• 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
JGov Lies: People Geiger
Science students track radiation seven years after Fukushima - Home-made Geiger counters are being used to monitor areas affected by the nuclear disaster, as locals have lost faith in the government’s safety measures https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia...um=twitter


"He started measuring local radiation levels in 2007, so when the disaster happened, he had baseline data.

“The readings were so high … 50 times higher than natural radiation,” he said of the post-disaster data. “I was amazed … the news was telling us there was nothing, the administration was telling us there was nothing to worry about.”"
just pm me if needed.
Little do these unfortunate people know that if the radiation was 50 times higher, the actual danger was some 30,000 times higher.  (ECRR factor of 600).

The reality is so far from the measurement, the human brain cant comprehend the error factor.  The radiation impact to the living world went up 3,000,000 %  while the people smiled.    They appear to me like smiling 'zombies', certain in the truth of the deceptive measurements.   Indeed, what is the greater 'lie' here;  50 times or 600 times?
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout

"[2] 2010 Recommendations of the ECRR. The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation. Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition. Edited by Chris Busby with Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz- Feuerhake, Molly Scott Cato and Alexei Yablokov.
Published on Behalf of the European Committee on Radiation Risk Comité Européen sur le Risque de l’Irradiation, Brussels"
by Green Audit, Aberystwyth 2010. ISBN: 978-1-897761-16-8 Link http://euradcom.eu/ecrr-recommendations-2010/


ECRR Recommendations 2010

"The presentation in 2003 of the new radiation exposure model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (link) caused something of a revolution in the focus of scientists and politicians on the adequacy of previous scientific theories of the effects of radiation on living systems. This was long overdue, of course, since evidence has been available for more than 40 years that it was unsafe to use studies of external acute radiation to inform about risk from internal chronic exposures to evolutionarily novel radionuclides. Such a scientific paradigm shift is not easy: the course and direction of the nuclear, military, economic and political machine dedicated to the development of nuclear energy and its military applications is monolithic and has massive inertia. It was therefore surprising and encouraging that ECRR2003 received such attention, and effectively brought about a new and intense interest in the flaw in the then current philosophy of radiation risk: the physics-based concept of absorbed dose. The support and encouragement for the new model, and its success in many court cases (where it was invariably set against the ICRP model) was perhaps assisted by the increasing evidence from Chernobyl fallout exposures and from examination of Depleted Uranium effects which were emerging at the time of ECRR2003. The success of the ECRR model is that it gives the correct answer to the question about the numbers of cancers and other illnesses that follow an exposure to internal fission products. This is immediately clear to anyone: to juries and judges as well as ordinary members of the public. It received powerful support from reports of increases in cancer in Belarus after Chernobyl and also from the epidemiological studies of Martin Tondel of cancer in northern Sweden published in 2004: Tondel’s findings of a statistically significant 11% increase in cancer per 100kBq/m2 Cs-137 contamination from Chernobyl are almost exactly predicted by the ECRR2003 model.

There have also been developments in laboratory science that can be explained in the new model but are quite impossible to explain in the old ICRP model. One of these is the understanding that elements of high atomic number, like Uranium (but also non-radioactive elements like Platinum, Gold etc.) have the ability to alter the absorption characteristics of tissues in which they are embedded. Uranium is the central element around which the nuclear fuel cycle revolves, and huge quantities of the substance have been contaminating the biosphere since early in the last century. It is therefore necessary to update the ECRR risk model and include consideration of these ‘phantom radiation effects’. The widespread dispersion of Uranium from weapons usage has made it necessary to add a chapter on Uranium weapons. Since its founding in Brussels in 1998, the ECRR has been joined by many eminent radiation scientists from many countries. It will be clear from this new revised edition, that the pressure on politicians and scientists to change their understanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation is now too great to ignore."

Purchasing and free download information

Links to the executive summary and the scope and basis of the recommendations are not working. I emailed them asking to be notified if/when corrections are made.
just pm me if needed.
I was able to download the ECRR 2010 paper from the link

2010 Recommendations
of the European Committee
on Radiation Risk 

The ballpark weighting factors vary depending on which ECRR paper I have read.  One factor given is 300.  Man made nuclear exposure will be some 300 times worse than assumed by the ICRP.  Another paper concerning Fukushima gave a factor of 600.   Sometimes a factor of 1000 is given.  In the case of depleted uranium, the factor is much higher yet.

a few somewhat random pages from the above ECRR 2010 paper;

pg 122 gives risk multipliers for excess leukemia and cancer risk in children living near nuclear sites

The paper states the linear response assumtion is missguided; "The Committee believes that a significant proportion of conclusions regarding increases in radiogenic illness are misguidedly based on a presupposed linear response between dose and effect. "

p 151 compares natural to man processed uranium;
Uranium oxide nanoparticle exposure from weapons does not represent the
same kind of hazard as Uranium exposures in people living in high background
Uranium areas, nor those who work as Uranium miners and machinists. The
exposures are quite different in quality and type. 

p 170 shows a range of non cancer morbidity increases from fallout

p 173 lists weighting factors of 5 to 1000 for different weapons fallout internal exposures

p 176 gives an estimate of consequences of nuclear, including 61 million deaths and 123 million cancers

p 181 lists principles and recommendations

The anthropocentric bias of humans is remarkable.  If the 60 million deaths from bomb tests could be extrapolated to other animals, the carnage is huge. Humans dominate the larger land animals but are said to represent only 1/10,000 of the biomass of the planet.  That would translate roughly into the death of 80 trillion pounds of life, assuming an equality of effect  The scourge of nuclear is truly unimaginable.  

80,000,000,000,000 lb of the living planet potentially killed.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)