Fukushima radioactive contamination will build up in the biosphere
Fukushima : Build-Up In Biosphere Expected http://yournewswire.com/fukushima-build-up-in-biosphere-expected/ Edmondo Burr April 15
http://yournewswire.com/fukushima-build-up-in-biosphere-expected/#sthash.kMSyx76L.dpuf Scientists have raised concern over the rate of radioactive contamination of the Pacific, due to the Fukushima nuclear accident.
- Expert : Plutonium-241 from Fukushima nearly 70,000 times more than atomic bomb fallout in Japan.
- Officials : Molten fuel now ‘particle-like’, contains ‘special’ nuclear materials.
- Gov’t Labs : Large areas of oceans contaminated by plutonium from events such as Fukushima; Build-up in biosphere expected; Considerable hazard to humans.
Energy News statement :
Detection of long-lived plutonium isotopes in environmental samples by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) — Plutonium isotopes 239Pu, 240Pu and 242Pu are anthropogenic radionuclides emitted into the environment by nuclear activities. Pu is accumulated in the human body and hence, poses a considerable hazard to human health. Due to the long half-lives, these isotopes are present in the biosphere on large time scales and abuild-up can be expected. Therefore it is important to study the contamination pathway of Pu into the drinking water… a method to detect long-lived Pu isotopes by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) is being developed. AMS requires only few milligrams of sample material… Consequently, more samples from different locations can be taken which is essential when searching for locally increased Pu concentrations as in the Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima accident… Samples from different locations in the Pacific Ocean and from the snow-hydrosphere are planned… Continue reading
Japan raises the ‘acceptable’ radiation level for nuclear emergency workers
NRA to raise nuclear worker radiation exposure limit for emergencies http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/21/national/nra-raise-nuclear-worker-radiation-exposure-limit-emergencies/#.VV-819KeAXA KYODO
In light of the Fukushima meltdowns, the regulator had been considering raising the limit in the event of another disaster as Japan gets closer to reactivating some of its reactors, which remain offline amid heightened safety concerns.
Shunichi Tanaka, the NRA’s chairman, told a news conference that the current limit could be an obstacle in containing a crisis in the future, and the revision, which will entail a legal amendment, is “a step forward” in addressing the issue.
The regulator said it believes raising the limit to 250 millisieverts is appropriate based on overseas standards and scientific studies.
Radioactive iodine – the forgotten nuclear danger
The nuclear danger of iodine , Chemistry world, 21 May 15
In both the Fukushima and the 1986 Chernobyl accidents, volatile iodine species were released into the environment with tellurium. Of all the fission products, iodine poses a special threat to public health because it has a high fission yield, it can spread as volatile species and in mammals it accumulates readily in the thyroid, a small but vital organ. While the vast majority of iodine radioactivity is short-lived, it can have life-changing effects. A thyroid cancer patient who has lost their thyroid function as a result of surgery or 131I treatment, will require hormone replacement medication for life.
Transport properties
The problem of radioactive iodine is complicated by the variety of different species it can form. Each has different transport properties in the environment. For example, most of the airborne 131I from Chernobyl that reached Japan was in the form of organic iodine compounds.1 Furthermore, some iodine-containing compounds will pass through some accident mitigation systems. A water-filled scrubber will capture iodine oxide aerosols or other iodine-containing solids. Meanwhile, the sodium thiosulfate in the large scrubbers used in Swedish nuclear power plants will capture elemental iodine. However, although alkyl iodides will react with sodium thiosulfate to form Bunte salts, the reaction can be slow, allowing some proportion to escape. It is also important to note that, depending on the species, it is possible for some older sampling methods to underestimate the amount of radioactive iodine released in an accident.
20 May 2015Chemistry WorldOnce in the environment, the potential for human exposure increases with dangerous consequences. Research with 132I has shown that humans retain a large fraction of the iodine in inhaled methyl and ethyl iodide. But iodine can take part in lots of reactions before it even leaves the reactor. During normal operation, the temperature gradients in nuclear fuel pellets cause the iodine and caesium to migrate into the gap between the fuel and the cladding.2 The fission process forms 133Xe, which, with a half-life of 5.2 days, has plenty of time to diffuse into the cooler parts of the fuel. There, the xenon decays to form caesium, which reacts with iodine to form caesium iodide. If the fuel is overheated and damaged, caesium iodide aerosols can be delivered into the containment space.The caesium iodide can be converted by redox reactions into iodine, even without available oxygen gas: as an accident starts, the irradiation of water generates oxidants such as hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide…..http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/05/fukushima-iodine-nuclear-accident
High radio frequency (RF) exposure – a health hazard requiring Radiation Warnings on Cell Phones
California City Will Vote on Requiring Radiation Warnings on Cell Phones http://time.com/3855722/radiation-warnings-cell-phones/ Victor Luckerson @VLuck May 12, 2015 Some scientists have called for further study about the impact of the radiation
The city council in Berkeley, Calif. will vote Tuesday on whether cell phones should come with a warning notice explaining the dangers of high radio frequency (RF) exposure. If the law is passed, retailers in the city would have to warn customers that carrying a phone in a pocket or bra while it is on and connected to a wireless network could expose the user to excessive RF radiation.
Cell phones emit radio frequency energy that can be absorbed by human tissue. There isn’t any conclusive evidence that this type of radiation causes cancer, but some scientists have called for further study into the issue. Cell phone makers such as Apple recommend keeping your cell phone at least 5 to 10 mm away from your body to avoid excessive RF exposure, but these warnings are often buried in phone manuals or deep in settings menus.
Lawmakers have attempted to institute similar ordinances in places such as Maine, Hawaii and New Mexico, but Berkeley would be the first place to actually pass such a law. In Berkeley, 82% of adults would like to know the recommended distance a phone should be kept from their bodies, according to a survey funded by the California Brain Tumor Association.
Scientific warning against health danger from electromagnetic radiation
Scientists warn against mobile phone ‘radiation’ http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/12/scientists-warn-against-mobile-phone-radiation/ Scientists are warning against the constant use of mobile phones, lap tops, tablets and other wireless devices.
They claim too much electromagnetic radiation is being emitted from them which could be a reason for risingcancer rates and an increase in autism and obesity.
Nearly 200 experts are calling on the UN to provide guidelines as they say the radiation is damaging DNA in our cells.Their advice is to turn off devices when not in use.
The scientists, from 39 different countries, are from a group called the International EMF Scientist Appeal.More information about the EMF group can be found here.
A description of the appeal can be found here.
Scientists investigate effects of Fukushima radiation on Pacific Ocean animals
US university testing animals in Pacific for Fukushima radiation — Photos show bodies riddled with tumors, eyes bleeding, covered in lesions — Some are missing testicles, eyeballs — Skin disintegrating, peeling off, turning yellow — Mammals affected by diseases never seen in species (WARNING: Graphic Pics)http://enenews.com/university-testing-animals-pacific-fukushima-radiation-gruesome-photos-show-bodies-riddled-massive-tumors-cysts-bleeding-eyes-covered-lesions-missing-testicles-eyeballs-skin-disintegrating-pe?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
Colorado St. Univ., Apr 13, 2015 (emphasis added): CSU partners with Fukushima University to study radiation effects… Many CSU faculty and researchers are contributing to radiation research in Japan… including Thomas Johnson… professor of health physics, who is testing trace radiation samples in seal populations in thenorthern Pacific Ocean, where radiation from the Fukushima disaster was released.
Alaska Marine Science Symposium presentation, Raphaela Stimmelmayr (Dept. of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough) & Gay Sheffield (Univ.of Alaska – Fairbanks Marine Advisory Program), 2014:
Incidental Gross Necropsy Findings in Subsistence-Harvested Ice Seals and Walruses
• Reproductive system: adnexal cysts [uterus], uterine and penile melanosis [darkening of skin], cliteromegaly [enlarged clitoris], cryptorchism [testicle(s) absent from scrotum], retained placenta;
• Endocrine system: thyroid cysts, adrenal nodules;
• Musculoskeletal system: synovial cyst [fluid-filled sacs in spine due to degeneration];
• Integumentary system: panniculitis [inflammation of fatty tissue], epidermal molt, skin sloughing;
• Respiratory system: lung tumor, parasitic granulomas [inflammation that forms when immune system is unable to eliminate a substance];
• Digestive system: microdontia [teeth smaller than normal], chronic interstitial pancreatitis [inflammation of pancreas], hepatic cyst [liver], cholestatic jaundice [yellowing of skin caused by thickening of bile or problems in liver], geophagia [eating dirt], and primary diffuse peritoneal tumor [membrane lining abdomen];
• A variety of the observed disease conditions are reported for the first time in ice seals and/or walruses.
• The majority of observed conditions in our material is classified as benign and are mostly inconsequential to the health of the harvested animals.
Astronauts at risk from brain damage due to ionising radiation
Study: Deep-Space Radiation Could Damage Astronauts’ Brains Cosmic rays could leave travelers to Mars confused, forgetful and slow to react. WSJ, By ROBERT LEE HOTZ May 1, 2015As NASA develops plans for a manned mission to Mars, scientists said Friday that cosmic rays during an interplanetary voyage could cause subtle brain damage, leaving astronauts confused, forgetful and slow to react to the unexpected.
In a NASA-funded study of radiation-exposed mice published Friday in Science Advances, researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the University of Nevada warned that prolonged bombardment by charged particles in deep space could affect the brain cells involved in decision-making and memory, with implications for possible manned forays into deep space.
“These sorts of cognitive changes could manifest during the mission and could be a real problem,” said Cary Zeitlin at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, who wasn’t involved in the study. In 2013, Dr. Zeitlin reported radiation levels between Earth and Mars detected by the Mars Science Laboratory craft during its cruise to the red planet, and found that the exposure was the equivalent of getting “a whole-body CT scan once every 5 or 6 days.”
Deep-space radiation is a unique mix of gamma rays, high-energy protons and cosmic rays from newborn black holes, and radiation from exploding stars. Earth’s bulk, atmosphere and magnetic field blocks or deflects most deep-space cosmic rays. Shielding on spacecraft also helps.
In 54 years of human spaceflight, astronauts have rarely experienced a full dose. Apollo crews, who ventured furthest from Earth’s protective shield on their journeys to the Moon, reported seeing flashes of light when they closed their eyes, caused by galactic cosmic rays speeding through their retinas………
The researchers found the mice had damaged neurons and synapses in areas associated with memory and decision-making, such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex………http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-deep-space-radiation-could-damage-astronauts-brains-1430503356
Tritium is a major radioactive pollutant from Canada’s CANDU nuclear power reactors.
Tritium Traffic: Deadly Dividends for Nuclear Industry, Peace Magazine By David H MartinIn February, 1934, the British journal, New Scientist, published an article by Tom Wilkie, “Old Age Can Kill the Bomb.” It was an ingenious solution to the arms control nightmare of verification; controlling not only the number of weapons, but the strategic materials that fuel them — mainly plutonium, enriched uranium and tritium. Wilkie focused on tritium, because it turns into non-radioactive helium at a rate of 5.5 per cent per year. A halt of tritium production would rapidly cripple all nuclear arsenals. Thus, attention was rivetted on Ontario Hydro’s plan to produce about 57 kilograms of tritium by 2006. A one megaton thermonuclear warhead (equivalent to one million tons of TN”) may contain as little as one gram of tritium.
Tritium (H3) (a form of hydrogen that emits beta radiation), is a major radioactive pollutant from Canada’s CANDU nuclear power reactors. Unlike American reactor systems, the CANDU uses heavy water as a moderator and coolant. The moderator and the heavy water coolant slows down the neutron release from the uranium fuel in the reactor so that a chain reaction can take place. The active ingredient in heavy water is deuterium, another form of hydrogen. When the deuterium picks up a neutron, some of it is transformed into tritium. The concentration of tritium in the heavy water increases with the age of the reactor.
The CANDU reactor system produces 2400 times as much tritium as the American light water reactor. Continue reading
As hydraulic fracturing (fracking) increases- so do indoor levels of radon
Small increases in radon track natural gas development with fracking in Pennsylvania, The Conversation, Joan A. Casey Robert Wood Johnson Health and Society Scholar at University of California, San Francisco Brian S. Schwartz Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins University 11 Apr 15
Historically, Pennsylvania has had one of the biggest indoor radon problems in the country. Why? Much of the bedrock in Pennsylvania contains high levels of uranium, which is radioactive and eventually decays to radium and radon gas. Radon gas can then enter buildings by diffusing through cracks in the foundation or by dissolving in water. It can get trapped in the basement and other areas of the home and can lead to health effects. Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States.
Due to high levels in Pennsylvania, indoor measurements are often taken when buildings are bought and sold with results reported to the state. This created a huge database, with over 1.5 million measurements from 1989 to 2013. The first unconventional natural gas development in Pennsylvania was in 2005, and by 2013 the industry had drilled 7,469 unconventional wells in the Marcellus shale.
Fracking is just one step in the process of unconventional natural gas development. The sheer scale of development in Pennsylvania made us, and others, wonder if the industry might be influencing those indoor radon measurements collected by the state. Once fully developed, some have estimated that there will be over 50,000 wells in the state……….
In our study we sought to take into account the cumulative effect of thousands of wells drilled statewide, and at a location more relevant to health – in buildings where people live, work and play. By contrast, the state study evaluated a few point sources of radiation pollution.
But what happens if a building is surrounded by hundreds of wells, which are each a potential point source? Is there a cumulative impact that the state missed? We believe our study is better suited for that possibility.
As public health professionals, our goal is to protect public health. We discovered that 42% of basement radon levels exceeded the level at which the EPA recommends people take action. Homes using well water had 21% higher radon levels than homes using municipal water.
With upward trends in radon levels, Pennsylvania’s long-standing radon problem certainly hasn’t gone away. We now leave it up to others – health professionals, economists, politicians and community members debating together – to weigh the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of unconventional natural gas development. For now we suggest homeowners continue to measure radon in their homes, the state continue to be vigilant about possible impacts of this industry on pathways and levels, and that future studies move beyond this first look to better understand the relationships that we may have uncovered. http://theconversation.com/small-increases-in-radon-track-natural-gas-development-with-fracking-in-pennsylvania-39991
Nuclear Regulatory Commission trickery on radiation rules favours the nuclear industry, not the public interest
The NRC needs to recall that its name is the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and so its job is to regulate the industry, rather than to work for the nuclear industry. Its job is to help the EPA keep a high safety standard for water, air, soil. They both appear to have forgotten or be oblivious to their purpose, which is to protect the people and environment from radionuclides from the nuclear industry.
Nuclear Facilities also are allowed to emit so many radionuclides, that it takes 50 pages to list them, including plutonium 239 to the air, along with the water. But, like the water, to talk about concentrations in the air – as opposed to amounts – is really meaningless for anything but the shortest-lived radionuclides.
US NRC Radioactive Dilute and Deceive Scam – Comment Deadline June 22nd (Extended) Mining Awareness Plus, 18 Mar 15 US NRC Comment Deadline extended to 22 June 2015:https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/20/2014-27519/radiation-protection http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0279-0098 “………..The disgusting truth is that research on ionizing radiation has been ongoing since 1895. At the beginning of the nuclear age, focus was on how dangerous radiation was. Many animal and even human experiments have been done. The human experiments were both official experiments and unofficial making the population at large act as guinea pigs. They have known from the beginning the dangers. Somewhere along the way they seem to have switched from doing experiments to see how dangerous it was to doing endless experiments in an attempt at proving that it is safe. Despite their efforts to prove the contrary, they have only succeeded in proving that ionizing radiation is even more dangerous than their early results showed. As the National Academy of Science has stated endlessly in their BEIR reports, there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Increased dose is increased risk. This is even more true for high-LET internal alpha radiation and high LET neutrons.
The US EPA has a “clean water” water “standard” for drinking water, though it has none for water emissions from nuclear facilities – which makes no sense. Who, if anyone, pays to clean up the difference between radionuclides emitted by nuclear facilities and that allowed in drinking water?
Furthermore, the “Clean Water” drinking water standard appears to be inadequately protective, as well. It allows 740 Bq/liter of tritium in drinking water. The Canadian nuclear lobby was reportedly satisfied with a 20 Bq/liter standard for tritium in drinking water, recommended by the Ontario Water Advisory Commission (OWAC), even though Canadian CANDU reactors produce more tritium than other reactors. OWAC started with the idea that “the target derived risk level should be 1 in a million or 10-6 (meaning 1 new excess cancer occurrence over existing background cancer rates in 1,000,000 people); the target derived risk level should be over a lifetime of exposure of 70 years, and based on cancer incidences above background (occurrences) rather than mortality (deaths);” This led to models ranging from 7 Bq/L to 109 Bq/L.http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/reports/052109_ODWAC_Tritium_Report.pdfhttp://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/reports/052109_Tritium_Report_Cover_Letter.pdf
Notice the number was chosen based on cancer morbidity (illness), not just mortality (death). (Unfortunately, if there are cooling towers they could send the balance of tritium out into the air.) Contrary to what TEPCO, AREVA, and EnergySolutions want everyone to believe, there are several ways to filter tritium………
Yes, they need water standards but they need real standards and strict standards, which account for all radionuclides emitted in air and water and per facility. The actual quantities of the radionuclides must be measured and not the concentration! Continue reading
The many ways in which fracking is radioactively contaminated
Radioactive isotopes that contaminate fracking industry waste and its machinery include radon, radium-226, uranium-238, and thorium-232. According to the Health Department’s website, these long-lived radioactive pollutants come in six forms:
* “Produced water” which is injected underground but later brought to the surface as waste;
* “Sulfate scales,” which are hard, insoluble deposits that accumulate on frack sand and inside drilling and processing equipment;
* Contaminated soil and machinery;
* Filter socks, contaminated by filtering “produced water”;
* Synthetic “proppants” or sand; and
* Sludge and “filter cake” solids of mud, sand, scale and rust that precipitate or are filtered out of contaminated “produced water. They build up in “filter socks,” and in waste water pipes and storage tanks that can leak
Fracking Radiation- North Dakota Considers Weaker Landfill Rules, Less Oversight , CounterPunch, MARCH 19, 201 by JOHN LaFORGE Radioactive waste produced by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is making headlines all over gas land, particularly in North Dakota’s booming Bakken gas and oil field. Continue reading
Cesium -137 – a particularly dangerous nuclear isotope
Note the immense inventories of Cesium-137: 150 million Curies that are located in the nearby spent fuel pool at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant which is about 40 miles from here by road and less than that as the radioactive cloud flies. Many of the 104 US commercial nuclear reactors and power plants have more than 100 million Curies of Cesium-137 in their spent fuel pools. This is many times more than in the spent pools at FukushimaThe Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium 
Steven StarrSenior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program
Helen Caldicott Foundation Fukushima Symposium
New York Academy of Medicine, 11 March 2013 “….. A large number of highly radioactive isotopes released by the destruction of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant grossly contaminated the Japanese mainland. Most of these radionuclides had short half lives which meant they would essentially disappear in a matter of days or months. For many of those who were exposed to them there will be major health consequences.
However, there were some radioactive elements that will not rapidly disappear. And it is these long-lived radionuclides that will remain to negatively affect the health of all complex life forms that are exposed to them.
Chief among them is Cesium-137, which has taken on special significance because it is has proven to be the most abundant of the long-lived radionuclides that has remained in the environment following the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. It has a 30 year radioactive half life which is why it persists in the environment. Scientists now believe that it will be 180 to 320 years before the Cesium-137 around the destroyed Chernobyl reactor actually disappears from the environment.
Cesium is water soluble and quickly makes its way into soils and waters. It is in the same atomic family as potassium and it mimics it, acting as a macronutrient. It quickly becomes ubiquitous in contaminated ecosystems.
It is distributed by the catastrophic accidents at nuclear power plants because large quantities of volatile radioactive cesium build up inside the fuel rods of nuclear reactors. Thus any accident at a nuclear reactor that causes the fuel rods to rupture, melt, or burn will cause the release of highly radioactive cesium gas.
Long-lived radionuclides such as Cesium-137 are something new to us as a species. They did not exist on Earth in any appreciable quantities during the entire evolution of complex life. Although they are invisible to our senses they are millions of times more poisonous than most of the common poisons we are familiar with. They cause cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations, and abortions at concentrations almost below human recognition and comprehension. They are lethal at the atomic or molecular level. Continue reading
Greater cancer risk for girls – radioactive fallout from Fukushima
it is very important that we recognize the danger posed to children by the routine ingestion of contaminated food with Cesium-137 where ever they might live. It is also important to prevent further nuclear disasters which release these fiendishly toxic poisons into the global ecosystems. Given the immense amounts of long-lived radionuclides which exist at every nuclear power plant this is an urgent task.
The Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium [excellent slides and graphs]
Steven Starr
Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program
Helen Caldicott Foundation Fukushima Symposium New York Academy of Medicine, 11 March 2013 “……..So now that we have some idea of the extreme toxicity of Cesium-137, let’s look at the extent of the contamination of the Japanese mainland.
It is now known that the reactors 1, 2, and 3 at Fukushima Daiichi all melted down and melted through the steel reactor vessels within a few days following the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. This was not made public by either TEPCO or the Japanese government for two months.
The greatest amounts of highly radioactive gases were released shortly after the meltdowns and 80% of this gas released by the reactors is believed to have traveled away from Japan over the Pacific. However the remaining 20% was dispersed over the Japanese mainland.
On March 11th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration offered the use of its NA-42 Aerial Measuring System to the Japanese and US governments. The National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center of the Lawrence Livermore Lab stood up to provide atmospheric modeling projections. The next two slides were produced by Lawrence Livermore and presumably given to the Japanese government.
On March 14th, the easterly winds which had been blowing the highly-radioactive gases and aerosols coming from Fukushima out to sea, shifted and pushed the radioactive plume back over the Japanese mainland. You can see the progression. The red indicates the radioactive plume.
Note that the images indicate that the plume first went south over Tokyo and then reversed and went north as the wind changed. All the areas where the radioactive gases passed over were contaminated. However the heaviest contamination occurred where rainfall was occurring and the radiation rained out. This accounts for the patchy deposition of the radioactive fallout.
Eight months after the disaster, the Japanese Science Ministry released this map, which shows that 11,580 square miles, which is 30,000 square kilometers, which represents 13% of the Japanese mainland, had been contaminated with long-lived radioactive cesium. Note that the official map does not note any Cesium-137 contamination in the Tokyo metropolitan area, unlike an unofficial survey done at about the same time by Professor Yukio Hayakawa of Gunma University. Given the fact that the Japanese government and TEPCO denied for two months that any meltdowns had occurred at Fukushima, one must look at all official data with a healthy degree of skepticism.
4500 square miles (or earlier today we heard 7700 square miles)—which is an area larger than the size of Connecticut—was found to have radiation levels that exceeded Japan’s previously allowable exposure rate of 1 millisievert per year.
Rather than evacuate this area, Japan chose to raise its acceptable radiation-exposure rate by 20 times, from 1 millisievert to 20 millisieverts per year.
However, approximately 300 square miles adjacent to the destroyed Fukushima reactors were so contaminated that they were declared uninhabitable. 159,000 Japanese were evicted from this radioactive “exclusion zone.” They lost their homes, property, and businesses, and most have received only a small compensation to cover the costs of their living as evacuees.
Note here that the criteria used for evacuation is the millisievert. It is not a measured quantity of radiation per unit area that I have described such as the Curie or Becquerel. Rather the Sievert is a calculated quantity. It’s calculated to represent the biological effects of ionizing radiation. In other words, the millisievert is a derived number, based on the mathematical models which are used to convert the absorbed dose to “effective dose.”
So what is the increased health risk to Japanese based upon their exposure to 20 millisieverts per year? Let us examine figures constructed on the basis of data published by the National Academy of Sciences, courtesy of Ian Goddard.
The vertical Y-axis is calibrated to the number of cancer cases per 100,000 age-peers, and the horizontal X-axis depicts the age of the population, beginning at zero years and moving towards old age. Now examine the allegedly safe dose of 20 millisieverts per year.
As a result of this exposure, there will be about 1000 additional cases of cancer in female infants and 500 cases of cancer in infant boys per 100,000 in their age groups. There will be an additional 100 cases of cancer in 30 year old males per 100,000 in this age peer group.
Notice that children, especially girls, are at the most risk from radiation-induced cancer. In fact a female infant has 7 times greater risk and a 5 year old girl has 5 times greater risk of getting a radiation-induced cancer than does a 30 year old man. Continue reading
CT scans; the radiation riks should be weighed up – especially for children
Imaging Tests: Weighing the Radiation Risk http://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2015/03/06/imaging-tests-weighing-the-radiation-risk Ask if that CT scan – for you or your child – is really needed. You walk into the emergency room, clutching your right side in pain. When the ER doctor examines your belly, she suspects you have appendicitis. But she wants to confirm the diagnosis before sending you for surgery. Or maybe your son falls off the high playground bars, and while he has a good-sized bump on his head, he seems otherwise fine. Should either of you have a computed tomography exam – a CT scan? As with any medical test or procedure, there’s a risk-benefit balance to consider.Radiation Risk
Some 75 million CT scans are done each year in the United States – and they’re great diagnostic tools. A CT exam uses a specialized type of X-ray and a rotating scanner to take a variety of images from different angles around your body. CT exams rapidly produce clear, detailed, cross-sectional pictures. They facilitate diagnosis and treatment of trauma, cancers, cardiovascular disease, infections and congenital conditions, some life-threatening.
But the test itself may pose a health risk. CT scans use ionizing radiation, a known (although relatively weak) carcinogen. Research suggests that CT scans may raise cancer risk – although it would still be very low – particularly in childhood. In addition, studies find radiation doses used in CT vary widely among facilities, even for the same procedure on similar patients.
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a physician and professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California–San Francisco, has published a number of papers on CT safety issues, dose variations and the notable rise in CT scans performed.
The increased exposure is a concern because of the high radiation dosage used, Smith-Bindman says: Compared to a standard chest X-ray, the radiation dose for a chest CT scan involves radiation that’s 500 times higher or more.
Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound exams don’t use ionizing radiation and are considered safer. MRI uses a magnetic field and high-frequency radio waves, while ultrasound uses sound waves to create images.
CT Conversation
Debra Ritzwoller of Colorado is the mother of a teenage cancer survivor. Her daughter, now 16, just marked her three-year anniversary of completing treatment for a rare solid tumor.
Ritzwoller, a health economist who does cancer-related research. was concerned about “surveillance” CT scans, used to monitor cancer survivors for relapse or recurrence. There’s little evidence to support the effectiveness or value of regular surveillance CTs, Ritzwoller says. So she had a conversation with her daughter’s oncologist. This led to her daughter’s surveillance exams being switched from CTs to ultrasounds.
Don’t hesitate to ask about alternatives, she advises, like using blood tests to monitor patients for cancer markers instead of (not in addition to) CT scans. “I would express concern about radiation exposure,” she says. “That’s a good way to start the conversation.”
Smaller Bodies, Lower Doses
A 2012 study of British children showed evidence of a CT radiation-cancer link, and a 2013 study of U.S. children found having these tests in childhood brings a significant increase in risk of developing a cancer such as leukemia or a solid tumor.
Diana Miglioretti, a professor of biostatistics at the UC Davis School of Medicine and lead author of the U.S. study, found CT imaging “doubled in the younger kids and tripled in the older kids” over a 10-year period, after which the rate of usage stabilized.
A striking study finding was the large inconsistency in radiation exposure. “Children who get an abdomen CT can get a very different dose depending on where they go and who does the exam,” she says. Because of their smaller size, children require lower radiation doses for CTs to produce diagnostic-quality images.
Based on current CT use and looking at the five most common pediatric CT exams performed combined – of the head, abdomen, pelvis, chest or spine – the researchers estimated that if about 4 million CTs were performed, that would cause 4,800 cancers.
The type of cancer was related to the body part on which the CT was done. For example, leukemia risk was highest for head CTs, especially for children under 5, Miglioretti says, because of the active bone marrow in their skulls.
Still, the risk for an individual patient of developing cancer from a CT radiation exposure “is very, very low,” she notes. “So if the physician says an exam’s medically necessary – then yes, you should definitely do the exam.”
Radioactive material from reactors is 2 billion times more toxic than industrial poisons
US Gov’t: Radioactive material from reactors is 2 billion times more toxic than industrial poisons — Harm caused by nuclear disaster “greater than for any work of man” other than atomic bomb — Top Expert: Radiation “like explosions going off in cell… blows hole in DNA” (VIDEO)http://enenews.com/govt-document-radioactive-materials-reactors-2-billion-times-toxic-common-industrial-poison-harm-nuclear-disaster-greater-work-man-other-atomic-bomb-top-expert-radiation-like-explosions-going-ce?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
Dr. Bill McBride, UCLA School of Medicine Vice Chair for Research in Radiation, Principle Investigator of UCLA’s Center for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiation — National Institutes of Health, Jan 27, 2014 (emphasis added):
- 19:45 – There are some unique things about ionizing radiation when it comes to the interaction with biological systems… Energy is deposited ubiquitously in cells and in tissues… in little packets of energy… These [are] like many explosions going off in the cell… If you can think of these little explosions going off all over a cell, if it happens to take place in DNA, there’s really quite a high chance this will blow a hole in the DNA. Ionizing radiation is a very powerful cytotoxic agent… You get these lesions which are formed within DNA which are really quite complex lesions… We’re talking 0.0000000000000001 seconds for the ionization to take place… Cell cycle arrest, cell death by apoptosis or mitotic catastrophe… take place very rapidly after exposure.
- 37:30 – What’s happening following ionizing radiation? You get these little explosions going off very rapidly… But mitochondria get hit as well… With time, you actually get these mitochondria leaking more free radicals than [the] ionizing radiation, by orders of magnitude… This concept is one which is growing very strongly in radiation biology now. The effects are not all over in 24 hours… you initiate a cascade of biological responses which can go on for a long period of time, even years.
- 46:00 – You get long-term immune dysfunction… If you inject flu virus into mice [it] will eventually kill the [irradiated] animals… in normal animals this isn’t the case. So the immune system is compromised for long periods of time after radiation exposure.
- 51:00 – The concept is that we’re generating damage which is cascading forward to mitochondria and other cellular structures, in addition to DNA… Radiation is not just a powerful cytotoxin, it initiates signaling cascades that are taking place against a radiation damage background… Radiation damage is often remembered within the cells. We’ve shown, at least in brain and lung and other tissues, you get these kind of pro-inflammatory responses… This is underlying a lot of effects in radiation exposure.
- 52:00 (appears to be on verge of crying) – At UCLA we have over 100 people who are in our center… They’re interested in radiation now — they never were before. I think that we’re kind of moving animal models slowly forward to things which are really kind of very precise and very accurate and I think do reflect a lot of things that we will see in humans… who’ve been exposed to radiation.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (pdf), 1968: The total amount of debris released during routine atomic processes and conceived as possible from accidents is minuscule when compared with the amount of pollutants produced throughout the world by combustion. The extraordinarily poisonous nature of the radioactive materialsinvolved, however, dictates that even small quantities be treated with respect. For instance, it has been estimated that some of the radioactive materials found in a reactor are 3 million to 2 billion times as toxic as chlorine, the most common poison used by industry... if it were possible for all the many controls and safety features in a large power reactor to fail so as to produce a disastrous release of radioactivity, this release could conceivably kill thousands… Although, in actual practice, such an accident is made to have a vanishingly small probability of occurring, the theoretical potential for such an accident is probably greater than for any work of man other than the explosion of a fission or fusion weapon.
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (103)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 