nuclear-news

The truth about low level radiation is covered up by governments and corporations

Louisiana sinkhole radiation abuse and cover up continue The Examiner, NOVEMBER 30, 2012 BY: DEBORAH DUPRE Low-level, even natural radiation is potentially damaging, according to scientific studies, including a newly released study report.

Smith refers to corporate and government hiding the truth about radiation as “dose dancing.”

“‘Dose dancing’ is a load of baloney,” Smith stated Tuesday. “My experience as a lawyer has shown me that even exposure to levels of radiation that are considered low can in fact be harmful. And increasingly there is scientific research backing this up.

The latest study on this subject is what Smith calls “a bombshell.” He quotes about the new study:

“Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there, including Ramsar, Iran, Mombasa, Kenya, Lodeve, France, and Yangjiang, China. These, and a few other geographic locations with natural background radiation that greatly exceeds normal amounts, have long drawn scientists intent on understanding the effects of radiation on life. Individual studies by themselves, however, have often only shown small effects on small populations from which conclusive statistical conclusions were difficult to draw.

Smith says that what these researchers learned “is alarming indeed”:

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.
‘There’s been a sentiment in the community that because we don’t see obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to be small and localized, that maybe there aren’t any negative effects from low levels of radiation,’ said Mousseau. ‘But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.’
‘It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation,’ he added. ‘A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.’”

“I cannot understate the importance of this: “Long-term exposure to radiation is not safe, even at so-called low levels,” Smith asserted. “”This simple fact needs to inform our quest for environmental safety and justice on many levels — whether the issue is as high-profile as the lingering aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, or as down-to-earth as radioactive pipe from the oil patch that’s been used to build a school playground, as we discovered during that Chevron case.

“All citizens need to learn about the risks, the remedies, and the potential recourse,” Smith states……….http://www.examiner.com/article/louisiana-sinkhole-radiation-abuse-and-cover-up-continue

December 3, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA