Effects of Chernobyl radiation over many generations
CHERNOBYL RADIATION EFFECTS: 28 YEARS LATER Green Fudge, Irini Chassiotou May 11th, 2014 “……… Many studies have shown that birds living in the area have eye cataracts or smaller brains, while insects, microbes and other decomposers exhibit abnormal behavior. Changes in abundance, distribution, life history and mutation rates are some more documented negative effects of Chernobyl’s radiation on the region’s plants and animals. In fact, the genetic effects of chronic radiation exposure on each species studied so far have often been subtle and varied and only conclusively shown after many generations.
What’s sure is that different species react to chronic exposure in different ways. Research into low-level radiation since 1986 have demonstrated that, for example, pine trees are more adversely effected by radiation than birch, while migrant barn swallows are more radio-sensitive than resident birds. In another study, winter wheat seeds were taken from the Exclusion Zone a few days after the disaster and they were germinated in uncontaminated soil, producing thousands of different mutant strains. This resulted to genetically unstable new generations, even 25 years after the accident.
Flora and fauna studies may reveal the effects of long-term radiation exposure on humans, obtaining statistically significant epidemiological data on cancer, which is rather complicated. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government, satisfied with the anecdotal evidence of the zone-based research team, has opened the zone to tourism. Scientists fear that future plans will include repopulating the Exclusion Zone at the earliest opportunity.
The permanent hazard of nuclear radiation to global health
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health Australian Medical Student Journal By Helen Caldicott in Volume 4, Issue 2 2014
“………Conclusion In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease, because the food will continue to concentrate the radioactive elements for hundreds to thousands of years. This will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease. Already we are seeing such pathology and abnormalities in birds and insects, and because they reproduce very fast it is possible to observe disease caused by radiation over many generations within a relatively short space of time.
Pioneering research conducted by Dr Tim Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist, has demonstrated high rates of tumors, cataracts, genetic mutations, sterility and reduced brain size amongst birds in the exclusion zones of both Chernobyl and Fukushima. What happens to animals will happen to human beings. [7]
The Japanese government is desperately trying to “clean up” radioactive contamination. But in reality all that can be done is collect it, place it in containers and transfer it to another location. It cannot be made neutral and it cannot be prevented from spreading in the future. Some contractors have allowed their workers to empty radioactive debris, soil and leaves into streams and other illegal places. The main question becomes: Where can they place the contaminated material to be stored safely away from the environment for thousands of years? There is no safe place in Japan for this to happen, let alone to store thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste which rests precariously at the 54 Japanese nuclear reactors.
Last but not least, Australian uranium fuelled the Fukushima reactors. Australia exports uranium for use in nuclear power plants to 12 countries, including the US, Japan, France, Britain, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, China, Belgium, Spain, Canada and Taiwan. 270,000 metric tons of deadly radioactive waste exists in the world today, with 12,000 metric tons being added yearly. (Each reactor manufactures 30 tons per year and there are over 400 reactors globally.)
This high-level waste must be isolated from the environment for one million years – but no container lasts longer than 100 years. The isotopes will inevitably leak, contaminating the food chain, inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia, congenital deformities and genetic diseases for the rest of time.
This, then, is the legacy we leave to future generations so that we can turn on our lights and computers or make nuclear weapons. It was Einstein who said “the splitting of the atom changed everything save mans’ mode of thinking, thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”
The question now is: Have we, the human species, the ability to mature psychologically in time to avert these catastrophes, or, is it in fact, too late? http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487
Dr Helen Caldicott explains the facts on radiation
The impact of the nuclear crisis on global health 
Australian Medical Student Journal By Helen Caldicott in Volume 4, Issue 2 2014 “…….Types of ionizing radiation
- X-rays are electromagnetic, and cause mutations the instant they pass through the body.
- Similarly, gamma radiation is also electromagnetic, being emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.
- Alpha radiation is particulate and is composed of two protons and two neutrons emitted from uranium atoms and other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc – all which are known as alpha emitters and have an atomic weight greater than uranium). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But when these radioactive elements enter the lung, liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed; however, some on the edge of the radiation field remain viable to be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known.
- Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is also particulate. It is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and iodine 131. The beta particle is light in mass, travels further than an alpha particle and is also mutagenic.
- Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor 1 at Fukushima has been periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete and steel. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.
So, let’s describe just five of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 200 such elements each with its own half-life, biological characteristic and pathway in the food chain and the human body. Most have never had their biological pathways examined. They are invisible, tasteless and odourless. When the cancer manifests it is impossible to determine its aetiology, but there is a large body of literature proving that radiation causes cancer, including the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- Tritium is radioactive hydrogen H3 and there is no way to separate tritium from contaminated water as it combines with oxygen to form H3O. There is no material that can prevent the escape of tritium except gold, so all reactors continuously emit tritium into the air and cooling water as they operate. It concentrates in aquatic organisms, including algae, seaweed, crustaceans and fish, and also in terrestrial food. Like all radioactive elements, it is tasteless, odorless and invisible, and will therefore inevitably be ingested in food, including seafood, for many decades. It passes unhindered through the skin if a person is immersed in fog containing tritiated water near a reactor, and also enters the body via inhalation and ingestion. It causes brain tumors, birth deformities and cancers of many organs.
- Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for over 300 years. Cesium, like all radioactive elements, bio-concentrates at each level of the food chain. The human body stands atop the food chain. As an analogue of potassium, cesium becomes ubiquitous in all cells. It concentrates in the myocardium where it induces cardiac irregularities, and in the endocrine organs where it can cause diabetes, hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer. It can also induce brain cancer, rhabdomyosarcomas, ovarian or testicular cancer and genetic disease.
- Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter with a half-life of 28 years. As a calcium analogue, it is a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body. It can lead to carcinomas of the bone and leukaemia.
- Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter. It has a half-life of eight days and is hazardous for ten weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, then in the the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen, inducing thyroid disease and/or thyroid cancer. It is important to note that of 174,376 children under the age of 18 that have been examined by thyroid ultrasound in the Fukushima Prefecture, 12 have been definitively diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 more are suspected to have the disease. Almost 200,000 more children are yet to be examined. Of these 174,367 children, 43.2% have either thyroid cysts and/or nodules.
In Chernobyl, thyroid cancers were not diagnosed until four years post-accident. This early presentation indicates that these Japanese children almost certainly received a high dose of radioactive iodine. High doses of other radioactive elements released during the meltdowns were received by the exposed population so the rate of cancer is almost certain to rise. - Plutonium, one of the most deadly radioactive substances, is an alpha emitter. It is highly toxic, and one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. As an iron analogue, it combines with transferrin. It causes liver cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, or genetic diseases in future generations. It also crosses the placenta where it is teratogenic, like thalidomide. There are medical homes near Chernobyl full of grossly deformed children, the deformities of which have never before been seen in the history of medicine.
The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, and thus it is radioactive for 250,000 years. It will induce cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for virtually the rest of time.
Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five kilos is fuel for a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 250 kg of plutonium a year. It is postulated that less than one kilo of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could induce lung cancer in every person on earth………..http://www.amsj.org/archives/3487
Brain damage risk to astronauts from radiation
Could deep space cause BRAIN DAMAGE? Radiation could permanently destroy an astronaut’s attention span
- Rats were exposed to radiation levels similar to that found in deep space
- Serious lapses in attention occurred in 64% of the sensitive animals
- Increase in impulsiveness took place in 45% and slower reaction in 27%
- Difference based on a rat’s specific resilience after exposure to radiation
- If same proves true in humans, scientists could identify those more susceptible to radiation before the brain becomes permanently damaged
Daily Mail, By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD, 30 April 2014 Researchers came to the conclusion after exposing rats to high-energy particles that simulate the conditions astronauts could experience in deep space.
After exposure, a team at John Hopkins University in Maryland made the rats perform a fitness test similar to the ones astronauts, pilots, and soldiers have to take prior to a mission. …....‘In our radiated rats, we found that 40 to 45 percent had these attention-related deficits, while the rest were seemingly unaffected,’ said study leader Dr Robert Hienz……The radiation-sensitive animals all showed evidence of brain damage that began at 50 to 60 days after exposure…..
Currently, astronauts are not as exposed to the damaging effects of radiation because the International Space Station flies in an orbit low enough that the Earth’s magnetic field continues to provide protection.
But several years ago brain scans of Nasa astronauts who spent more than a month in space revealed damage to their eyeballs and brain tissue. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2616792/Could-deep-space-cause-BRAIN-DAMAGE-Radiation-permanently-destroy-astronauts-attention-span.html#ixzz30Ur2J9NG
Medical authorities overwhelmingly agree that low-level ionising radiation is harmful to health
The view that low-level radiation is harmless is restricted to a small number of scientists whose voice is greatly amplified by the nuclear industry – in much the same way as corporate greenhouse polluters and their politicians amplify the voices of climate science sceptics.
Chernobyl – how many died?, The Ecologist Jim Green – Nuclear Monitor 26th April 2014“………Little scientific confidence on quantifying radiation risk While the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion holds that there is no threshold below which radiation exposure is harmless, there is less scientific confidence about how to quantify the risks.
Risk estimates for low-level radiation exposure are typically based on a linear extrapolation of better-understood risks from higher levels of exposure. This ‘Linear No Threshold’ (LNT) model has some heavy-hitting scientific support. For example a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states:
“Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology.” [1]
Likewise, the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) states that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.” [2]
Uncertain risk does not equal zero risk Continue reading
How many deaths were caused by the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe?
A number of studies apply that basic method – based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates – and come up with estimates of the Chernobyl cancer death toll varying from 9,000 (in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union) to 93,000 deaths (across Europe).
unqualified claims that the death toll was just 50, should be rejected as dishonest or uninformed spin from the nuclear industry and some of its scientifically-illiterate (in this field if not in others) supporters.
And sadly, that has to include every last one of the self-proclaimed ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ – among them James Hansen, Patrick Moore, Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Stephen Tindale and James Lovelock.
Chernobyl – how many died?, The Ecologist, Jim Green – Nuclear Monitor 26th April 2014“………Fifty immediate deaths
About 50 people died in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. Beyond that, studies generally don’t indicate a significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout.
Nor would anyone expect them to because of the data gaps and methodological problems mentioned above, and because the main part of the problem concerns the exposure of millions of people to low doses of radiation from Chernobyl fallout.
For a few fringe scientists and nuclear industry insiders and apologists, that’s the end of the matter – the statistical evidence is lacking and thus the death toll from Chernobyl was just 50.
If they were being honest, they would note an additional, unknown death toll from cancer and from other radiation-linked diseases including cardiovascular disease. Continue reading
NASA just doesn’t get it – that ionising radiation is a killer
Cosmic ray radiation could prevent humans from travelling to Mars, Herald Sun, STAFF WRITERS NEWS.COM.AU APRIL 25, 2014
A NEW report has exposed one of the big problems confronting our ambition to send humans to Mars – galactic cosmic ray radiation.
Cosmic rays consist of high energy particles. When humans leave the earth’s atmosphere, these rays can kill cells and even cause cancer. They’re also extremely difficult to shield against, Wired reports.
The new study, published in the scientific journal PLOS One, says astronauts could receive doses of cosmic ray radiation exceeding their lifetime limit after just 18 months (for women) or two years (for men) on the International Space Station.
“The type of tumours that cosmic ray ions make are more aggressive than what we get from other radiation,” says radiation expert Francis Cucinotta, who wrote the report.
That conclusion obviously has wider repercussions for extended space travel. If we’re going to send anyone to Mars, we’d better be able to protect them against the effects of this radiation. Cucinotta estimates that, as technology currently stands, an astronaut’s lifespan would be shortened by 15-24 years by a trip to the red planet.
NASA does take steps to ensure its astronauts don’t vastly increase their chances of dying from cancer. Once an astronaut has spent too much time accumulating radiation in space, they’re grounded, Wired reports……..http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/science/cosmic-ray-radiation-could-prevent-humans-from-travelling-to-mars/story-fnjwlbuf-1226895669558
NASA Chief: Mars Mission Necessary For Human Survival Http://Www.Abc22now.Com/Shared/News/Top-Stories/Stories/Wkef_vid_19784.Shtml
Ultimately, Bolden said, the human race will need to become colonists.
“If this species is to survive indefinitely we need to become a multiplanet species,” Yahoo quotes Bolden as saying. “We need to go to Mars, and Mars is a stepping stone to other solar systems.”
Bolden said a journey to Mars should be possible by the 2030s, with modest increases to NASA’s budget.
Mars Astronauts could be allowed more radiation: oh well, they won’t be coming back anyway
Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs
I think that it’s a terrific idea to weaken the radiation standards for people going to Mars. The beauty of this is that the middle-aged white men who plan this know that they themselves will be quite safe from any court action. When the poor sucker Mars -dwellers get their cancer – it’ll be just too hard to mount a legal case from Mars. And they can’t come back anyway, so we can all forget about them
Radiation exposure standards might be relaxed for Mars trip Asbury Park Press, 23 April 14, WASHINGTON — One of many factors complicating a trip to Mars is the space radiation that would bombard astronauts during the approximately two years they would spend getting to the planet, exploring it and returning home……….
NASA is aiming for a landing in the early 2030s. Even with two decades to prepare, such a journey to a planet millions of miles away requires hundreds of steps every day.
One such step involves calculating an acceptable level of radiation for astronauts, a question NASA took to the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies.
“We’re pushing not only the technology that helps protect the (astronaut) but also looking at the requirements we have,” Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration told the Humans to Mars Summit. “Are they really realistic requirements? Or has today’s medical environment allowed us to do things differently?”
The institute’s answer, issued by a committee earlier this month, is that current medical standards for radiation exposure should remain in effect, though exceptions could be granted “in rare circumstances.” If an exception were permitted, NASA would be ethically bound to provide astronauts with health care beyond the end of their missions, the committee said…….http://www.app.com/article/20140422/NJNEWS17/304220086/Radiation-exposure-standards-might-relaxed-Mars-trip
Non ionising radiation is also a cause for health concern
92% Sure: Non-ionizing Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Potential Found in 76 of 80 Studies Peer Reviewed Scientists find cell phone radiation exposure creates cellular imbalances known to cause cancer in 92% of peer reviewed studies on ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species). RF Safe suggest precautionary measures to reduce excessive RF exposure even at athermic levels. San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) April 22, 2014
According to RF Safe, Scientists confirm non-ionizing cell phone radiation and ionizing UV radiation from the sun both produce a common bio-effect in living cells, the overproduction of chemically reactive molecules containing oxygen known as ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) which are proven to damage DNA – a precursor for cancer and many other health effects.
“Unexpectedly, a strong non-thermal character of biological effects” has been documented, the group of scientists wrote.
In the peer reviewed editorial “Low intensity radio-frequency radiation: a new oxidant for living cells” in the scientific journal “Oxidants and Antioxidants in Medical Science” on March 29th 2014 a group Scientists reported that of 80 studies, they had assessed, 92,5 % (= 76 studies) confirmed that mechanisms of inflicting cellular damage happened at below thermal levels.http://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/65/65-1394615302.pdf?t=1398177912
Low intensity radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by wireless phone devices “could lead to mutagenic effects through expressive oxidative damage of DNA”, because “the substantial overproduction of ROS in living cells under low intensity RFR exposure could cause a broad spectrum of health disorders and diseases, including cancer in humans”………. http://www.prweb.com/releases/cell-phone-radiation/cancer-studies-ros-dna/prweb11784604.htm
USA now abandoning the brave sailors who helped out in Fukushima nuclear emergency
Is America Abandoning its Bravest Heroes Yet Again?, WhoWhatWhy By Karen Charman on Apr 21, 2014 “…….U.S. sailors who went on an idealistic mission three years ago to help the Japanese cope -…….
At least 79 of those sailors now suffer serious health effects consistent with radiation exposure. Some of the sailors have filed a class action lawsuit against the Japanese power company, accusing it of hiding what it knew about the escaping radiation and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as $1 billion for a fund to cover their medical monitoring and treatment. Some of them also blame the U.S. Navy, which denies that its sailors were exposed to harmful levels of radiation.
They Came Out Cooked
Paul Garner, the lead attorney on the case, told WhoWhatWhy that a much larger group of military personnel were exposed to radiation, and he expects the number signing on to the lawsuit to rise as more people develop symptoms. He reeled off a long list of alarming health complaints among the nearly 100 former Operation Tomodachi participants he’s interviewed. So far, about half have developed cancer—of the brain, eye, testes, thyroid, or blood (leukemia). “These kids were first responders,” Garner says. “They went in happily doing a humanitarian mission, and they came out cooked.”
Radiation Déjà vu
The situation these sailors find themselves in is all too familiar in the annals of the nuclear age. Over the past 75 years, claims of harm by many people exposed to radiation through no fault of their own have been officially downplayed or denied. For example: Victims of fallout from atom bomb testing, workers routinely exposed at a nuclear weapons facility, people living near one, and those caught downwind of reactor meltdowns at nuclear power plants, as in the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion……..
Official Estimates Don’t Compute
A DOD report lays out how the Navy reached its conclusions about the doses that 17,000-plus sailors received. But according to nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, a former industry vice president who blew the whistle for radiation safety violations at his former employer, Nuclear Energy Services, as with the previous accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nobody knows how much radiation has been released from Fukushima—because most of the radiation monitors did not survive the accidents. That means assumptions rather than real data were used to calculate the total amount of radiation released—resulting in estimates that Gundersen believes are much too low.
Another outside expert charges the Navy’s reconstructed doses are meaningless. Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Energy, who has spent several years auditing radiation dose reconstructions on ailing U.S. nuclear weapons workers, says the only way to get an accurate internal and external dose on any individual is to take continual measurements throughout the time they are exposed. People must wear special monitoring equipment and undergo a regular regime of monitoring. This is especially important in trying to assess the health effects from a multiple meltdown situation with large explosions involving reactor cores, as occurred at Fukushima.
Alvarez says that based on the illnesses that Operation Tomodachi participants are reporting, the real radiation doses were likely very large. “We’re hearing the same kinds of complaints that I was hearing from the people exposed to fallout from the bomb testing program—the metallic taste in the mouth, loss of hair, and sudden and unexpected illnesses,” he says. Symptoms like that indicate “tissue-destructive doses.”
A February 2014 report by Kyle Cleveland, an American sociologist at Temple University in Japan, affirms Alvarez’s assessment. The report includes a transcribed telephone conversation Cleveland received from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which reveals that monitors aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan picked up radiation levels 30 times higher than normal out at sea 100 miles from the reactors. The nuclear expert quoted in the transcript was surprised to detect anything at that distance and says radiation levels were high enough to damage people’s thyroids after ten hours of exposure.
If the Navy’s questionable dismissal of radiation exposure is troubling, the actions of the Tokyo Electric Power Company are even more so. The Japanese Diet (Japan’s parliament) tasked an independent commission, known officially as the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, with figuring out what caused the multiple meltdown.
The report, released in 2012, is damning in its conclusions. Unlike the U.S. Navy, the Commission characterizes Fukushima as a “severe accident that ultimately emitted an enormous amount of radioactive material into the environment.”…….http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/04/21/america-abandoning-bravest-heroes-yet/
Radiation exposure leads to one cancer, and to another one, later on
Link between radiation exposure and first and second cancers exposed by researchers http://www.naturalnews.com/044750_radiation_exposure_cancer_tumors.html, April 17, 2014 by: David Gutierre (NaturalNews) Large-scale population studies of survivors of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have confirmed that radiation exposure can lead to multiple cancers that manifest separately over the course of years or decades — a finding with implications not just in cases of nuclear accidents or attacks but also for radiation-based cancer treatments.The landmark study was conducted by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the National Cancer Institute, and published in the journal Cancer Research in September 2010. It found that the risk of developing a second cancer from radiation exposure was nearly identical to the risk of developing a first.
“Our findings suggest that cancer survivors with a history of radiation exposure should continue to be carefully monitored for second cancers,” said researcher Christopher I. Li, MD, PhD.
Certain organs more vulnerable
Radiation causes cancer when it damages the DNA of a cell but does not kill that cell outright. If the cell is unable to repair itself, it will continue to produce other mutated cells every time it divides. Eventually, this cluster of mutated cells may progress into clinical cancer.
Although the link between radiation and cancer is undisputed, researchers have been unsure to what degree a single radiation exposure can produce more than one cancer. To answer this question, researchers analyzed data from the Life Span Study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors who had been followed from 1950 through 2002. Out of 10,031 people who survived a primary cancer, 1,088 eventually developed another form of cancer unrelated to the first (a “second primary cancer”).
“We found that radiation exposure increased the risks of first and second cancers to a similar degree,” Li said. “People exposed to radiation who developed cancer also had a high risk of developing a second cancer, and the risk was similar for both solid tumors and leukemias in both men and women, regardless of age at exposure or duration between first and second primary cancers.”
The most common first and second cancers to develop as a result of radiation were of the stomach, lungs, liver and female breast. Primary cancer survivors were also particularly prone to cancers of the colon, thyroid, bladder and blood. All these organs are known to be especially sensitive to radiation.
The study’s findings have obvious implications for the long-term care of people exposed to large amounts of radiation, whether through workplace exposure or through a nuclear accident such as at the Fukushima power plant in Japan.
“We greatly appreciate having the opportunity to conduct this unique research with our Japanese colleagues who, through innumerable publications, have truly transformed the tragedy of the atomic bombings to fundamental scientific advancements that have impacted radiation protection standards and policies worldwide,” Li said.
Implications for medicine
But the findings also have major implications for modern medicine, which is responsible for nearly half of all total radiation exposure experienced by the U.S. population, and well over half of the non-natural exposure experienced by most regular citizens.
“If irradiated at a young age, the lifetime risk is much higher than for those irradiated when older, and the risk is higher for females,” Lawrence said.
Action of S Louis County women prods EPA into testing for radiation
EPA to test for radiation at West Lake Landfill http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2014/04/16/epa-radiation-testing-west-lake-landfill/7797061/Allison Sylte, KSDK7:28 p.m. CDT April 16, 2014 BRIDGETON, Mo. (KSDK) –The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to test for radiation outside the West Lake Landfill.
This news comes after a group of neighbors announced that if the EPA wasn’t going to do it, they were going to test for radiation themselves.
A lawyer donated $16,000 to help them buy a “mobile radiation detector.”
The EPA insists the radioactive waste at West Lake is not a threat to the surrounding area. Testing will begin in less than six months.
The community group is holding an informational meeting Thursday night at 6:30 p.m. at the Union Hall on Hollenburg Drive in Bridgeton.
St Louis County women organise radiation monitoring
Video: Moms want to test for radiation in Bridgetonhttp://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2014/04/15/bridgeton-landfill-radiation-testing/7762985/Casey Nolen, KSDK10:55 p.m. CDT April 15, 2014 ST. LOUIS COUNTY (KSDK) – If the federal government won’t test for radiation, some West Lake Landfill neighbors say they’ll do it themselves.
Dawn Chapman and her group, Just Moms STL, plan to deploy radiation detectors in St. Louis County by the end of the week.
They hope to monitor the air for any possible high levels of radiation that they believe could be coming from the nearby West Lake Landfill, where old nuclear waste is buried.
Politicians purchased Geiger counters for these birdhouse-like stationary sensors.
Tuesday, an attorney, who is suing the landfill, gifted the group a $16,000 portable radiation detection lab called Gamma Pal. Chapman says they’ll hire a certified contractor to operate it – paid for with community dollars.
Chapman says she’d rather not use the device at all. She’s told the EPA she has it, and hope that will encourage the agency to start its own testing sooner than it plans.
“I would love nothing more than at the end of this week, somebody to say ‘my god, this community is desperate, someone help them right now,'” she said. The EPA said it does plan to start testing for radiation for the first time, outside West Lake’s boundaries.
They say the timeline could be less than six months. The agency still insists that the site is safe.
Japanese government’s double dealing on radiation data
Japan’s Radioactive Potemkin Village: The Government’s Double-Dealing Data, rense.com. By Richard Wilcox, PhD, 4-12-14 I stand to be corrected but what I recently witnessed first hand and face to face in the city of Nihonmatsu can be interpreted as nothing other than scientific fraud and blatant misrepresentation of the facts on the part of the Japanese government regarding gamma radiation levels, leading to the early deaths of tens of thousands of residents . I visited a large nuclear refugee camp in a beautiful location near Nihonmatsu, a modest sized city just outside the evacuation zone of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant No. 1 (FNPP#1) disaster site . Continue reading
Personal account from Tokyo, of government’s duplicity in radiation readings
Japan’s Radioactive Potemkin Village: The Government’s Double-Dealing Data, rense.com. By Richard Wilcox, PhD, 4-12-14 “…….Can You Trust The Government?
According to the Japanese government official website, the Nuclear Regulation Authority , gamma radiation in Tokyo is just 0.034 microsieverts per hour (mcr sv pr hr) . This reading is taken 22 meters above the ground, in Shinjuku, a main hub of urban Tokyo. As luck would have it, I live not far from there and took a reading out my window several stories up in my apartment building and it regularly reads 0.13 mcr sv pr hr. According to the government chart, an estimated reading of 0.061 mcr sv pr hr is given for one meter above ground level. I measured one meter above ground where I live and the reading was 0.12 mcr sv pr hr.
What accounts for the noticeable discrepancy? Could it be the equipment or the location of measurement? The government chart gives an average reading for the ENTIRE CITY OF TOKYO, of 0.061, as if that is remotely accurate. I believe the government and authorities use two main tactics:
1. The place measurement monitoring devices high above the ground where it won’t read the worst radiation which naturally settles on the ground or in ditches;
2. They scrub and decontaminate the area in the immediate vicinity of the monitoring device in order to create a lower reading.
It could also be that tampering with the way devices are calibrated in order to get lower readings, or manipulating published data could occur, but I have no personal proof of these speculations.
Much of the problem with radiation science promoted by the nuclear establishment and their minions is that they limit the factors involved in their methodology and avoid the precautionary principle when drawing conclusions. In other words: don’t worry, be happy (even if your mitochondrial DNA is being damaged).
After the Fukushima accident I personally measured my kid’s school grounds. My readings were consistently higher what was reported by the school who simply measured above the ground in order to avoid the worst radiation.
When I was in the midwest in the US in March, I took outdoor readings above and on the ground that measured between 0.08 to 0.13 mcr sv pr hr. We now live in a manmade radioactively contaminated world due to above ground nuclear tests, nuclear power plant emissions, and nuclear accidents, in addition to natural background radiation from the sun or soil.
What I have witnessed first hand in Nihonmatsu is scientific fraud and misrepresentation of the facts. This is verified by my own dosimeter readings, and by the testimony of both Mr. Honda, the head of the temporary housing facility, and the experienced construction and decontamination worker who I talked with…..”
* Richard Wilcox is a Tokyo-based teacher and writer who holds a Ph.D. in environmental studies and is a regular contributor to the world’s leading website exposing the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Rense.com. He is also a contributor to Activist Post. His radio interviews and articles are archived at http://wilcoxrb99.wordpress.com and he can be reached by email for radio or internet podcast interviews to discuss the Fukushima crisis at wilcoxrb2013@gmail.com. http://www.rense.com/general96/jpsradioctv.html
1 This Month
19 February – VIRTUAL EVENT-Decision Time: AI and Our Nuclear Arsenal
12:45 p.m. Central / 1:45 p.m. Eastern
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (181)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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 