nuclear-news

Bursting the nuclear industry’s bubble that radiation is OK

By October 2011, an article in the journal Nature estimated Fukushima emissions to be more than double that of Chernobyl. How anyone, let alone scientists, could call Fukushima doses “too low” to cause harm in the face of this evidence is astounding.

Within six days of the meltdowns, the plume had reached the U.S. and, within 18 days, it had circled the Northern Hemisphere.

 Last month brought the news that 573 deaths in the area near the stricken reactors were certified by coroners as related to the nuclear crisis, with dozens more deaths to be reviewed. 

The dangerous myths of Fukushima: Exposing the ‘no harm’ mantra, Bay View,   by Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, M.D. March 10, 2012 The myth that Fukushima radiation levels were too low to harm humans persists a year after the meltdown. A March 2, 2012, New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor John Boice: “There’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance for success – the doses are just too low.” Wolfgang Weiss of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation also recently said doses observed in screening of Japanese people “are very low.”

Views like these are political, not scientific, virtually identical to what the nuclear industry cheerleaders claim. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo issued a statement in June that “no health effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.”

In their haste to choke off all consideration of harm from Fukushima radiation, nuclear plant owners and their willing dupes in the
scientific community built a castle against invaders – those open-minded researchers who would first conduct objective research
BEFORE rushing to judgment. The pro-nuclear chants of “no harm” and “no studies needed” are intended to be permanent, as part of damage control created by a dangerous technology that has produced yet another catastrophe.

But just one year after Fukushima, the “no harm” mantra is now being crowded by evidence – evidence to the contrary.

First, estimates of releases have soared. The first reports issued by
the Japanese government stated that emissions equaled 10 percent of
1986 Chernobyl emissions. A few weeks later, they doubled that
estimate to 20 percent. By October 2011, an article in the journal Nature estimated Fukushima emissions to be more than double that of Chernobyl. How anyone, let alone scientists, could call Fukushima doses “too low” to cause harm in the face of this evidence is astounding.

Where did the radioactive particles and gases go? Officials from
national meteorological agencies in countries like France and Austria
followed the plume and made colorful maps available on the internet.
Within six days of the meltdowns, the plume had reached the U.S. and,
within 18 days, it had circled the Northern Hemisphere.

How much radiation entered the U.S. environment? A July 2011 journal
article by officials at Pacific Northwest National Lab in Eastern
Washington state measured airborne radioactive Xenon-133 up to 40,000
times greater than normal in the weeks following the fallout.
Xenon-133 is a gas that travels rapidly and does not enter the body
but signals that other, more dangerous types of radioactive chemicals
will follow.

A February 2012 journal article by the U.S. Geological Survey looked
at radioactive Iodine-131 that entered soil from rainfall, and found
levels hundreds of times above normal in places like Portland, Ore.,
Fresno, Calif., and Denver, Colo. The same places also had the highest
levels of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 in the U.S. While elevated
radiation levels were found in all parts of the country, it appears
that the West Coast and Rocky Mountain states received the greatest
amounts of Fukushima fallout.
Radiation in rainfall guarantees that humans will ingest a poisonous
mix of chemicals. The rain enters reservoirs of drinking water,
pastures where milk-giving cows graze, the soil of produce farms, and
other sources of food and water.
Finally, how many people were harmed by Fukushima in the short term?
Official studies have chipped away at the oft-repeated claim that
nobody died from Fukushima. Last month brought the news that 573
deaths in the area near the stricken reactors were certified by
coroners as related to the nuclear crisis, with dozens more deaths to
be reviewed. Another survey showed that births near Fukushima declined
25 percent in the three months following the meltdowns. One physician
speculated that many women chose to deliver away from Fukushima, but
an increase in stillbirths remains as a potential factor….
On Dec. 19, 2011, we announced the publication of the first
peer-reviewed scientific journal article examining potential health
risks after Fukushima. In the 14-week period March 20-June 25, 2011,
there was an increase in deaths reported to the Centers for Disease
Control by 122 U.S. cities. If final statistics – not available until
late 2014 – confirm this trend, about 14,000 “excess” deaths occurred
among Americans in this period.

We made no statement that only Fukushima fallout caused these
patterns. But we found some red flags: Infants had the greatest excess
– infants are most susceptible to radiation – and a similar increase
occurred in the U.S. in the months following Chernobyl. Our study
reinforced Fukushima health hazard concerns, and we hope to spur
others to engage in research on both short-term and long-term effects.

For years, the assumption that low-dose radiation doesn’t harm people
has been used, only to fall flat on its face every time. X-rays to
abdomens of pregnant women, exposure to atom bomb fallout and
exposures to nuclear weapons workers were all once presumed to be
harmless due to low dose levels – until scientific studies proved
otherwise. Officials have dropped their assumptions on these types of
exposures but continue to claim that Fukushima was harmless.

Simply dismissing needed research on Fukushima health consequences
because doses are “too low” is irresponsible and contradictory to many
scientific studies….http://sfbayview.com/2012/the-dangerous-myths-of-fukushima-exposing-the-no-harm-mantra/

March 12, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, health