nuclear-news

Why There Is No “Safe” Level Of Radiation from Fukushima , Green Media, “There is no safe dose of radiation”~ Prof. Edward P. Radford, Physician and Epidemiologist While a highly coordinated effort is underway by the nuclear industry, mainstream media, medical establishment and world governments to define, justify and reinforce a “safe level of radioactivity” pertaining to the air, the water, the food, and our bodies, the unspoken truth contained within the precautionary principle that there is no safe dose of radiation, nor a safe level of exposure to the 200+ radioisotopes released by the Fukushima reactor complex meltdown, is but an inaudible whisper in the cacophony of a world dominated by universal deception.

Regardless of whether we chose to pay attention or not, over the past month a massive number of radiotoxic and genotoxic particles have been released into the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere, and due to the continuous westerly circular flow of the Jet stream no one in the Northern latitudes will be spared some degree of exposure as time proceeds.

The question of exposure should not be “if” but “when,” and “how” we deal with it once it happens. Cesium-137 for instance, has a half-life of 30 years (90 years later 12.5% of its radioactivity remains), and due to its similarity to potassium will make its way up the food chain bioaccumulating and distributing broadly in the tissues of both plants and animals as it goes. Eventually all such radioisotopes must meet mankind who is perched precariously on top of an unsustainable, highly toxic food pyramid of his own making, and from which he has an exceedingly difficult time escaping and/or detoxifying.

Sufficient evidence exists that certain populations in the United States are already being exposed in their water and food, and until the Fukushima reactor complex stops emptying radioactive material directly into the environment, things are only going to get worse. (Examples: “Radioiodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Fran. 18,100% above federal drinking water standards.” “Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk“).

If you are not disturbed by this information, you may be failing to understand the true nature of this event and the intrinsically insane design of the nuclear industry itself…….

Were it not for half a century of “nuclear medicine,” “radiotherapy,” “electronic pasteurization,” and related oxymoronic “humanitarian” and “therapeutic” applications of weapons and fuel sources of mass destruction, or the concerted effort to cover-up the human and planetary harms caused by the wartime use of depleted uranium, nuclear accidents and intentional industry emissions, we might not be so resistant to understanding just how serious the Fukushima reactor meltdown is, and will continue to be. Can anything be more serious than Plutonium-239 having a half-life of 24,100 years and Uranium-238 having a half-life of 4.4 BILLION years?………

The nuclear radiation risk models used by the nuclear industry and the medical establishment and harped upon by the mainstrem media and world governments, were created largely by nuclear physicists in the 1950’s, before the discovery of DNA, and are based upon the type of high energyexternal radiation exposures associated with the atomic bomb blast in Hiroshima.

This “old world” risk model, which underpins the policies and recommendations of would-be authorities on radiation safety such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), though relevant in the case of external radiation exposure, severely misrepresents both the type and degree of radiotoxicity associated with the internalization of radioisotopes like Radioiodine 131, Cesium 137 and Uranium 238, and subsequent “non-linear” adverse effects in the human body. The ICRP not only conditions the world’s perception on the relative safety of nuclear energy, but is also responsible for underwriting the risk associated with the use of munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) in places like Iraq, and now Libya. The genotoxic Uranium-238 residues left behind will likely cause pain, suffering, birth defects, miscarriages and premature deaths for countless generations to come. (Learn more about DU)

Although radiosotopes like Uranium-238 give off relatively low doses of ionizing radiation when compared to “high dose” external radiation exposure (such that may occur in a nuclear blast), following inhalation or ingestion these alpha particle emitters remain in affected tissues and cells for days, months, years and in some cases, a (subsequently shortened) lifetime, e.g. Strontium-90.

On a cellular level, particles of Uranium-238, which are weak emitters of alpha particle radiation (and therefore considered relatively non-radiotoxic), strongly bind and incorporate into the DNA in affected cells. Once a DNA-Uranium complex is formed it is capable of amplifying the genotoxicity of natural background gamma radiation (or medical radiation) to the affected DNA though a phenomenon called “photoelectric enhancement” by up to 55,000 TIMES HIGHER than normally occurs. See Video Below or this Document for Details:

The widespread ignorance over the true dangers associated with “internal radiation exposures” make it possible for CNN’s Sanja Gupta and similar “experts” to (mis)inform the public with all earnestness that radiation associated with the Fukushima meltdown and atmospheric release are of no concern, and is why those who wish to exercise the precautionary principle are often labeled “fear mongers” or “radiophobes.”

When pundits talk about passive radiation exposure from a long airplane trip or eating banana being of similar radiotoxicity to the kind presented by a nuclear meltdown, they are reinforcing the fundamental myth of the nuclear age: that releases like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima are concerns to health only insofar as they involve external doses of radiation high enough to cause acute damage. The dirty secret that the largely cheerleading function of mainstream media conceals on behalf of the nuclear industry is that exceedingly low levels of internalizaed radioisotopes may do exponentionally more harm than present radiation risk models allow for.

In order to understand the absurdity of drawing a one-to-one comparison between external and internal radiation exposures, Professor Chris Busby (Scientific Secreatry for the European Comittee on Radiation Risk) draws the analogy between direct comparison between external radiation and internal radiation exposures with warming oneself in front of a fire and eating a red hot coal. Indeed, the public is being lulled into pulling up a comfy chair to warm themselves by the radioactive fire of a disaster the scale of which this world has never known before.http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/why-there-no-safe-level-radiation-fukushima