nuclear-news

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

Radiation sickness: what it is.

With a large enough dose of radiation, for instance, bone marrow will break down almost completely causing major problems with anemia and maintenance of the blood. 

this problem is distinct from cancer as caused by radiation.

Geek Answers: What is radiation sickness and why does it happen? GEEK By  Aug. 15, 2013   Acute Radiation Syndrome, more commonly known as radiation sickness, is one of the scarier threats out there, since it’s born of a force we can neither see nor readily detect and its symptoms can be varied and hard to identify. It can range in severity from an upset stomach to a long, painful death, and it often attacks people literally from the inside out. It seems like an almost spooky threat, but there is some very simple science radiation sickness. Essentially, it comes down to the type of radiation that can alter the electrical structure of atoms in the body.

text ionising

We call such radiation “ionizing radiation” because it carries enough kinetic energy to knock an electron off of an atom it hits, giving that atom a non-standard number of electrons, turning it into an ion. It generally takes quite a bit of energy to achieve this, and ionizing radiation is almost exclusively the result of large and violent events (both manmade and cosmic). A nuclear reactor produces ionizing radiation that must be filtered out with shielding around the core which can — in the event of a disaster — contaminate whole communities, like Chernobyl. Continue reading

Advertisements

August 16, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

How nuclear “safety” reporting protects the nuclear industry

nuke-paranoiaIncapacitation and Protection AGAINST Truth, Blog by Jan Hemmer  June 2, 2013 by Mikkai   It is remarkable how reports always include “stress” / “fear” / “might” / “concern” / “risk” / “Danger” in their headlines and MAIN goals of reporting.

The real damage occurring moves into the background. The dead, the injured, not worth looking at, only the concern counts. This is important, especially during nuclear catastrophes (which never end), to create the illusion of an “end”, to overcome the “current situation”.

This is not about hope or strength, but to cover up, so that the Holocaust industry can live on. Nourished by the death of children, sponsored by the IAEA and the World Health Organization. I present you two instruments which are used: 1) The invention of an unethical, non-medical term: “Radiophobia” and 2) the exclusion of NGOs as alarmists. Compare everything you have read and seen with this information. Be ready to see everything in a totally new light. Even the term “stress” is today overused, for everything, as if stress is something new in human history and could be responsible for all the diseases. It’s not. Internal Emitters from Reactors are. Risk is a virtual term, which conceals existing, current, happening damage.

Experts suggest that we accept that cancer thins the ranks around us.
At the same time our experts tell us Nuclear Reactors cause no health effect.
And even the victims promote “Living with Cancer” , “my life with cancer”….
The romanticizing of murder is one of the means of repression and powerlessness.
And is imposed on the coming generations.
The same with diabetes, allergies, dead or premature birth, birth defects, autoimmune diseases, ADD, disabilities, etc…
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Asleep@Wheel.html#Part2

At the same time our human emotions that are vital for life, are more and more misunderstood as aberrations. By a diabolical mechanization of our lives. Also powered by experts. That’s why we always read “risk”, “may”, “concern” – instead of REAL DAMAGE happening RIGHT NOW.

A reactor means for each country the following: Continue reading

August 16, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Time that UK Labour rejected replacement of useless Trident Nuclear Submarines

Trident-nuclear-submarineflag-UKPro-nuclear propaganda in 1983: lessons for 2013 50/50 Inclusive Democracy REBECCA JOHNSON 9 August 2013  Read the first.]

“……..As nuclear weapons are increasingly marginalised in the 21st century and Britain faces another hundred-billion-pound question on whether to replace the Trident system we didn’t need for the past 30 years and can’t find any good reason for getting now, it’s time for the Labour Party to stop running scared about reframing security and nuclear policy.

The intellectual and security arguments against Trident replacement are overwhelming. It’s time to change the discourse on nuclear weapons in Britain. If this country is to avoid committing the stupid, expensive mistake of signing away billions of pounds more to build some lumbering submarines to chain us to nuclear dependency for the next fifty years, we need our politics to catch up with the facts and arguments. Since so many in the Labour Party still seem paralysed by the mistaken belief that advocating nuclear disarmament kept them out of power for the 1980s, let’s take a look at that time again, assisted by hindsight and the 1983 documents……

By the time the first of the very expensive Vanguard submarines rolled out of Barrow in 1994, the Cold War had been consigned to the trashcan of history. Sadly its nuclear assumptions and doctrines live on in the minds of those responsible for the 2013 Trident Alternatives Review…………..

Is it too much to ask that today’s media would stop perpetuating the Tory narrative and its over-simplification of unilateral and multilateral disarmament? As noted in a 2000 programme of action for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, negotiated and adopted by Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) parties (including the UK), unilateral, bilateral and multilateral steps will all be necessary. Similarly, getting prohibition treaties in international law as well as decisive steps to reduce and eliminate existing arsenals are not mutually exclusive but jointly necessary measures to achieve the world free of nuclear weapons that so many leaders now say they want.

Britain’s politicians seem to be sleepwalking into disaster.  What will it take to overcome Labour’s “electoral defeat traumatic syndrome” so that we can have a sensible, fact-based discussion of the pros and cons of Trident replacement? http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rebecca-johnson/pro-nuclear-propaganda-in-1983-lessons-for-2013

August 16, 2013 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

107 potential 9/11 type targets – America’s nuclear power plants

safety-symbol1Flag-USAReport: U.S. nuclear plants remain vulnerable to terrorists By Jamie Crawford, CNN August 15, 2013 Washington (CNN) — None of the 107 nuclear facilities in the United States are protected against a high-force terrorist attack, and some are still vulnerable to the theft of bomb-grade nuclear fuel, or sabotage intended to cause a nuclear meltdown, a new report says.

The Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas released the report Thursday. It wants to shine a light on the security gaps that still exist more than 10 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

“It would be a tragedy if the United States had to look back after such an attack on a nuclear reactor and say that we could have and should have done more to prevent the catastrophe,” said Prof. Alan J. Kuperman, co-author of the report.

The study was done at the request of the Defense Department after the Pentagon commissioned an academic study of the security vulnerabilities of the nation’s 104 commercial nuclear power reactors and three civilian research reactors……. Continue reading

August 16, 2013 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

“Radiophobia” and other terms to belittle opponents of nuclear power

nuke-paranoiaThe Nuclear Cancer inside of the United Nations, blog by Jan Hemmer  June 1, 2013 by Mikkai   妊娠中の日本人女性の避難す “……….At the Chernobyl IAEA forum the term “Radiophobia” was invented and used: “What’s worse, the IAEA is going public these days with statements ridiculing the so called “radiophobia” of the population and calling for an end of aid programs, which, according to the IAEA report of 2005, only serve to instil a victim mentality in a totally healthy population – a claim not only cynical, but potentially dangerous for the health of the affected population.” Source:http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/coverup.html

“Presently the international organizations (WHO, IAEA) recognize as the main cause of increase of thyroid cancer in liquidators and children population after the accident their irradiation with radioactive iodine, I-131. The rest of diseases, they suppose, are provoked by psycho-emotional reactions..” (!!!…… ” http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf IGNORED BY IAEA, UNSCEAR, ICRP, WHO http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/the-nuclear-cancer-insidie-of-the-united-nations/#comment-5111

August 16, 2013 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Japan’s ghost towns , and the plight of the nuclear refugees

INSIGHT – JAPAN’S NUCLEAR CLEAN-UP: COSTLY, COMPLEX AND AT RISK OF FAILING YAHOO 7 NEWS, 15 AUG 13 BY SOPHIE KNIGHT “……Many have given up hope of ever returning to live in the shadow of the Fukushima nuclear plant. A survey in June showed that a third of the former residents of Iitate, a lush village famed for its fresh produce before the disaster, never want to move back. Half of those said they would prefer to be compensated enough to move elsewhere in Japan to farm.

Nuclear evacuees currently receive a living allowance from plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), which is cut off when the government decides they are able to move home again.

“I feel like some people don’t want to go back because they’re happy living off the compensation money from Tepco and they don’t want that to end,” said Hiroaki Inoue, an official from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry spending a year working at the Kawauchi village office to monitor the spending of the reconstruction budget.

But some evacuees say it is unfair to cut off financial support when their previous homes and villages remain unliveable.

“There’s no jobs, no shops open, nothing. It’s become an incredibly difficult place to live and yet they’re saying ‘You can go home now’,” said a single mother evacuated from near Kawauchi, who declined to be named for fear of retribution from the authorities.

“It’s so unfair to say that. It’s not that simple.”

In Tomioka, a coastal ghost town north of the Fukushima plant, ambient radiation remains at 10 times the government’s target. Wild boar wander the streets.

“This could be fixed,” said Yokota on a recent visit. “They could get these levels right down. But the thing is, people didn’t come back quickly enough. That’s fatal.”

(Additional reporting by Antoni Slodkowski; Editing by Kevin Krolicki and Alex Richardson) http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/18506729/insight-japans-nuclear-clean-up-costly-complex-and-at-risk-of-failing/

August 16, 2013 Posted by | Fukushima 2013, social effects | Leave a comment

Rapid City Council swamped by opponents of uranium mining

Water is precious thing, a gift of life,” said Mark Kammerer, an area rancher who opposes the operation. “I hope you go ahead and come up with a good resolution denying Powertech the use of this water. You have that responsibility to my kids, your kids and kids not yet born. Water is the gift of life. Without it, all life dies.”

Protest-No!Flag-USAUranium mining opponents swarm council committee Rapid City Journal,   •  John Lee McLaughlin Journal staff, 15 Aug 13, After learning that the mayor and three city council members met privately with Powertech representatives, opponents of a proposed uranium mine packed Rapid City’s council chambers on Wednesday to find out where the city stands on the matter.

Despite nearly an hour of testimony, the Legal and Finance Committee declined to take a stand on a resolution opposing the project near Edgemont that needs state and federal approval. The resolution will now be considered Monday night by the Rapid City Council…… opponents to Powertech’s proposed Dewey Burdock mining project were concerned the meeting may have watered down the council’s original opposition, which was discussed at a meeting where council members say they wanted assurance the proposed project wouldn’t hurt the local water supply……

Project opponents voiced concern over the mine’s potential impacts on regional water quality and contamination from heavy metals and radioactive material that they said would pose a risk for 4.4 billion years, which is the half-life of uranium. Continue reading

August 16, 2013 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

US navy man attributes his sickness to Fukushima radiation

Paper: Navy sailor’s health melted down after exposure to Fukushima fallout — Now a shaking, withering patient unable to walk by himself — Lives of younger service members “at stake as well” — Doctors won’t give a diagnosis (PHOTOS) http://enenews.com/paper-navy-sailors-health-melted-down-after-exposure-to-fukushima-fallout-now-a-shaking-withering-patient-unable-to-walk-by-himself-lives-of-younger-service-members-at-stake-as-well-d

Title: Without medical diagnosis, Utah sailor lives in limbo
Source: Deseret News (Utah)
Author:  Jed Boal,
Published: Aug. 14 2013 [...] Over the last 21 months, [Lt. j.g. Steve Simmons, who served on board the USS Ronald Reagan with the U.S. Navy during Fukushima crisis] said his health has melted down, too, and he’s not alone. […]
He believes he’s suffering from radioactive contamination […]

Since November of 2011 Lt. j.g. Steve Simmons has been sick. He believes he’s suffering from radioactive contamination, but doctors won’t give him a diagnosis. (Simmons Family via Deseret News)
After November 2011, Simmons said he went from being a fitness buff always up for a challenging hike to a shaking and withering patient who cannot walk on his own. He’s lost 25 pounds, down to 128 pounds, and lost 25 percent to 30 percent of his muscle mass.
“The muscle weakness has progressed to the point where he needs 24-hour care,” his wife said.

[…] doctors won’t provide a diagnosis, he said. […]

Simmons is not part of the lawsuit [150 former sailors and Marines suing Tepco].
He’s especially concerned about the younger sailors and Marines. “Their lives are at stake as well,” he said. […]
View photos of Lt. j.g. Simmons here
UPDATE: TV: Many U.S. sailors are suffering serious symptoms of radiation sickness after being contaminated during Fukushima nuclear disaster — USS Ronald Reagan was as close as a mile away

August 16, 2013 Posted by | Fukushima 2013, health | Leave a comment

Britain’s pro nuclear spin in the 1980s – denigrating opponents

text-historyflag-UK

Labour and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND ) were tarred as Communist sympathisers or stooges. Greenham women were projected as naïve (coupled in some narratives with the condescending qualification “well-meaning mothers and grandmothers”, and in others with “squalid” and “dangerous feminists”). The Conservative line was “If you knew what we know, you wouldn’t question the need for Trident and Cruise”. History has confirmed that the peace movement understood much more than we were given credit for. Perhaps that is why Thatcher’s government refused to engage in an intelligent debate over nuclear policy, finding it easier to belittle their opposition while asserting their status quo decisions and preferences as if they were factual, evidence-based necessities. 

Pro-nuclear propaganda in 1983: lessons for 2013 50/50 Inclusive Democracy REBECCA JOHNSON 9 August 2013  Read the first.]    Cabinet papers and secret government letters from 1983 that have been made public under the 30 year rule show that Margaret Thatcher’s government was more seriously worried about the electoral impact of nuclear weapons deployments than had previously been revealed.

Their concerns included the popular opposition to Trident replacement and to the US siting of cruise missiles at Greenham Common.

Though Labour was tearing itself apart over the break-away faction that formed a new Social Democratic Party (SDP), some 700,000 more people voted for the disarmament-oriented Labour Party of 1983 than in the 1979 election when the Party was led by Prime Minister James Callaghan, who took the first steps towards Trident replacement and the deployment of cruise missiles in 1979. Callaghan lost that election, and Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Labour’s defeat in 1983 had far more to do with the SDP factor in a two-party system, economic reconstruction, and innovative use of media and advertising techniques by the Tories……… Continue reading

August 16, 2013 Posted by | history, spinbuster | Leave a comment