nuclear-news

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

Increased risk of cancer for American heart patients due to diagnostic radiation exposure

medical-radiationAmerican patients are ‘exposed to excessive radiation during heart tests – raising the risk of cancer’, Daily Mail, 29 Dec 15 

  • Scientists revealed US heart patients face higher risk of radiation exposure
  • Myocardial perfusion imaging is used to diagnose coronary artery disease
  • The imaging technology requires the use of radiation, the study said
  • US patients receive a 20% higher radiation dose during these tests
  • That’s because US facilities don’t closely follow radiation dosing guidelines

By LISA RYAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM , 30 December 2015 |…………..Dr Einstein said the results from the studies show that doctors must do more to minimize radiation exposure.

That’s because radiation exposure will still cause cancer in a small – but real – number of patients, according to Dr Rebecca Smith-Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr Smith-Bindman wrote, in an accompanying editorial: ‘The right imaging tests performed at the right time can lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses, better treatment decisions and improved patient outcomes, and advanced imaging has had a very positive impact on patient care.’

Yet, she cautioned that ‘unnecessary and inappropriately performed tests cause patients discomfort and anxiety

They can lead to a large number of irrelevant incidental findings and expose them to ionizing radiation – which can have negative effects on their health – she concluded.

The studies were published in JAMA Internal Medicine. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3377866/American-patients-exposed-excessive-radiation-heart-tests-raising-risk-cancer.html

December 30, 2015 Posted by | health, radiation, USA | Leave a comment

Official data now reveals hugh extent of Fukushima radiation to USA West Coast

OFFICIAL DATA: FUKUSHIMA BOMBARDED WEST COAST WITH 790X NORMAL RADIATION http://www.thedailysheeple.com/official-data-fukushima-bombarded-west-coast-with-790x-normal-radiation_122015  DECEMBER 14, 2015 | JOSHUA KRAUSE | THE DAILY SHEEPLE |Ever since the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in 2011, our government has been pretty quiet about the environmental and health implications of that disaster. When the plant first melted down, much of our population was justifiably alarmed. After all, many of us remembered the Chernobyl incident and how the radiation it produced spread all across Europe, and in smaller amounts, the world.

But the government assured us that everything would be fine, and at most we would see a negligible amount of radioactive particles in the United States. Everyone who said otherwise was and still is, called a quack or a conspiracy theorist.

Fukushima-Radiation-spreadi

However, official government data that was collected in 2011 has just seen the light of day, and it suggests that our initial concerns were probably correct. The information was collected by officials with Los Angeles County when concerns were raised by residents. After state and federal agencies failed to test the area for radiation in a timely manner, the county hired their own people to run the test. Natural News reported on the results.

Samples were taken between April 29 and May 2, 2011, approximately seven weeks after the radioactive releases from Fukushima. The county found that gross alpha radiation levels at a location in Los Angeles were 300 femtocuries per cubic meter (fCi/m3), and levels at a Hacienda Heights location were 200 fCi/m3.

For context, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reports the average (annual median) level of gross alpha activity for the state of California as just 0.38 fCi/m3 – that is, 790 times lower.

The levels detected in Los Angeles County were a full 100 times higher than the level that requires an investigation at a U.S. nuclear laboratory, according to the Environmental Monitoring Plan at Brookhaven National Laboratory: “If the gross alpha activity in the [air] filters is greater than 3 fCi/m3, then collect more samples in the vicinity, and project manager will review all detections above the limits … All values greater than the above-stated gross alpha/beta concentration shall trigger an investigation.”

Finally, the Los Angeles County levels were almost 15 times higher than the federal regulatory limit for alpha radiation, which is 21 fCi/m3, according to a 2010 document from Idaho National Laboratory.

Moreover, the alpha radiation emitting particles that were deposited on the West Coast are incredibly dangerous for humans. While Gamma and Beta Radiation have far more power and penetration, Alpha rays produce a tremendous amount of damage in the human body when ingested. Because they don’t penetrate materials like Gamma rays do, all of their energy is deposited into the cells that reside near the particle.

More importantly, it doesn’t take very many of these particles to ruin your long-term health. For instance, if you were exposed to a temporary large dose of radiation, your body could probably recover from it, perhaps without even developing cancer. But when the particle itself is embedded in your tissue for weeks, months, and in some cases for years, as it destroys and mutates surrounding cells over and over again, you can expect a significantly shorter lifespan. Even if the amount radiation is small, it’s also continuous, and its source is difficult to remove

So while the government was telling us that everything was hunky dory in the weeks after the Fukushima meltdown, major West Coast cities like Los Angeles were being drenched in alarming levels of this radioactive waste.

Who knows how much of that fell onto the countless farms in the Central Valley, which feed much of the United States? And since they failed to inform us about the danger we were in then, who knows how much danger we are in now? Our government hates to admit when its wrong (or they won’t admit that they lied to us), so if we are still in danger, somehow I doubt they will have anything to say to us now.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

December 16, 2015 Posted by | Fukushima 2015, radiation, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

America’s nuclear workers: 33,480 died from radiation- caused illnesses

At least 33,480 US nuclear workers died of exposure: Report http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/12/13/441510/US-nuclear-arsenal-dead-Cold-War   A yearlong investigation reveals that America’s great push to win World War II and the Cold War has left “a legacy of death on American soil,” with at least 33,480 US nuclear workers dying of radiation exposure over the course of the last seven decades.

menace

The death count, disclosed for the first time, is more than four times the number of American fatalities in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report from McClatchy called “irritated.”

The investigation has exposed the “enormous human cost” of the US nuclear weapons complex using more than 70 million records in a database obtained from the US Department of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act.

The count includes all workers who died after they or their survivors were compensated under a special fund established in 2001 to help those who were exposed to deadly materials while building the US nuclear stockpile, the report said.

A total of 107,394 workers, involved in the construction of America’s nuclear arsenal, have been diagnosed with cancers and other diseases over the last seven decades, records from an interactive database showed.

In addition to utilizing the federal data, McClatchy’s investigation is also based on over 100 interviews with nuclear workers, government officials, experts and activists.

The report noted that US government officials greatly underestimated how sick the nuclear workforce would become. At first, the government estimated that the compensation program would cost $120 million a year to cover 3,000 people. However, 14 years later, the government has spent $12 billion of taxpayer money to compensate more than 53,000 nuclear workers.

Despite the enormous costs, federal records show that only fewer than half of those who sought compensation have had their claims approved by the US Department of Labor.

Decades after the first victims of the radiation exposure have been identified; McClatchy’s investigation revealed that current safety standards have not reduced the exposure rates and day-to-day accidents in America’s nuclear facilities.

The government, meanwhile, seeks to save money by cutting current workers’ health plans, retirement benefits and sick leave. More than 186,000 nuclear employees have been exposed since the compensation program was created in 2001.

McClatchy conducted the project in partnership with the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute, a nonprofit media center in New York City.

The report comes as the US prepares to upgrade its aging nuclear arsenal to the tune of $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

December 14, 2015 Posted by | employment, health, radiation, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Astronauts teaching doctors on the hazards of ionising radiation?

radiation-warningDoctors, astronauts learn radiation dangers from each other Dr. Diethrich developed a brain tumor – one he believes came from years of exposure to radiation KHOU.com 8 Dec 15 HOUSTON — Each year in the Texas Medical Center, hundreds of experts in medicine, energy, aerospace and academia gather to share ideas and collaborate across disciplines, finding ways their industries can learn from each other.

This year at the ninth annual Pumps and Pipesgathering at Houston Methodist, a celebrated surgeon offered his misfortune as a warning to travelers in a seemingly unrelated field: Future astronauts bound for Mars.

Dr. Edward Diethrich is one of the world’s foremost experts on endovascular surgery. He studied under Michael E. DeBakey, M.D. at Houston Methodist Hospital and started the Arizona Heart Institute. But a few years ago he developed a brain tumor – one he believes came from years of exposure to radiation.

“We didn’t know anything about radiation. We were surgeons,” Diethrich said. “I was being radiated from dusk to dawn not even thinking about it. We had to do what we had to do. We wanted to make patients well. Didn’t even think about ourselves.”…..

Diethrich was a pioneer in fluoroscopy – X-ray guided surgical procedures. And, in his presentation Monday, offered his dilemma has a warning and a challenge to NASA scientists designing radiation protection for future Mars-bound astronauts…….

“There is no such thing as good radiation. So that’s really the message that needs to come out of this. Whatever we can do to mitigate it is important,” said Alan B. Lumsden, MD, Medical Director, Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center. “I think that particularly we as surgeons, and I’m sure probably astronauts probably worse than we are in that respect, often tend to think you’re indestructible.”……http://www.khou.com/story/news/health/2015/12/08/doctors-astronauts-learn-radiation-dangers-from-each-other/76965756/

December 9, 2015 Posted by | radiation, USA | Leave a comment

Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste

text-radiationCoal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410   The idea that coal ash is 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste has been making the rounds among bloggers and Twitterers discussing the coal ash catastrophe in Tennessee, thanks to a headline which makes that assertion in Scientific American online. In fact, Google the words in the headline and you’ll come up with dozens of Web sites that have repeated this statement.

The problem is that it is a profoundly preposterous idea unsupported by a single shred of evidence. Continue reading →

November 27, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Why pilots and air hostesses are classified as radiation workers

radiation-warningHere’s why airline crewmembers are classified as radiation workers http://www.techinsider.io/airplane-flight-cosmic-radiation-exposure-altitude-2015-11  Nov. 19, 2015 

Airline crewmembers have tough jobs. They have to maintain an aircraft’s safety while dealing with grumpy and inattentive passengers — all while keeping smiles on their faces.

But flight attendants and pilots also face an unseen menace on the job: Cosmic radiation.

You can’t see it or feel them, but at any given moment, tens of thousands of highly charged particles are soaring through space and slamming into Earth from all directions.

These particles, sometimes called cosmic rays or cosmic ionizing radiation, originate from the farthest reaches of the Milky Way. They’re bits and pieces of atomic cores shot to nearly light-speed by black holes and exploding stars, and they smash into (and through) anything and everything in their way.

With that incredible speed and energy, it’s no surprise cosmic rays can easily penetrate human flesh and, in the process, pose risks to our health. Their damage to tissues and DNA have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems, for example.

The good news is that these rays don’t pose much of a risk to humans on Earth. That’s because our planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field form a mighty shield against these rays. But the shield isn’t impenetrable, and some particles leak through.

Those who spend a lot of time high up in the atmosphere — flight crews, for instance — face much higher exposure to cosmic radiation. The closer to the ground you are, the less exposure you’ll get. For this reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classifies airline crewmembers as radiation workers.

In fact, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reported in 2009 that aircrews have, on average, the highest yearly dose of radiation out of all radiation-exposed workers in the US.

The annual hit to aircrews is an estimated 3 millisieverts (mSv) — a complicated-sounding measure of the amount of background radiation a person receives in one year in the US — which beats out the annual doses received by other high-radiation jobs, such as X-ray technicians and nuclear power workers. (Only astronauts are more exposed; 10 days in spaces delivers about 4.3 mSv to the skin alone, which is about 4.3 years’ worth of cosmic radiation on the surface of Earth.)

Flying through the sky increases your exposure of two different types of cosmic radiation: galactic cosmic radiation, which is always soaring through an aircraft, and solar particle events, which only occur during solar flares. The latter, very intense bursts of energy from the sun can occur anywhere from one to 20 times per day.

We know that ionizing radiation — which not only comes from space, but from X-rays, nuclear power generation, and atomic bombs — causes cancer and reproductive issues in humans, including miscarriage and birth defects. But we don’t know the health effects of cosmic radiation alone.

Most studies have looked at people bombarded with high amounts of various kinds of radiation, such as atomic bomb survivors and those who received radiation therapy. For this reason we don’t know what level of cosmic radiation is safe for humans,according to the CDC. Which is why there are no official limits on the amount of radiation a crew member can receive in a given year.

There are some worldwide guidelines, however. The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends that a crew member not be exposed to more than 20 mSv per year. The ICRP says that the general public, on the other hand, should receive less than 1 mSv per year. That same 1 mSv recommendation goes for those who are pregnant, both in the sky or on the ground.

But for crewmembers, these limits are difficult to abide, according to the CDC, and such exposures may put them at greater risk for health effects.

To minimize exposures, crew members should try to limit working on flights that are very long, at high altitudes, or that fly over the poles, which are all associated with heightened exposures. Pregnant crewmembers are also particularly at risk and should try not to fly during their first trimester, or at all when the sun is having a solar particle event, which can deliver a higher dose of radiation in one flight than is recommended for the entirety of the pregnancy, according to the CDC.

To calculate your exposure on a typical flight, check out this handy Federal Aviation Administration online tool.

November 25, 2015 Posted by | employment, radiation | Leave a comment

Travel to Mars completely stalled by reality of radiation danger

text ionisingSpace Radiation Is Quietly Stopping Us From Sending Humans to Mars
In order to create a colony, we need to be able to survive a long trip through space. Neel V. Patel, November 17, 2015 Innumberable dangers threaten human astronauts traveling into deep space. Some of these, like asteroids, are obvious and avoidable with some decent LIDAR. Others aren’t. At the top of the not-so-much list is space radiation, something NASA is in no way prepared to protect explorers from while ferrying them to Mars. The radiation environment beyond the magnetosphere is not conducive to life, meaning sending astronauts out there without protection is equivalent to sending them to their doom.

While we’ve sent astronauts into space for over half a century now, the vast majority of these missions have been limited to traveling into low Earth orbit — between 99 and 1,200 miles in altitude. The Earth’s magnetic field — which extends thousands of miles into space — protects the planet from being hit head-on by high-energy solar particles traveling over one million miles per hour.

There are three big sources of space radiation, and they all pose a certain amount of risk that can’t always be anticipated or protected against. The first is trapped radiation. Some particles don’t get deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. Instead, they’re trapped in one of the big two magnetic rings surrounding the Earth, and accumulate together as part of the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA has only had to contend with the Van Allen belts during the Apollo missions.

The second source is galactic cosmic radiation, or GCR, which originates from outside the solar system. These ionized atoms travel at basically the speed of light, although Earth’s magnetic field is also able to protect the planet and objects in low Earth orbit from GCR.

The last source is from solar particle events, which are huge injections energetic particles produced by the sun. There’s a distinction between the solar winds normally emitted by the sun, which take about a day to get to the Earth, and these higher-intensity events that hit us within 10 minutes. Besides producing a potentially lethal amount of radiation for astronauts, SPE can sometimes be wildly unpredictable, making it difficult for NASA scientists and engineers to develop protective measures against them.

NASA examines space radiation the way employers determine acceptable risks for their employees — they will not subject astronauts to an occupational risk of developing cancer beyond a certain threshold……. Continue reading →

November 18, 2015 Posted by | radiation, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Dr. Ernest Sternglass – pioneering researcher into radioactive emissions

Nuclear Shutdown News – October 2015, ObRag, by  on NOVEMBER 12, 2015 Nuclear Shutdown News chronicles the decline of the nuclear power industry in the US and beyond, and highlights the efforts of those who are working to create a nuclear free future.

Millstone and Me: 2015…… The Millstone Nuclear Power Plant began operating in 1970. It wasn’t long before its notoriety began too, as its design was similar to Fukushima’s.

During the mid 1970s, the plant’s owner and operator,  CT’s Northeast Utilities was running Millstone reactor 1, with defective fuel rods, which resulted in massive releases of radiation into the air and water. The US Nuclear Regulator Commission NRC) knew of these releases, but said they were “within acceptable limits.”

Enter Sternglass Knowledge of these massive releases eventually made their way to Dr. Ernest Sternglass – who had been a nuclear energy proponent who worked for Westinghouse, which was building some of the first US nuclear power plants. One of these was Shippingport in Pennsylvania.

At first Sternglass believed that radioactive emissions from this nuke plant would be too low to harm people. Soon, however, he began to question this. First of all, reported releases from the plant were significantly higher than authorities had predicted.

This led Sternglass to examine vital statistics in populations living near the plant. There he found spikes in cancer rates emerging, as well in other health problems such a infant mortality and birth defects.

When Sternglass reported these findings to his employer, he quickly became persona non gratain the nuclear power industry.

Dr. Sternglass went on to become professor of radiological studies at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

When Sternglass received the information about the Millstone ‘70s radioactive releases, and examined them, he became alarmed. These turned out to be the highest annual releases from a US nuclear power plant with the exception of Three Mile Island during its partial meltdown in 1979.

As with Shippingport, Sternglass analyzed vital statistics in communities surrounding Millstone. Again he found disturbing rises in death rates and infant mortality, as well all cancers and specific ones like leukemia and thyroid cancer.

Dr, Sternglass went public with his findings, and initially they caused quite a stir around Connecticut and New England. There were calls for further investigations and cries for the permanent shutdown of Millstone.

Dr. Ernest Sternglass continued his pioneering work into the effects of radiation on human health, which he reported in his brilliant book Secret Fallout: From Hiroshima To Three Mile Island.  Dr. Sternglass died in 2014.

Instead of shutting down Millstone reactor 1, Northeast Utilities started up 2 more reactors. In the1990s chronic mismanagement and harassment of whistle-blowers landed Millstone on the cover of Time Magazine and forced the permanent closure of reactor one.

All its high level nuclear waste, as well as that of the other 2 units, remains on site, making it a massive nuclear dumpsite as well.

Unit 2 turned 40 this year, meaning it has exceeded the years it was designed to operate. Unit 3 will turn 30 next year.

Cancer rates remain high in the region, Dr, Sternglass helped start the Radiation and Public Health Project, which continues his work and has produced studies showing that people living within 50 miles of nuclear plnt are more likely to develop cancer and that after nuclear plants permanently shut down, cancer rates in populations around them begin to fall.

Sources:  Millstone and Me: Sex, Lies, and Radiation in Southeast Connecticut; 1998, Black Rain Press.

Radiation and Public Health Project:  www.radiation.org   http://obrag.org/?p=100956#.VkTv49IrLGg

November 12, 2015 Posted by | history, radiation | Leave a comment

Highest cancer rate in Kerala, India, – (where natural radiation is high)

radiation-warningflag-indiaHighest rate of cancer cases in Kerala: Chief Minister Oommen Chandy
South | Press Trust of India January 27, 2014 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA:  In a shocking revelation, Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy today informed the state Assembly that the state has the highest number of cancer patients in the country.

Out of every one lakh males, 133 persons suffer from the disease while in the case of females, it is 123 for every one lakh females, he said while replying to a calling attention motion on the necessity to set up a cancer institute in Kochi.

As per statistics, nearly 50 per cent of cancer cases could be cured if the disease was identified in the initial stage itself and treatment started, Chandy said.

On the demand for a Cancer Institute, he said the cabinet had already decided to set up a Cancer Research Institute at the campus of Kochi Medical College hospital, which was taken over by the government from the co-operative sector……http://www.ndtv.com/south/highest-rate-of-cancer-cases-in-kerala-chief-minister-oommen-chandy-549016

November 9, 2015 Posted by | health, India, radiation | Leave a comment

World Health Organisation, Dr Alice Stewart, Sr Rosalie Bertell on low Dose Radiation Exposure

text-relevanttext ionisingW.H.O. IPHECA report 1995… areas over 5 mSv/year were designated mandatory EVACUATION zones.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/41801/1/9241561815_eng.pdf

The international standard for external exposure has been 1mSv/year. With the advent of ‘modern medicine’, the use of nuclear chemicals, xrays, dental included, of course…… it is harder for exposure to be limited in this way, but all people should be aware and consider xrays for children especially only when absolutely necessary! Dr. Alice Stewart showed that very low doses for children is far worse and causes cancers in children a few years later! Leukemia being prevalent.

Low Level radiation exposure from Sister Doctor Rosalie Bertell:

“When you are talking about constant low radiation exposure, what you are doing is introducing mistakes into the gene-pool. And those mistakes will eventually turn up by killing that line, that cell line, that species line. The amount of damage determines whether this happens in two generations or in seven generations or 10 generations. So what we are doing by introducing more mistakes into the DNA or the gene pool is we are shortening the number of generations that will be viable on the planet.

We have shortened the number of generations that will follow us. We have shortened that already. So we reduced the viability of living systems on this planet, whether it can recover or not. We don’t have any outside source to get new DNA. So we have the DNA we have, whoever will live on this planet in the future is present right now in the DNA. So if we damage it, we don’t have another place to get it.

There will be no living thing on earth in the future that is not present now in a seed, in a sperm and the ovum of all living plants and animals. So it is all here now. It is not going to come from Mars or somewhere. Living things come from living things. So we carry this very precious seed for the future. And when you damage it you do two things. You produce an organism that is less viable, less harmonized with the environment. At the same time, we are leaving toxic and radioactive waste around. So you are going to have a more hazardous environment and a less capable organism. That is a death syndrome for the species, not only for the individual. It is going to be harder to live. The body will be less able to take stress, and you are increasing the stress at the same time.

We are responsible for what we turn over to the next generation. It is amazing to me because I am the daughter of people that came from Europe, migrated to Canada and the United States for a better life for their children. And it seems that our generation does not care for the future. It is not our heritage. Our heritage was to give something better to our children than what we received. And we seem not to care. I find this very strange, and I think most of our grandparents would turn over in their graves, if they knew what we are doing.”

Dr. Rosalie Bertell 2010 Interview
http://nf2045.blogspot.fr/2014/04/2010-interview-with-rosalie-bertell.html

October 26, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Fukushima insect study shows there is no safe low level of ionising radiation

Butterfly-grass-blue-mutateThe researchers found that caterpillars that ate radioactive leaves pupated into mutated butterflies that did not live as long, compared with caterpillars that ate non-radioactive leaves. These mutations and increased mortality were seen even in butterflies that consumed only very small doses of radioactive cesium.
 Deaths and mutations spike around Fukushima;  October 16, 2015 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
http://www.naturalnews.com/051581_fukushima_radiation_nuclear_power.html

Plants in the area around Fukushima, Japan are widely contaminated with radioactive cesium, which is Cesium-137
producing mutation and death in local butterflies, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa and published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The butterflies were found to experience severe negative effects at all detectable radiation levels, even very low ones.

“We conclude that the risk of ingesting a polluted diet is realistic, at least for this butterfly, and likely for certain other organisms living in the polluted area,” the researchers wrote.

Insects hard hit

The researchers note that although the 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant released “a massive amount of radioactive materials … into the environment,” few studies have looked at the biological effects of this disaster. Researchers have, however, measured elevated radiation levels in the polluted area, and have chronicled the accumulation of radioactive material in both wild and domestic plant and animal life in the region.

Studies have also suggested that insects may be particularly hard-hit by the increased radiation. One study found an increase in morphological abnormalities (physical deformities) in gall-forming aphids. Another found that insect abundance has decreased in the affected region, particularly butterfly abundance. Continue reading →

October 19, 2015 Posted by | environment, Fukushima 2015, Japan, radiation, Reference | 1 Comment

Film ‘The Martian” gets it really wrong about ionising radiation

text-relevantHere Are The Biggest Health Risks To Humans In Space, Gizmodo MADDIE STONE12 OCTOBER 2015 “…….Radiation  And now we get to my One Big Problem with the science of The Martian. OK, we get it: Mark Watney has an extraordinarily sunny disposition and bowels of steel. (Seriously, who can eat protein squares for two years straight and still, you know, fertilize the potatoes?) But nothing can save Watney from the inconvenient truth that Mars has no ozone layer. That means the surface is awash in ultraviolet radiation — the same stuff we use to sterilize hospital clean rooms. And UV loves to rip, shatter, and mutate DNA. As far as we can tell, all life forms are susceptible to its burn.

text ionisingGiving Mark Watney cancer on Mars probably wouldn’t have made too much sense from a narrative perspective. But radiation is something we worry about on the ISS and it’s certainly something we’ll have to consider if and when we send humans to Mars.

There are a few types of harmful radiation zipping about in outer space. There’s UV, which is several hundred times stronger in orbit than it is beneath Earth’s atmosphere. During Kelly’s year in space, he’s soaking up roughly the same amount of extra radiation (0.16 sieverts) that a regular cigarette smoker does over the course of a year. (For comparison, 1 sievert of radiation is associated with a 5.5 per cent increase in the risk of fatal cancer, and the background daily radiation dose on Earth is on the order of 10 micro-sieverts, or 0.00001 sieverts.)

That’s not great, but it’s also not that bad. The radiation danger gets a lot worse when you leave the protection of Earth’s magnetosphere.

During the trip from Earth to Mars, astronauts will be exposed to other flavours of radiation: namely, high energy subatomic particles from the sun, the Milky Way galaxy and beyond. It’s these solar energetic particles and galactic cosmic rays that we’re most worried about, because they ravage biological tissue very quickly. As an instrument aboard the Curiosity Rover recently revealed, even the shortest round-trip from Earth to Mars could dose our astronauts with 0.66 sieverts of radiation — the equivalent of a whole-body CT scan every five or six days.

Certain materials, including aluminium and polyethylene plastics, can block or slow down radiation, but Shelhamer warns that shielding ourselves could backfire. Slowing down a high-energy cosmic ray could afford it more opportunity to collide with other particles and create dangerous secondary particles. “A particle of galactic radiation might be better off going fast…. if it’s moving slowly, it has the opportunity to create more damage,” he said. “It’s a very tricky situation, and we don’t have a good handle on the extent of the risk and what can we do about it.”

If one thing is clear, it’s that our ability to safely put humans on Mars — no less keep them alive on the radiation-riddled surface — depends very much on whether we can solve this problem.

The Biggest Danger to Humans in Space……“As the Chief Scientist whose job is to oversee this whole thing, the thing that concerns me most is the one danger that we haven’t yet thought of,” Shelhamer said. “What’s the biggest risk? It’s the radiation that causes a mutation in a pathogen when your immune system is compromised, and the medication on board doesn’t work because your metabolism has shifted. It’s the interaction of factors nobody considered.”…..

References

Effects of Prolonged Spaceflight on Human Skeletal Muscle. NASA, 2015.

Gifford, S. Calculated Risk: How Radiation Rules Manned Mars Exploration. Astrobiology Magazine, 2014. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/10/here-are-the-biggest-health-risks-to-humans-in-space/

October 14, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation | 1 Comment

Don’t be fooled: science shows that low dose ionising radiation harms living organisms

Radiation Impact Studies: Chernobyl and Fukushima, Dissident Voice,  by Robert Hunziker / September 23rd, 2015 Some nuclear advocates suggest that wildlife thrives in the highly-radioactive Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, animals like it, and not only that, a little radiation for anybody and everybody is harmless and maybe good, not bad. This
text-relevantmay seem like a senseless argument to tackle were it not for the persistence of positive-plus commentary by nuke lovers. The public domain deserves better, more studied, more crucial answers.

Fortunately, as well as unfortunately, the world has two major real life archetypes of radiation’s impact on the ecosystem: Chernobyl and Fukushima.  Chernobyl is a sealed-off 30klm restricted zone for the past 30 years because of high radiation levels, whereas PM Abe’s government in Japan has already started returning people to formerly restricted zones surrounding the ongoing Fukushima nuclear melt-down.
text ionisingThe short answer to the supposition that a “little dab of radiation is A-Okay” may be suggested in the title of a Washington Blog d/d March 12, 2014 in an interview of Dr. Timothy Mousseau, the world-renowned expert on radiation effects on living organisms. The hard answer is included further on in this article.

Dr. Mousseau is former Program Director at the National Science Foundation in Population Biology, Panelist for the National Academy of Sciences’ Panels on Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities and GAO Panel on Health and Environmental Effects from Tritium Leaks at Nuclear Power Plants, and a biology professor – and former Dean of the Graduate School, and Chair of the Graduate Program in Ecology – at the University of South Carolina.

The title of the Washington Blog interview is:

“Chernobyl and Fukushima Studies Show that Radiation Reduces Animal and Plant Numbers, Fertility, Brain Size and Diversity… and Increases Deformities and Abnormalities”

Dr. Mousseau made many trips to Chernobyl and Fukushima, making 896 inventories at Chernobyl and 1,100 biotic inventories in Fukushima. His mission was to test the effects of radiation on plants and animals. The title of his interview (above) handily serves to answer the question of whether radiation is positive for animals and plants. Without itemizing reams and reams of study data, the short answer is: Absolutely not! It is not positive for animals and plants, period.

Moreover, low doses of radiation, aka “radiation hormesis”, is not good for humans, as advocated by certain energy-related outlets. Data supporting their theory is extremely shaky and more to the point, flaky.

Furthermore, according to the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journalBiological Reviews, including reported results by wide-ranging analyses of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over 40 years, low-level natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA and several measures of good health.

Dr. Mousseau, with co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud, examined more that 5,000 papers involving background radiation in order to narrow their findings to 46 peer-reviewed studies. These studies examined plants and animals with a large preponderance of human subjects.

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 is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation.

With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level…. But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine. And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants…… http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/09/radiation-impact-studies-chernobyl-and-fukushima/

October 10, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Study shows there is no safe low level of ionising radiation

Radiation Impact Studies: Chernobyl and Fukushima, Dissident Voice,  by Robert Hunziker / September 23rd, 2015

text-relevant“…….A consortium of researchers coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, examined causes of death in a study of more than 300,000 nuclear-industry workers in France, the United States and the United Kingdom, all of whom wore dosimeter badges.1

The workers received on average just 1.1 millisieverts (mSv) per year above background radiation, which itself is about 2–3 mSv per year from sources such as cosmic rays and radon. The study confirmed that the risk of leukemia does rise proportionately with higher doses, but also showed that this linear relationship is present at extremely low levels of radiation.

The study effectively “scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless.”

radiation-warning

 

Even so, the significant issue regarding radiation exposure for humans is that it is a “silent destroyer” that takes years and only manifests once damage has occurred; for example, 200 American sailors of the USS Reagan have filed a lawsuit against TEPCO et al because of radiation-related illnesses, like leukemia, only four years after radiation exposure from Fukushima….. http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/09/radiation-impact-studies-chernobyl-and-fukushima/

October 10, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Astronauts would get cancer from ionising radiation in space

text-relevanttext ionisingMovie fact check: Could Martian explorer survive radiation?, Genetic Literacy Project, 
 | October 5, 2015 |  In the newly released The Martian, a stranded astronaut must figure out how to survive on the Red Planet after being accidentally left behind when the rest of his crew escapes a violent dust storm. Explorer Mark Watney spends many months trying to make water, grow food and send an SOS signal back to Earth. Most of the tools he uses in the film are based on existing or in-development technology.

The one major exception is the radiation-blocking material that allows Watney to spend much of his days outside his habitat, on the surface of a planet that lacks Earth’s atmosphere and is thus bathed in significantly higher levels of damaging radiation.“In the book they have this really thin, light, flexible material that blocks all radiation,” says Andy Weir, author of the book The Martian on which the film was based. “There’s nothing even remotely like that in the real world. That was the magic I gave him so the story would progress. Otherwise Mark would have different kinds of cancer.”…….http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/05/movie-fact-check-martian-explorer-survive-radiation/

October 7, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, radiation | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »