instability and promote tumorigenic effect in cells. We explore the genotoxic effect of RF EMF on sperm parameters and possible infertility outcome as discussed below and which is also represented in Figure 2….”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/

Poisoned water and deadly dust
Posted on December 30, 2018 by beyondnuclearinternational

Navajo community contaminated by uranium suffers loss of loved ones and livestock

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2...adly-dust/

“We do not accept anything that harms our mother Earth”

“…Every time we fight off a uranium mine, a pipeline, a fossil fuel or nuclear plant, an incinerator or nuclear waste dump, we do it for Mother Earth, our only home…”

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2...her-earth/
 
Reply
#85
Why Is China Losing Interest In Nuclear Power?

“…Whatever the underlying cause, China has de-emphasized its massive nuclear new build strategy. We suspect the reason is a combination of slowing demand for electricity and deteriorating cost competitiveness of the nuclear plants compared to the alternatives.

“It is not a good sign when the country that that boasts one of the better construction cost records in the business steps back and says, in effect, ‘Maybe we have something better to do with our money.’ Chinese nuclear operators will, no doubt, continue to sell their wares abroad. China’ s CNNC is building two indigenous designed Hualong One reactors in Pakistan and CGN’s strategy appears to be invest only with generous subsidies from host governments like the U.K. But ultimately why would people want to buy a product that the producer can no longer reliably sell in its home market?...”

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/...Power.html
 
Reply
#86
A Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation
Igor Yakymenko, Olexandr Tsybulin

Abstract
"This review aims to cover experimental data on oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in living cells. Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals molecular effects induced by low-intensity RFR in living cells; this includes significant activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes. It indicates that among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity RFR is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation

GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation can either stimulate or depress early embryogenesis in Japanese quails depending on the duration of exposure
Article (PDF Available)  in International Journal of Radiation Biology 89(9) · April 2013 with 182 Reads
DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2013.791408 · Source: PubMed
Olexandr Tsybulin
Evgeniy Sidorik
Olga Brieieva
• Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, NAS of Ukraine
Igor Yakymenko
• National University for Food Technologies

Abstract
"Purpose: Our study was designed to assess the effects of low intensity radiation of a GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) 900 MHz cellular phone on early embryogenesis in dependence on the duration of exposure. Materials and methods: Embryos of Japanese Quails were exposed in ovo to GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation during initial 38 h of brooding or alternatively during 158 h (120 h before brooding plus initial 38 h of brooding) discontinuously with 48 sec ON (average power density 0.25 μW/cm(2), specific absorption rate 3 μW/kg) followed by 12 sec OFF intervals. A number of differentiated somites were assessed microscopically. Possible DNA damage evoked by irradiation was assessed by an alkaline comet assay. Results: Exposure to radiation from a GSM 900 MHz cellular phone led to a significantly altered number of differentiated somites. In embryos irradiated during 38 h the number of differentiated somites increased (p < 0.001), while in embryos irradiated during 158 h this number decreased (p < 0.05). The lower duration of exposure led to a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in a level of DNA strand breaks in cells of 38-h embryos, while the higher duration of exposure resulted in a significant (p < 0.001) increase in DNA damage as compared to the control. Conclusion: Effects of GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation on early embryogenesis can be either stimulating or deleterious depending on the duration of exposure."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...f_exposure

Studies published in 2003-2005 demonstrating biological effects from
exposure to low-intensity r
adiofrequency radiation.
http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/researc...search.pdf

Causes of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers

"...Radon…
“Radon gas enters homes as the result in the normal decay of uranium in the soil beneath homes, and becomes trapped….”

https://www.verywellhealth.com/causes-of...rs-2248878
 
Reply
#87
Criminal Investigation Sought Into Nuclear Waste Handling At San Onofre

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jan/02/cr...te-handli/

Beginner's Guide to Huntington's Atomic and Nuclear Legacy

“,,,Federal websites (and others) confirm nuclear barrier and processing materials, such as Uranium 235, and other radioactive by products, such as Plutonium 238, came from “recycling” of spent fuel materials from diffusion plants. The facility supplied nickel powder for use in the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio. (and others). The level of enriched uranium present continues to be disputed. Federal documents state 4%; former workers have stated 97%...

” the 2014 DOL Site Matrix Report for HPP indicates that the following chemicals were present at the plant: Neptunium, Nickel, Plutonium, Protactinium, Technetium, Thorium and Uranium….”

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/161427
 
Reply
#88
The elephant in the room regarding causes of lung cancer, 70+ years of plutonium fallout from nuclear teating, bombing Hisorhima and Nagasaki, weapons testing and production, nuclear accidents and nuclear energy and waste, MOX production, transport, and use.. How many autopsies of lung cancer fatalities include searching for plutonium?

Radiat Res. 2013 Mar; 179(3): 332–342.
Published online 2013 Feb 7. doi: 10.1667/RR3054.1
PMCID: PMC3661277
NIHMSID: NIHMS460897
PMID: 23391147

Lung Cancer Risks from Plutonium: An Updated Analysis of Data from the Mayak Worker Cohort
E. S. Gilbert,a,1 M. E. Sokolnikov,b D. L. Preston,c S. J. Schonfeld,a A. E. Schadilov,b E. K. Vasilenko,b and N. A. Koshurnikovab

Abstract

“Workers at the Mayak nuclear facility in the Russian Federation offer a unique opportunity to evaluate health risks from exposure to inhaled plutonium. Risks of mortality from lung cancer, the most serious carcinogenic effect of plutonium, were evaluated in 14,621 Mayak workers who were hired in the period from 1948–1982, followed for at least 5 years, and either monitored for plutonium or never worked with plutonium. Over the follow-up period from 1953–2008, there were 486 deaths from lung cancer, 446 of them in men. In analyses that were adjusted for external radiation dose and smoking, the plutonium excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy declined with attained age and was higher for females than for males. The ERR per Gy for males at age 60 was 7.4 (95% CI: 5.0–11) while that for females was 24 (95% CI: 11–56). When analyses were restricted to plutonium doses <0.2 Gy, the ERR per Gy for males at age 60 was similar: 7.0 (95% CI: 2.5–13). Of the 486 lung cancer deaths, 105 (22%) were attributed to plutonium exposure and 29 (6%) to external exposure. Analyses of the 12,708 workers with information on smoking indicated that the relationship of plutonium exposure and smoking was likely sub-multiplicative (P = 0.011) and strongly indicated that it was super-additive (P < 0.001). Although extensive efforts have been made to improve plutonium dose estimates in this cohort, they are nevertheless subject to large uncertainties. Large bioassay measurement errors alone are likely to have resulted in serious underestimation of risks, whereas other sources of uncertainty may have biased results in ways that are difficult to predict.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3661277/
 
Reply
#89
Environmental and health effects of depleted uranium

Svetlana Zunic, L. Rakic

Abstract

“Uranium is a naturally occurring, ubiquitous heavy metal. In various chemical forms, natural uranium is found in all soils, rocks, seas and oceans. Uranium is also present in drinking water and food. Natural and depleted uranium differ in their isotopic composition, but both are a, β, γ emitters, with a dominant alpha radiation emitted during their radioactive decays. The high ionization potential is liable for alpha particles' bystander effect in the living tissues, what is the basis of early and delayed health effects of depleted uranium. In the nature, repeated releases of high amounts of alpha particles, may induce empirically unknown consequences and catastrophic phenomena, including atmosphere heating. Uranium remains radioactive for more than 4 billion of years. U-238 and U-235 are the parent nuclides of two independent decay series, while U-234 is a decay product of the U-238 series. Depleted uranium is weakly radioactive. Radiation dose of depleted uranium is approximately 60 percent of that from natural uranium with the same mass. Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, depleted uranium has several civil applications. Repeated military use of depleted uranium, i.e., approximately every four years (1991-2011) and recently in numerous military conflicts, could significantly influence the balance of all natural resources and undermine the human health inducing early and delayed health effects. The low doses (air pollution easy transferable to the remote distances from the place of explosion) and the slow doses (depleted uranium ammunition remnants can be fully oxidized into corrosion products twenty-five to thirty-five years after impact) have ensured further prolonged contribution to the maintenance of alpha particles radiation with consequent disastrous Petkau effect within the biosphere. Evolutionary adaptation of the living world that was established through millennia has been compromised with repeated nuclear disasters and use of nuclear weapons in a short period of time, for less than half a century. Some molecular mechanisms that resist radiation harm were discussed as examples of hormesis related to the Biosphere and Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling (Zunic and Rakic, 2013). Because of its radiotoxic effect, depleted uranium has unique potential to threaten all natural resources including human society. With unrestrained military use of high amounts (thousands of tons) of depleted uranium, numerous unusual environmental physical manifestations have been recorded during last 20 years. Simultaneous monitoring revealed an exceptional parallelism between the natural phenomena in the environment and in the biosphere. Increased number of earthquakes, elevated humidity in the environment, increased number of forest fires and extreme weather events, have directed focus of our thinking to the question if periodically, artificial discharge of large amounts of ionizing alpha-particles emitted from the decay of depleted uranium that was used in military purposes can seriously misbalance the nature equilibrium conditions.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_uranium

Depleted uranium induced petkau effect: Challenges for the future
Book · January 2016 with 4 Reads
• Svetlana Zunic, L. Rakic
o
Abstract

“The primary objective of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the interaction of depleted uranium as a source of low dose radiation with the living world and humans in a contaminated environment. There has been increased interest in biological effects of low dose radiation after the incident in Chernobyl. Uncertainty of epidemiological studies about the health effects of low-dose radiation arises from the fact that the biological effects of low-dose radiation do not relate obligatory to DNA damage. Military use of depleted uranium (DU) for decades put the problem of low-dose radiation exposure in the spotlight. The explanation related to the limited effects of ƒÑ-emitting nuclear weapons, including DU, was based to some extent on the fact that alpha particles have a short track in air. This paradigm has changed with the realization that nano- and micro-sized particles of DU could have a global atmospheric movement. The idea about the spreading of uranium particles through air masses across the globe arose from the results of air pollution measurement. Due to uncontrolled military use of high amounts (a thousand tons) of depleted uranium, numerous unusual environmental physical manifestations were recorded in the last two or three decades. Simultaneous monitoring of natural phenomena on Earth and in the atmosphere has revealed an exceptional parallelism between the phenomena in the environment and in the living world. Our knowledge has evolved from in-vitro studies of radiation exposure to a more comprehensive understanding of unexpected and poorly understood natural phenomena, whose consequences may be achievable according to the theory of litosphere-atomsphere-ionospehere and biosphere coupling. The emission of radiation in the course of several decades due to corrosion of scattered remnants of DU armaments, which has been intensified by the repeated bombing of the regions within the range of the transfer of radioactive particles through the air, strikes a broad territory and numerous populations, and unavoidably leads to in-vivo Petkau effect. The Petkau effect is a challenge for science to declare the future health strategy with the main goal focused on minimizing the early as well as delayed in-vivo effects of depleted uranium. As inhaled air is the main source of internal contamination, further research on this topic is valuable, especially in terms of overcoming inter-individual variability. The authors propose a simple model based on apoptotic parameters and artificial network method for individualized estimation of tissue response to low-dose tobacco exposure. Non-targeted effects of radiation are time-evolving and can lead to delayed health effects, including cancerogenesis. The authors discuss the importance of an individual approach to the diagnosis and selection of appropriate therapy, based not only on the results of the expression analysis, but also on metabolic and apoptotic tissue properties. Humanity is the main subject of the authors’ study. Understanding the basic principles of cell biology and radiation interaction with living matter is supported by authentic medical data obtained from patients originating from the territories which were geographically close to each other (Serbia and Montenegro seaside, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the territories of the former Yugoslavia). (Imprint: Novinka).”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...the_future
 
Reply
#90
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
#91
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
#92
From the book description:

"Silent Death documents mass murder by the use of banned Uranium weapons. The spread of genetic disorders is among the most heinous and criminal forms of modern warfare. Its ever lasting impact on humans is inherently genocidal. Such weapons have since 1991 been used in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Lebanon."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#93
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
#94
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
#95
« 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
#96
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
#97
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
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)