SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear Power
Women and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
16 Comments »
Leave a Reply
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear PowerWomen and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
-
Archives
- May 2013 (291)
- April 2013 (383)
- March 2013 (392)
- February 2013 (424)
- January 2013 (502)
- December 2012 (460)
- November 2012 (520)
- October 2012 (522)
- September 2012 (492)
- August 2012 (546)
- July 2012 (362)
- June 2012 (312)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- rare earths
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Hi,
Great Blog, thanks for taking the time to express your truths. It is truly appreciated, by all ( at least by me). Thanks for your hard work, as a fellow blogger I know the daily grind of publishing new, interesting items. Thanks again for you hard work.
Peace,Shundahai( A Newe word which means “Peace and Harmony with All Creation) Gregor Gable
Nuclear and Indigenous
Items of Interest
Thanks for linking to my article.
Hi. I agree with your sentiment here. Sorry, I may just be a little blind, but do you have an RSS feed? If so, could you please point me to it? I find it the best way to keep up to speed with the latest posts from a site.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Simon.
My problem is: that I am a complete amateur, and I do not understand what an RSS feed even is. I might have one, for all I know
It is people like you and your readers who keep us addicted to oil. You think you are helping the environment? You are helping the oil companies and you’re so blinded by the reflection of your egos in the mirror to notice it.
Reproducing the full text of copyrighted material online is not blogging and it is not honest advocacy. You are violating the rights of others who worked hard to produce high quality content. If you want to republish it, get permission.
Well, Ohadi Langis turns out to be Dan Yurman
Idaho Falls, ID, United States – proudly describing himself as:
” Serving nuclear energy markets since 1989. ”
I first thought that his righteous indignation was genuinely in support of the original writers, whose work I quote, (with full acknowledgment and link)
But no – Mr Yurman is a voice for th nuclear industry.
Funny that I rarely get criticism from the genuinely concerned writers, and often have been offered free use of their work
Thought you might like to have a look at my website http://www.no2nuclearpower.co.uk UK Daily Nuclear News Service available.
I recommend a good ecological and anti-nuclear site in Russia http://green.tomsk.ru/
Tomsk, a place the world’s largest testing ground for the injection of radioactive wastes in the ground.
Why you do not have e-newsletter?
I do not always manage to find such news.
I do, in fact, send out a news letter each week.
However, I send it only to people who have asked for it.
Why? My reason is simply pity for people who, like myself, receive heaps of emails, newsletters etc. It gets overwhelming. So, I send it only to those who have asked for it.
I’ll send you the next one, green, and thanks for your link.
[...] folks at nuclear news have that article available, as well as a fantastic sidebar, The Very Secret Costs of Nuclear Power. From their [...]
Pingback by More Nuke News « Politics’n'Poetry | March 10, 2010 |
well I think Moret is a fantasist with some kind of personality disorder, and that’s my 5 cents. OK I may change my mind, but this is how I came to that conclusion. I watched 2 of her talks and at first she was convincing, then I noticed she was citing articles in newspapers as though they were genuine science references and gradually I thought “oh dear this is some kind of play pretend ego trip, she doesn’t actually have the science to back this up”. Or something like that. Having 2 science degrees I thought the aura of the hard-nosed scientist was wearing thin. As these are psychology-based, I’m pretty familiar with the weirdness of people and it started to bother me that she might just be, well, quite sick.
I got personally involved when she said her daughter was kidnapped and she couldn’t see her for 5 years. Why? Because this really happened to me, and it’s rare. I thought about emailing her, but wanted to find out more first if I could. What emerges is a clear picture that she repeats the same speech almost verbatim at every interview etc, so that explains the polished presentation. There are no more details, but what she describes (dark night of the soul) sounds kind of like a breakdown. I always wanted to be sure if by “kidnapped” she meant “my kid was taken into foster care” or something, because I wouldn’t waste any more time on it. And then I find she was only at livermore for 8 months in a computer lab and she only has a batchelor’s in geology? HOAXER. She’s obviously got a personality disorder and is havin’ it large at everyone’s expense. Go on. Prove me wrong. Please?
ok maybe she’s not just full of shit, found this http://www.springerlink.com/content/r75v88151407100k/ and this http://www.springerlink.com/content/v0q0217745017p13/ on google scholar, so she must have done some work on dust like she says.
I still need convincing about her claims of harassment, perhaps that’s unfair but I need more than just her say-so. Anything more than just the same statement repeated in every interview.
I want her to be sincere, at least, whether her views are right or wrong, she is very charismatic.
Good blog! Please, send me your newsletter.
Please Subscribe me to this site by email.
Thanks