Scrutiny on the misleading spin about the health effects of Fukushima nuclear disaster being “tolerable”
The second basic narrative through which accounts of Fukushima have kept the accident from undermining the wider nuclear industry rests on the claim that its effects were tolerable – that even though the costs of nuclear accidents might look high, when amortised over time they are acceptable relative to the alternatives.
The ‘accidents are tolerable’ argument is invariably framed in relation to the health effects of nuclear accidents. Continue reading
Obama Increases Allowable Levels of Radiation in Drinking Water “Dramatically”http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-increases-allowable-levels-of-radiation-in-drinking-water-dramatically/5420787
In Time for Massive New Dumping of Daiichi Radiation
The Nuclear Industry calls this their “new normal,” according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The EPA has issued radiation guides called Protective Action Guides or PAGs which allows more radiation than any American has ever been exposed to. Within the guides, are instructions for evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.”
Wouldn’t the massive break down of reactor number one at Fukushima be considered a ‘radiological emergency?”
Shunichi Tanaka, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, made the comment Dec. 12 about dumping radioactive waste into the ocean.
The US governments PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period. Many experts are expecting elevated cancer rates due to these “allowable” levels of radiation exposure.
The PAGs are the work of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator was only approved by the Senate a few months ago.
It is suggested that these PAGs have been in the works for over two years and are just recently available for public view.
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said:
“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then [the] EPA is in for a long, dirty slog.”
“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”
Video: Cemetery blocks filled with babies downwind of US nuclear site — “This needs to be talked about, the children… murdered” — Mother: My newborns died within hours, tumors all over, brain disintegrated after massive stroke — “Body parts, cadavers, fetuses… the nuclear industry took in the dead of night… from all over US”http://enenews.com/video-cemetery-blocks-filled-babies-downwind-nuclear-site-be-talked-about-children-murdered-mother-newborns-died-hours-tumors-all-brain-disintegrated-after-massive-stroke?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
Kay Sutherland (Walla Walla, Washington) published Nov 8, 2010 (emphasis added):
- We’re in the Walla Walla Mountain View Cemetery standing where the babies’ graves are… Many children all died in the same era… (counting tombstones) 1950, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1945 — All of these babies need to have a voice in what Hanford has done. From this section… back towards my car, is all babies. Some of them do not have marked graves, my cousin was one.
- All of them here say ’48, ’49, ’48, ’48, ’48… ’55, ’55, ’56… ’48, ’48, ’48… This is what needs to be talked about — the children… our future, that Hanford murdered… ’46, ’46, ’46… this area must be the 1954 and ’55 area… It breaks your heart to know that there was so much sadness… because of a handful of men who decided to play god and took away… our life, our hope. ’62, ’62, ’62.
- My daughter [Jennifer] was born in 1963 [and is] buried here… double club feet… tumors throughout her body, an enlarged liver, and died from a massive stroke which disintegrated her brain. She lived 15 hours.
- It doesn’t even tell you about all the miscarriages… I myself had 4 miscarriages.
- My children are right over here… Todd lived 36 hours… These babies need to have a voice in what has happened… Todd weighed 3 lbs, 14 oz… the placenta didn’t develop.
- Jennifer, her birth was very traumatic… I hemorrhaged… filled my bed with blood. The doctor told me… when the water broke, it was green, foul smelling… It took her 2 hours… to die after she had her stroke. They never brought her to me so I could hold her… I wasn’t even told until the following day she was dead… It just goes on and on and on.
According to the Walla Walla coroner’s website, they have ‘unclaimed’ remains of nearly 100 cremated babies. 95% of the babies died between 1946 and the 1970s (56 of 57 boys; 33 of 36 girls). “Hanford produced its first plutonium on Nov 6, 1944 [until] the reactor shutdown in the 1970s.” -Source
Sutherland also noted this about Jennifer: “Her body had been removed and I wasn’t even told that she was cremated. I thought that she had been buried here… she sat on the shelf of the mortuary for 4 years… It was big secret that was kept from me, from my whole family… Everything that I thought was true wasn’t. What was true I didn’t know… Jennifer was delivered by one of the old doctors of Walla Walla… the old doctors were in-on-the-know with Hanford… His very church-going friend… did the experiments on the prisoners… She was autopsied by the very same pathology lab that autopsied Hanford people. They would… steal them away from the mortuaries over there, bring them to Walla Walla, have the pathology lab do their tests or take their body samples or parts, and take them back to Hanford… without their families ever knowing… The nuclear mausoleum [is] under the direction of… Washington St. University… They have body parts, cadavers, fetuses — any kind of sample that you can imagine… that the nuclear industry took in the dead of night, under cloak-and-dagger terms, from all over the US [and] nuclear facilities.”
For Some, Less Radiation for Breast Cancer Makes Sense Live Science Dr. Lucille Lee, North Shore-LIJ Cancer Institute | December 18, 2014 Dr. Lucille Lee is an attending physician in the Department of Radiation Medicine at North Shore-LIJ’s Cancer Institute and is a board-certified radiation oncologist specializing in the treatment of breast and prostate cancer. She specializes in multiple techniques including partial breast irradiation and breast hypofractionation. She contributed this article to Live Science’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
Once physicians are accustomed to practicing in a certain way, changing that paradigm can be difficult to embrace — even when scientific evidence increasingly supports the change.
That’s likely what’s holding back more radiation oncologists in the United States from implementing a shorter course of radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer patients who’ve undergone breast-sparing lumpectomy surgery. New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that two-thirds of these U.S. patients are still receiving six to seven weeks of radiation therapy after a lumpectomy instead of a shorter course of radiation that’s been shown to be just as effective………
How can early-stage breast cancer patients find out they’re eligible for the shorter course? Increasingly educated on medical matters, patients need to speak up and ask their doctors. And physicians themselves need to accept that feeling comfortable about how they have practiced medicine for so long doesn’t justify holding on to outdated ideas.
In this case, it’s quite clear that fewer radiation treatments can be just as effective for early-stage breast cancer patients as the “traditional” longer course. When patients receive more therapy than they actually need, it’s no longer therapeutic — it’s simply overdone. http://www.livescience.com/49180-doctors-should-prescribe-less-radiation-for-breast-cacner-treatment.html
Radiation watchdog wants harder look at children and smartphones YLE UUTISET, UUTISET NEWS 9 Dec 14 Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority STUK hopes to see more research on the possible impact on children of the radiation emitted by smartphones, reports Yle’s investigative programme MOT. However STUK does not have the funding for a study and government spending cuts have closed its own radiation biology laboratory.
According to a study by mobile services operator DNA, 75% of children in Finland between the ages of 6 and 12 have their own smartphones.
Smartphones emit more radiation than do basic talk-and-text cell phones since they generate radiation even when they are not actively being used. No data is available on what the daily level of radiation is that children are subject to from these devices, or how this radiation affects children in particular.
“Overall estimates concerning the current situation are not available. We do not know the impact, for example, of the levels of internet usage. This would be an interesting research subject,” says Tommi Toivonen, Head of Laboratory at STUK’s Department of Radiation Practices Regulation.
More specifically, the biological effects of this radiation on children are unknown……….http://yle.fi/uutiset/radiation_watchdog_wants_harder_look_at_children_and_smartphones/7676646
Most elderly breast cancer patients receive unnecessary radiation, Medical News Today, by James McIntosh 8 December 2014 In 2004, a randomized clinical trial supported the omission of radiation treatment in elderly female patients with early-stage breast cancer. Despite this evidence, a new study reports that almost two-thirds of this group of patients still receive this treatment today. The randomized clinical trial – often regarded to be the “gold standard” in evidence-based medicine – demonstrated that the administering of radiation to patients who had received surgery and the drug tamoxifen did not improve 5-year recurrence rates or survival rates in elderly women diagnosed with early-stage tumors.
Radiation therapy has been considered the standard treatment for early-stage breast cancer for many years. However, it appears that practitioners are reluctant to change their ways. In the new study, published inCancer, the authors state that the omission of radiotherapy has not been widely adopted into clinical practice.
They cite a recent assessment of the nation’s largestcancer registry, the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Among women aged over 70, 76.5% received radiation treatment, and little change was observed in treatment practice before and after the publication of the 2004 study………
The American Society for Radiation Oncology have recommended against using whole-breast radiotherapy in women aged over 50 for early-stage breast cancer without first considering a shorter treatment schedule.
“Although shorter treatment schedules are more convenient for patients and less costly for the health care system, the omission of radiotherapy in women aged >70 years with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer would achieve these goals while sparing patients the potential acute and late toxicities associated with radiotherapy,” write the authors.
Results for the trial published last year indicate that recurrence rates were still low in patients that had not received radiation therapy. …..http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/286539.php
Let’s meditate on this irony — that disarmament, finally, means no more than growing old and weak and pathetic.
What brilliant Cold War Revival propaganda, masquerading, in the Los Angeles Timeslast week, as objective reporting. Let’s meditate on the dark chuckles of the Cold War technocrats, as they attempt to summon an extra trillion dollars or so from the national coffers to restore America’s nuclear weapons program to the glory of the 1960s and push on vigorously with the design and development of the next generation of nukes: our national strength, the foundation of our security. All that’s missing from the article — “New nuclear weapons needed, many experts say, pointing to aged arsenal” — is Slim Pickens screaming “Ya-hoo!” as he rides the bomb into human oblivion at the end of Dr. Strangelove.
The ostensible focus of the article, as well as a second article published two weeks earlier, both by Ralph Vartabedian and W.J. Hennigan, is the decrepitude of the American nuclear arsenal, with its myriad sites and delivery systems hampered with out-of-date technology and indifferent maintenance, e.g.: “Today, the signs of decay are pervasive at the Pantex facility in Texas, where nuclear weapons are disassembled and repaired. Rat infestation has become so bad that employees are afraid to bring their lunches to work.”
Oh, the horror. Rats and nukes. Next up, Godzilla? Any serious challenge to nuclear weapons as the ultimate manifestation and symbol of national strength is absent from these articles; so is any rational account of the danger their hair-trigger presence poses to humanity — not to mention the insanity of their ongoing development.
“John S. Foster Jr., former director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and chief of Pentagon research during the Cold War, said the labs should design, develop and build prototype weapons that may be needed by the military in the future, including a very low-yield nuclear weapon that could be used with precision delivery systems . . .” (emphasis added).
During the Cold War, the primary justification for our gargantuan nuclear arsenal was contained in the acronym M.A.D.: mutually assured destruction. No more world wars, boys and girls! With the Cold War superpowers in possession of the means to destroy the human race, the only wars we could wage were relatively small, proxy wars in Third and Fourth World countries.
“Those who like peace should love nuclear weapons,” said Kenneth Waltz, Cold War academic extraordinaire and founder of the school of neorealism (as quoted recently by Eric Schlosser in The Guardian). “They are the only weapons ever invented that work decisively against their own use.”
But seven decades into the nuclear era, mission creep is making its presence felt along with the rust and rats. Link low-yield nuclear weapons with a word like “precision” and their use in a real war starts to feel almost justifiable — and so much more satisfying, apparently, than simply maintaining a nuclear arsenal for the purpose of never using it. Threat is power in the abstract. But a mushroom cloud over Central Asia or the Middle East is power made manifest, especially if one lacks the mental and spiritual capacity to grasp the consequences……….
What seems desperately outmoded and nearing collapse isn’t our nuclear infrastructure but our thinking about national security. The United States of America, nation of Manifest Destiny, was built on conquest and exploitation. This is the basis of its inability to believe that security could be based on anything except near-absolute power and the reason why, in the corridors of political power, disarmament is synonymous not with sanity but neglect.
Unless the paradigm shifts and we redefine ourselves as a nation — and we redefine our relationship to other nations, including our alleged enemies — our future is nuclear weapons we can use. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/beyond-mad-reviving-nucle_b_6272094.html
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press), is still available. Contact him email@example.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
ECOVIEWS: Chernobyl wolves reveal radiation’s impact, Tuscaloosa News, December 5, 2014 How do scientists determine what the long-term impacts would be to humans living in a radiation-contaminated environment? An ecological study of wolves in the Ukraine may provide the answer……….
Miningawareness, 8 Dec 14 The fruit fly experiments showed that it was dangerous in the 1920s! They were damning enough. It showed that it took multiple generations for the genetic damage to show up, because it was often recessive! But, they knew it was dangerous for people from the advent of x-rays and radium a couple of decades prior. They did human nuclear experiments too. In the 1950s or 60s scientists started worrying about what if radiation impacted intelligence more than fertility so that there was a prolific, dumb population. Is this why no one wonders this anymore? They also worried about radiation damaged DNA of nuclear workers merging into the general population. Why do few wonder anything intelligent anymore? Corrupt academia or damaged DNA, damaged intelligence? Ravens have more sense than the pro-nuclear lobby. Ravens look before they cross the road.
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=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
“Nothing [is] more extreme than anencephaly” -Dr Michael Grodin, Boston U. School of Medicine
‘Fatal Birth Defects Surge’ – Dr. Kathy Lofy, Washington Dept.of Health (emphasis added): Anencephaly is a rare birth defect in which the brain and the skull of the baby do not fully form [and is] not compatible with life… The most well known risk factor… is a deficiency in folic acid… that’s one of the possibilities we’re looking into [note that mothers in the birth defect cluster had much higher rates of folic acid consumption than the control group chosen by officials]…Hanford nuclear facility has been one concern of the community. We worked really closely with our radiation experts… who work closely with… Hanford. There have been no recent releases [note how she rephrases this] — no recent CHANGE in radiation releases. We can’t really determine any pathway by which radiation could affect all the women in the 3-county area [note all 3 counties surround Hanford]… We’re working with the doctors to make sure we’re identifying all the cases… It’s very important to figure out the rates.
Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki, MD, (Chair of Medical Genetics at U. of S. Alabama), Dr. Helen Caldicott’s Crisis Without End, Oct 2014: “The most significant negative impact of radiation on a developing embryo includes anencephaly… Two US studies… sponsored by the[CDC and published in 1988] sought to determine the… impact of ionizing radiation nearHanford… One study detected higher neural tube defect rates [e.g. Anencephaly, Spina Bifida] in two counties near the nuclear complex and the other demonstrated higher rates of neural tube defects in parents exposed… to low levels of radiation.”
Physicians for Social Responsibility: Hanford documents [reveal] incredible contamination of the environment and exposure of large numbers of citizens to dangerous amounts…Eight plutonium production reactors dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies of radioactive material into the Columbia... [In 1949] 8,000 curies of iodine-131 were [secretly] released [over] an area o 200 by 40 miles, no warnings were given… [`400 times TMI’s release of] 15 -24 curies — PSR: Contamination has not and will not stay inside Hanford’s boundaries… Over 300 miles of the Columbia… are threatened… [Fires in] 2000… burned three radioactive waste sites [and] plutonium was detected in nearby communities. — PSR: Hanford is the most contaminated site in the Western Hemisphere… At least 200-square miles of groundwater… is contaminated and migrating to the Columbia.
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen on Nuclear Hotseat, Nov. 12, 2014 (at 34:00 in): Birth defect issues occur in the 2nd [generation after radiation exposure] — especially the 3rd and 4th.
Washington Anencephaly Investigation, Oct 2014:
- Anencephaly in Benton, Franklin, YakimaCounties (next to Hanford) from Jan 1 to Oct 17, 2014: 9 cases in 290 days with est. 6,423 births (based on 8,084 in 2013) —RATE: 14 cases per 10,000 births
- Anencephaly in Yakima County from Jan 1 to Jun 6, 2014: 2 cases in 157 days wirh est. 1,700 births (based on 3,953 in 2013) – RATE: 11.8 cases per 10,000 births
- Anencephaly in Yakima County from Jun 7 to Oct. 17, 2014: 3 cases in 133 days out of est. 1,440 births (based on 3,953 in 2013) — RATE: 20.8 cases per 10,000 births (2,860% of US national rate)
CDC 2010 statistics, released 2013: Anencephaly 313 cases; RATE: 0.73 per 10,000 births.
Instead of using the 0.73 rate, officials claim the national rate is 2.1, nearly 3 times higher. The rate of 2.1 is from a study using data from 2004-2006 that estimates the anencephaly rate, andonly uses data from less than 15 states — unlike the CDC report above which is based on the most current data, uses data from all 50 states, and is not an ‘estimate’.
Nikki Shelton, mother of baby w/ neural tube defect (e.g. Anencephaly, Spina Bifida) 13 mi. from Hanford, Nov 6, 2014: This is not something that is going away… the numbers are increasing. The last teleconference I was in shut me down the minute I mentioned Hanford! … let’s not let the department of health just sweep this under the rug…WE NEED ANSWERS!
British researcher blasts U.N. report on Fukushima cancer risk as unscientific http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201412010036 By MASAKAZU HONDA/ Staff Writer
A British scientist who studied the health effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster panned a United Nations report that virtually dismissed the possibility of higher cancer rates caused by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis.
Keith Baverstock, 73, made the comments during a visit to Tokyo at the invitation of a citizens group related to the Fukushima disaster.
In response to questions from The Asahi Shimbun, Baverstock said a report released in April by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was “not qualified to be called ‘scientific’” because it lacked transparency and independent verification. He added that the committee should be disbanded.
The U.N. report said any increase in overall cancer rates among residents of Fukushima Prefecture due to fallout from the accident was unlikely.
However, Baverstock, former head of the radiation-protection program at the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe, said radiation levels shown in the report were enough to cause a spike in cancer rates.
For example, the report said nearly 10,000 workers at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant were exposed to radiation levels exceeding 10 millisieverts over about 18 months following the outbreak of the crisis in March 2011.
Baverstock said such an exposure level was enough to cause an increase in cancer among about 50 of the workers.
After studying the health effects from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Baverstock was the first to point out an increase in thyroid cancer among residents of areas hit by radioactive fallout.
He also questioned UNSCEAR’s neutrality, given that members are nominated by nations that have a vested interest in nuclear power. He noted that such nations provide funds to the committee.
Baverstock also suggested a conflict of interest, as committee members are not required to disclose their history working in the nuclear industry or sign pledges stating that no conflict of interest exists in evaluating radiation risks.
Baverstock said that when he was working for the WHO, he felt constant pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a major promoter of nuclear power. He also questioned why it took more than three years for UNSCEAR to release its Fukushima report.
Referring to what he called inside information, Baverstock raised the possibility that the delay was caused by criticism about the report’s conclusion and the influence of other U.N. agencies, such as the IAEA.
How to protect your skin while getting enough vitamin D , The Conversation 3 December 2014, Terry Slevin Honorary Senior Lecturer in Public Health at Curtin University; Education & Research Director, Cancer Council WA; Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Cancer Committee at Cancer Council Australia
“..….While limited dietary sources of vitamin D are available, exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the most effective source of vitamin D for the majority of the world’s population.
Vitamin D deficiency is unquestionably linked to compromised bone health. While levels of evidence vary, it is also associated with a wide range of other potential health problems.
On the other hand, excess UVR exposure is strongly linked to increasing risk of skin cancer.
To confuse the issue further, a recently published papersuggested sun exposure might help reduce blood pressure and influence heart disease risk. But not through vitamin D. This research is still in its early days, but it may be that some of the benefits previously ascribed to vitamin D occur through other mechanisms related to sun exposure…………
What should we do?
So what does make sense when it comes to sun exposure, skin cancer and vitamin D? The trick is, of course, getting the balance right and avoiding extremes, in one direction or the other.
Adjusting sun exposure according to the time of year and time of day is important. The UV Index will be in the extreme range in the middle of the day through most, if not all, of summer. So avoiding exposure for the few hours in the in the middle of summer days is smart. The World Health Organization recommends sun protection once the UV Index reaches or exceeds three……..
Depending on where you live, five minutes of mid-morning or mid-afternoon sun two to three times a week – and certainly avoiding any sun burning – is a helpful rule. But it’s best to keep the head, face and neck protected as they get lots of sun and are at highest skin cancer risk.
Terry Slevin is editor of Sun, Skin and Health, CSIRO Publishing. https:// theconversation.com/how-to- protect-your-skin-while- getting-enough-vitamin-d-34143
from Kay, 2 Dec 14 The video of Dr. Gofman is excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xddNmNR0hG4 Someone at ENENEWS transcribed some of what Dr. Gofman had to say, and his words are so important that I think it’s important to post it here, too, for safekeeping. (It’s a little long, sorry)
Dr. John Gofman:
“What’s the order of magnitude of the problem that’s been created by radiation in the 20th century? Today manmade activities added up in total exceed the dose from natural radiation.”
“Every increment that we add to that natural radiation will exact its price in human health, and human health with respect to some very miserable diseases such as the genetic disorders and heart disease and cancer.”
“50% of all cancers in the 20th century have been caused by ionizing radiation of the type we would call low-level.”
“Recently I wrote a book on the subject of breast cancer and stated that my best estimate backed up by considerable evidence is that about ¾ of all the breast cancers of the 20th century were induced by ionizing radiation of one sort or another, including medical. This is not a small problem and we there therefore need to give attention to every source of low-level radiation exposure to the public.”
“In the early days of the post-war period when radioactivity became available in large quantities as the result of the existence of nuclear reactors, many of the people working in the field said, ‘Well, what dose can we allow people to have which will be safe?’
“I wrestled with that question for over 20 years, and in 1986 on a talk about Chernobyl, I presented to the American Chemical Society, my initial calculations which said:
There cannot be a safe dose, because at the lowest possible dose, which is one radiation track through the cell, I have proved that cancer is the result.”
–> Regarding Tritium:
“Many people thinking about Tritium say ‘oh we don’t have to worry about tritium; the energy of the radiation is so low that we don’t even need to think about it.’ But that is a cardinal error! It is true that the energy of each beta particle emitted by tritium is very low, BUT there’s another problem. When you have a very low energy beta particle interact with biological tissue to produce the damage to genes, the damage to chromosomes, and the risk of future cancers, the lower the energy of the radiation, the WORSE it is in terms of biological hazards. Tritium is FIVE TIMES as hazardous as bomb radiation for the same total amount of energy delivered. And that’s a general law, a rule of physics. I don’t think any person who is reasonable at all can doubt that I have demonstrated THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE because I have shown with a multitude of studies that we get cancers down at the lowest doses. Now that’s been resisted… but the United Nations scientific community in 1993 has come out and joined me in exactly the same kind of analysis. Their conclusion: THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE.”
“Children are most sensitive with respect to the generation of cancer and leukemia from radiation. The study of breast cancer in Hiroshima with radiation from the bomb has shown that children under 20, women under 20, are the most sensitive; that from 20 to 40, they are less sensitive to the breast cancer generation, and beyond 40 even less sensitive. That’s not theory. That’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And the sensitivity of the young being greater means we should exercise every precaution that we protect our children from sources of radiation no matter how small.”
Be Thankful For the Invisible Belt That Saves Earth From Radiation, Gizmodo, 26 Nov 14
Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan A NASA-led study of the Van Allen radiation belts has uncovered new information about the invisible “shield” that keeps harmful ultrarelativistic electrons from the Earth.
In a study published in Nature, scientists from MIT and the University of Colorado at Boulder detail their analysis of data from NASA’s Van Allen Probes, which are studying the radiation belts around Earth—just last year, the probes reported the existence of a new, previously-unknown third belt thousands of miles above the Earth. In short, these craft are sending back vital information about the space around our planet. And in Nature this week, we found out even more.
In the study, we learn about the existence of a hard barrier at the bottom of the outermost belt, about 7,000 miles above Earth, and something called “plasmaspheric hiss.” This layer of electromagnetic waves stop the high-energy electrons zinging around the Earth from actually getting close to it. MIT News explains that the “hiss” in the phenomenon’s name is actually due to the sound the waves make over the radio, and that they keep us safe from otherwise quite dangerous radiation:…….http://gizmodo.com/be-thankful-for-the-invisible-belt-that-saves-earth-fro-1663882527
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- indigenous issues
- marketing of nuclear
- opposition to nuclear
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- MIDDLE EAST
- NORTH AMERICA
- SOUTH AMERICA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- rare earths
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual