nuclear-news

US Department of Energy (DOE) and its conflict of interest about radiation

It’s quite a leap to claim that evacuation zones around nuclear power plants might not be needed based on the chromosomes of 112 irradiated mice. 

in 1970, the world’s largest human study of pregnancy x-rays reported that NRC’s harmless dose more than doubles the risk of childhood cancer

A Radioactive Conflict of Interest HUFFINGTON POST, Robert Alvarez on the Conflict of Interest inherent within US DOE radiation research 06/25/2012  Having the Energy Department control radiation health research makes as much sense as giving tobacco companies the authority to see if smoking is bad for you.

Last month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) heralded an Energy Department funded study indicating that evacuation zones around nuclear power stations might not be needed after a major nuclear accident. The study, which exposed mice to radiation levels comparable to those near the Fukushima nuclear disaster, found no
evidence of genetic harm. “There are no data that say that’s a dangerous level,” says Jacquelyn Yanch, a leader of the study.
According to the MIT press release “current U.S. regulations require
that residents of any area that reaches radiation levels eight times
higher than background should be evacuated. However, the financial and
emotional cost of such relocation may not be worthwhile, the
researchers say.”
It’s quite a leap to claim that evacuation zones around nuclear power plants might not be needed based on the chromosomes of 112 irradiated mice. In a devastating critique, blogger, Ian Goddard points out that
the MIT study excluded extensive evidence of genetic damage to humans
living in a radiation-contaminated environment. Although doses in a
peer-reviewed study of 19 groups of children living near Chernobyl
were consistently lower than the MIT mouse study, most showed lasting
genetic damage from radiation. “MIT’s presentation of its study as the
first scientific ever examination of the genetic risks of living in a
nuclear disaster zone is pure science fiction, not fact,” Goddard
concludes.

Even more troubling, the Obama administration reduced emergency
preparedness in case of a major nuclear accident in a quiet
announcement made six months ago, right before Christmas — virtually
guaranteeing minimal media attention. Given that the number of people
living near nuclear stations has grown four-and-a-half times larger
since 1980, a move in the opposite direction would make more sense.
Yet, the government’s low priority for radiation protection is
underscored by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector
General, who recently reported as radioactive fallout from the
Fukushima nuclear site drifted over the U.S., 20 percent of EPA’s
radiation monitoring stations were out of service for more than 6
months.

Also, during early stages of the Fukushima accident, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) officially doubled the baseline annual
public radiation dose from the environment by adding medical
procedures. According the NRC this dose, ” has not been shown to cause
humans any harm.” Although medical radiation exposures have soared
over the past several years, unlike accidental nuclear power releases,
an x-ray involves a choice by the patient and doctor. Moreover, in
1970, the world’s largest human study of pregnancy x-rays reported
that NRC’s harmless dose more than doubles the risk of childhood
cancer…… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-alvarez/mit-radiation-study_b_1623899.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=679403,b=facebook

September 19, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, USA