The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Sellafield smoke stack incident – 20 October 2012 – Picture-repost

USA -Study will assess cancer risks -Flawed methodology? Media ignoring other studies?

the top industry trade group had argued against it, saying the study is “unlikely to produce scientifically defensible results.”

Will the methodology use qualitative research (real data) or quantitative research (statistics and mathematical formula)?

The USA budget for radiation monitoring has been reduced by 40 percent even before the study has begun. is this a coincidence? Therefore NO real data!

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is a jointly staffed agency within the Department of Homeland Security. DNDO is the primary entity in the U.S. government for implementing domestic nuclear detection efforts for a managed and coordinated response.


Occupy the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) WTF??? WHY ARE WE CUTTING THE DNDO BUDGET BY 40%??? Shouldn’t we be INCREASING the detection of radiation in our country b/c there’s an ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan and the prevailing winds are in OUR direction?? It rains down in OUR crops, contaminates OUR food supply, and gets in OUR air and water!! Would someone please explain that to the people in charge!!! Never mind the fact that many of our own 104 aging nuclear power plants also leak and when they do the leaking is invisible. Shouldn’t we be spending MORE on monitoring all of this instead of cutting the budget by 40%?? In the middle of an ongoing nuclear disaster it seems really stupid to be slashing the radiation monitoring budget.


Methodology of NPP cancer study

“Geographic areas to use in the study (e.g., county, zip codes, census tracts, or annular rings around the facility at some nominal distances)”

The use of annular rings or nominal distances is a farce as the fallout from the tall chimney stacks can travel some way before it touches ground.”

Here is a quote from a report on atmospheric effects on stack emissions  The idea is to loft the emissions up and get them to travel far.

“..In most problems one must estimate the effective stack height, H, at which the plume becomes essentially level. Rarely will this height correspond to the physical height of the stack, h. If the plume is caught in the turbulent wake of the stack or of buildings in the vicinity of the stack, the effluent will be mixed rapidly downward toward the ground (aerodynamic downwash). If the plume is emitted free of these turbulent zones, a number of emission factors and meteorological factors influence the rise of the plume….”

A good example i noticed was reported as a UFO but was actually a smoke ring from the Sellafield Stack. It is likely they had a chimney fire and a sudden release creating this perfect circle of dense and highly radioactive smoke. high dosage enough to kill birds perhaps Picture here;

Just above the chimney is the strange shape Calum Sherwood saw in the sky in Salterbeck, Cumbria

The rain that fell in London was radioactive though not as bad as some other releases this year and last. London is about 240 miles and the fallout probably travelled 350 miles to get here (about 500 km)

And this post from the comments at Enenews

October 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm · Reply

We’ve had up to 0.25 microsievert/hr in the rain on Friday and up to 0.15 microsievert/h on Saturday

Air reading taken 1 meter of the ground

radon etc from waste processing

and on Saturday night we had a very intense sunset


Here is a video of the sunset taken by a north London blogger

No Sun ALL day..then this (beautiful) Chemical Sunset?

From jamnoise72

Also, the BBC reported that this week we might get red rain. They say it would be from the Sahara . last weekend the rain left dust on the vehicles though but not heavy,, likely Pb210 from radon that came from Sellafield to London  the low level winds came from the north but a circulating force took the emissions across north England to be caught by the south heading winds in the north sea. We had a red dust left after the rain a few times this year and always with measurable increases in the radiation levels and releases from NPP`s and nuclear waste processing sites.

The major point here though is that the study will not look at where the contamination comes down if it uses the above listed methodologies. This was a point made also by Prof. Chris Busby. It is very hard to trace even given new techniques and technologies.

The study will be flawed if the stack releases and downwind positions are not monitored with real people instead of statistics  The same trick has been used concerning the children of Fukushima where the World Health Organisation released a mathematical projection that the children would have no harm given the releases from Daichi but then a few weeks later the real test results came out and refuted the World Health reports claims. too late though as all the health professionals and media had already published the flawed WHO report.

Here is the Study Task for the research in full

Study Task

The National Academy of Sciences will provide an assessment of cancer risks in populations living near U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed nuclear facilities. This assessment will be carried out in two consecutive phases:

A Phase 1 scoping study will identify scientifically sound approaches for carrying out the cancer epidemiology study that has been requested by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It will address the following tasks:

1. Methodological approaches for assessing off-site radiation dose, including consideration of:

  • Pathways, receptors, and source terms
  • Availability, completeness, and quality of information on gaseous and liquid radioactive releases and direct radiation exposure from nuclear facilities
  • Approaches for overcoming potential methodological limitations arising from the variability in radioactive releases over time and other confounding factors
  • Approaches for characterizing and communicating uncertainties

2. Methodological approaches for assessing cancer epidemiology, including consideration of:

  • Characteristics of the study populations (e.g., socioeconomic factors, all age groups, children only, and nuclear facility workers)
  • Geographic areas to use in the study (e.g., county, zip codes, census tracts, or annular rings around the facility at some nominal distances)
  • Cancer types and health outcomes of morbidity and mortality data
  • Availability, completeness, and quality of cancer incidence and mortality data
  • Different epidemiological study designs and statistical assessment methods (e.g., ecologic or case-control study designs)
  • Approaches for overcoming potential methodological limitations arising from low statistical power, random clustering, changes in population characteristics over time, and other confounding factors
  • Approaches for characterizing and communicating uncertainties

The results of this Phase 1 scoping study will be used to inform the design of the cancer risk assessment, which will be carried out in Phase 2.

This is the CNN report

Do you live near a nuclear power plant? Study will assess cancer risks

By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN
October 23, 2012

(CNN) – More than 20 years after a major study said there is no evidence that people who live near nuclear power plants face an increased risk of dying from cancer, the federal government will look anew at the subject, starting with seven nuclear facilities from Connecticut to California.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday it is pushing forward with the study because an oft-cited 1990 study is dated and because more modern methods of analysis and information sources are available.

In a briefing paper, the NRC staff says that given the known amounts of radiation released from nuclear reactors, researchers would not expect to observe any increased cancer risks for nearby residents.

Nevertheless, the staff says, the studies would be “helpful to addresspublic health concerns” and could be a tool for allaying public health concerns.

While some civic groups have supported the study, the top industry trade group had argued against it, saying the study is “unlikely to produce scientifically defensible results.”


The pilot study will take two to three years to complete and will cost about $2 million.

For the past two decades, the NRC has relied on a National Cancer Institute’s report, “Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities,” published in a 1991 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

That study showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 counties containing or near 62 nuclear facilities.


Of course the news article from CNN was cut and pasted around the web with no one thinking to add any opposing information like this;

French study finds childhood leukemia doubled around nuclear plants

A major epidemiological study just published in the January 2012 edition of The International Journal of Cancer indicates there is “a possible excess risk” of acute leukemia among children living in close vicinity to French nuclear power plants (NPP). The study called for an “investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP, and collaborative analysis of multisite studies conducted in various countries.”

The study found a doubling of occurrence of childhood leukemia between the years of 2002-2007 among children under 5 years living within 5 km of nuclear plants – similar to the findings of the German 2008 study by the Cancer Registry in Mainz which found an association between the nearness of residence to nuclear power plants and the risk of childhood leukemia.

The epidemiological study was conducted by a team from the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) and the National Register of hematological diseases of children in Villejuif. The results marked a surprising and encouraging change at IRSN which had endeavored to discredit earlier French epidemiological studies that had shown an impact of nuclear facilities on health

The German study

“The study was based on the distance of children’s residences from nuclear power plants and addressed the question whether children under age 5 with cancer live closer, on average, to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Odds Ratios (OR) for distance categories and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated.”

So even the German and likely the French studies did not follow downwind fallout patterns and trace the fallout from the stack

March 23, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. […] Breaking! Sellafield, the BBC and EURDEP lie to cover up contamination incident! Irish coast hit!… […]

    Pingback by Documentary – Radioactive waste: Dumped and Forgotten [Banned in the uk] « nuclear-news | May 26, 2013 | Reply

Leave a Reply to Sellafield and Professor Chris Busby – INTRIGUE AND DECEPTION CONCERNING IRELAND! « nuclear-news Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: