New Zealand’s and other countries’ veterans, victims of Mururoa nuclear tests
In April 2006, the Herald reported Dr Rowland saying a small but statistically significant level of genetic damage had been found.
“Taking all confounding factors [like smoking, alcohol and medical x-rays] into account, we are left with only one other interpretation of what it is about this group that’s different to the control group: they went to Operation Grapple.”
His work on chromosome damage – the first step in the formation of cancer – gave hope of compensation to thousands of men from Britain, Australia, Fiji and New Zealand.
The research was commissioned by Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association chairman Roy Sefton, who sought Government acknowledgment that men were harmed in their teens and had no choice on whether they went to Mururoa.
Tony Cox, who was on HMNZS Otago and heads the Rimpac veterans’ rights organisations, said an attempt was being made to convert Dr Rowland’s findings to apply to the Mururoa veterans.
“Just because the Government did not accept the Rowland study does not mean that it can’t come up for a review.”
Mr Cox said he had cancer of a type that was contracted only through exposure to ionised radiation…
Mururoa – our darker legacy New Zealand Herald By Wayne Thompson Jul 19, 2013 A band of men who “drove the taxis” – the naval frigates carrying the official New Zealand protesters against French nuclear testing in the air of the Pacific Ocean – will be in a sombre and angry mood at their 40th anniversary reunion in Tauranga tomorrow.
“Our feeling in 1973 was there was one protester, Government minister Fraser Colman,” said one of the former crew members of HMNZS Canterbury, Wayne O’Donnell.
“We were there just to keep the ship going and do what we were employed to do.
“By the time the blast was observed we were glad to head home.
“We did not expect any major radiation fallout, which has been proven wrong.” Continue reading
Ionising radiation causes cancer. electromagnetic might, too
The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.
Parents urged to limit children’s use of mobiles, cordless phone under new health warningshttp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/parents-urged-to-limit-childrens-use-of-mobiles-cordless-phone-under-new-health-warnings/story-fn7bfu22-1226589473040 Natasha Bita, National Social Editor March 03, 2013 PARENTS should limit kids’ use of mobile and cordless phones, Australia’s radiation watchdog recommends in new health advice.
The Federal Government’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) also suggests that baby monitors be kept a metre away from cots, to minimise any electromagnetic emissions.
“Due to the lack of scientific evidence on mobile and cordless phone use by children, ARPANSA recommends that parents encourage their children to limit their exposure,” the agency states in its first “fact sheet” for consumers to reduce exposure from wireless devices including mobile phones.Doctors yesterday agreed with the regulator’s advice, in light of children’s fixation with tablets and smartphones. Continue reading
Electromagnetic radiation could be hazardous, too, as well as ionising radiation
Instant Expert: Electromagnetic radiation Green Lifestyle, By Caitlin Howlett,16 July Breaking down the buzz of a shock-worthy pollution.
What is electromagnetic radiation?
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR), sometimes called electrosmog or electromagnetic pollution, is emitted by all electrical and wireless technologies. Radiofrequency EMR is invisible but it’s everywhere – it is naturally produced by all matter in the Universe, with high levels produced by the Sun, and low levels by your body. However over the past 100 years or so, radio, television, power-lines, computers and, more recently, telecommunications (in particular mobile phones), have changed the way humans, plants and animals are exposed to EMR.
What do we know about it?
Naturally occurring levels of EMR probably have little or no effect on humans, but the proliferation of appliances in the 21st century has raised questions about setting safe levels of exposure. Unnaturally high levels of EMR – as used by microwave ovens or radio transmitters – have been suggested to cause cancers, miscarriages, genetic damage and other health problems, but there is no firm scientific evidence…….
Does it affect all living things?
Birds and bees use the Earth’s natural magnetic field for navigation, but magnetic interference from power lines and mobile phone technology may alter their ability to do this. Studies suggest wildlife is affected by radiofrequency (which is emitted by all wireless technology, from WiFi and cordless phones to phone masts) and there have been calls to ban the installation of phone masts in protected natural areas and where endangered species are present…..
Some statistical links were found between high phone use and brain tumours, and in May IARC classified mobile phone radiation as possibly carcinogenic.
How can I avoid it?
“To avoid electromagnetic radiation in the home it’s important to use wired connections wherever you can and avoid wireless connections,” says Lyn McLean, author of The Force: Living safely in a world
of electromagnetic pollution.
While she advises avoiding “long-term exposure while you’re sleeping”, Dr Lindsay Martin of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency says sensible precautions should be weighed against advantages of technology that could provide security and health benefits.
McLean says there are safer alternatives to using a phone as an alarm clock, such as battery-operated or electric devices, and she suggests using non-bluetooth hands-free on a mobile, and texting instead…….
Dr. Lindsay Martin, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
“While there is little evidence of widespread health effects or environmental impact from EMR, there is enough circumstantial evidence to justify precaution in regard to prolonged exposure to magnetic fields from electrical infrastructure such as power lines and children’s use of mobile phones.” http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/2947/instant-expert-electromagnetic-radiation
FUKISHIMA: RADIOACTIVITY in SEAWATER
Issue 1: The number of radio-nuclides entering the marine environment of the east coast of Japan.
Issue 2: The nature of the radio-nuclides derived from reactor and cooling pond outputs
It’s my conclusion that the official monitoring regime being carried out by TEPCO and other Japanese agencies is inadequate to the task of identifying the potential radiobiological threats to the public.
An OPEN BRIEFING, Tim Deere-Jones: Marine Radioactivity Consultant, timdj@talktalk.netJuly 2013
I’m a UK based Marine Radioactivity Consultant, Researcher and Campaigner whose been researching the subject since the 1980’s and working (on a freelance, independent basis) as a consultant to NGO’s, Green Groups, Citizens Campaign Groups and UK Local Authorities since the 1980’s.
My field work experience and desk review research have been focussed on the behaviour and fate of man made radioactivity in UK and European marine, coastal and estuarine environments and the pathways by which doses of marine radioactivity may be delivered to maritime, coastal zone and island populations.
In the context of the ongoing contamination of the marine environment following the multiple meltdowns and loss of coolant from the Fukushima site I note the ongoing near-site monitoring of the marine environment (sea water) and of some marine environmental media (principally fish, with some marine algae).
However I am deeply concerned to note that a number of highly relevant issues and phenomena relating to the behaviour and fate of the Fukushima sea discharged radioactivity and its potential for delivering doses to human populations remain un-recorded, under researched and/or completely ignored.
Thus it is evident that the true impacts of the radioactive contamination of the Japanese east coast are not being documented or acted upon.
The short, informal briefing, set out in the following pages, identifies and comments on some of those issues and introduces the outcome of a number of UK observations and studies (principally carried out in one of the planets most radioactive sea areas: the Irish Sea and it’s adjacent waters) in order to provide some supporting background information in support of my concerns relating to the Fukushima case.
N.B. Input of the search term “Tim Deere-Jones: Marine Radioactivity” to most of the popular search engines will upload links to a number of fully referenced, scientific and technical reports and studies, on the behaviour, fate and doses potential of marine discharged radioactive wastes in UK and European waters, that I have authored for a number of clients. Continue reading
Cancer risk to children increased with CT scans
They found, after some statistical adjustment, that the group of children exposed to CT scans were 24 percent more likely to develop any cancer during the study time period and that their risk bumped up (about 16 percent or so) with each additional scan. The peril was greater for children exposed at younger ages and was linked to many different types of malignancies — including cancers of the brain, skin, blood and gut
Dr. Dustin Ballard: Examining the trade-offs with CT scans marinij.com By Dr. Dustin BallardIJ correspondent 07/15/2013 IN MEDICINE, like in life, there are almost always trade-offs. Most treatments, even unassuming ones like oxygen, have side effects. And most medical tests hold the potential of unintended consequences.
Consider the recent evidence about the long-term effects of CAT Scan (CT) radiation in children. But, before we get there — please don’t flip out — CTs can be valuable tools, so please don’t decide that you will boycott them entirely. That said, it’s undeniable that there’s been an explosion in the use of CTs, and that this is a concerning trend. Mounting evidence shows that CT exposure in childhood results in a small but real increased risk of cancer later in life. Continue reading
American Medical Association wants action on radiation in seafoods
American Medical Assn. Urges Testing Seafood For Radiation http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=10663 July 11th, 2013 The American Medical Association has passed a resolution calling for the US to continue to monitor and publicly report radiation contamination in seafood. The original resolution included the language that cited Fukushima as a main reason for the concern and focused on the Pacific ocean. The final resolution broadened it to include all seafood.
The resolution was approved before the recent announcement that Fukushima Daiichi has been continually leaking contamination into the Pacific for the last 2+ years.
The resolution is a good step for public health. The current policy of the FDA does no ongoing seafood testing for radiation. That done soon after the Fukushima disaster was vague, using frozen fish of unknown catch date and fish with an unknown catch location within Japan. The FDA and USDA so far have not publicly released any seafood testing for products hauled places other than Japan. The current US contamination level before the government will intervene is 1200 bq/kg far higher than other countries including Japan.
New guidelines allow far greater radiation exposure to the public
For Future Reactor Meltdowns, EPA Means “Extra Pollution Allowed” by JOHN LaFORGE Cutting Corners, Cutting Costs, Creating Cancer
As the nuclear power industry struggles against collapse from skyrocketing costs, bankrupting repair bills and investor flight (four operating reactors were permanently closed this year, more than in any previous 12 month period), the government seems to have capitulated to political pressure to weaken radiation exposure standards and save nuclear utilities billions.
On April 15, the EPA issued new Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for dealing with large scale radiation releases — like the catastrophic triple reactor meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan that spread cesium and radio-iodine worldwide. The new PAGs are like a government bailout, saving reactor owners the gargantuan costs of comprehensive cleanup. And eerily, the new PAGs seem to presume the inevitability of radiation disasters that the industry — with its fleet of 100 rickety 40-year-old units — can’t currently afford to withstand.
According to Daniel Hirsch, President of Committee to Bridge the Gap, the latest PAGs took effect in April but can be amended — and EPA is taking comments. Hirsch says that the National Council on Radiation Protection’s plans for implementing the new PAGs “would allow the public to be exposed to extraordinarily higher levels of radiation than previously permitted” during reactor accident emergencies.
The new PAGs also allow extremely high contamination of food, he says. “In essence,” Hirsch reports, the PAGs say “nuclear power accidents could be so widespread and produce such immense radiation levels that the government would abandon cleanup obligations” forcing people to absorb and live with far more cancers.
To cut costs, industry has long pushed for weakening radiation exposure rules. In 2002, Roger Clarke president of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) warned in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Some people think that too much money is being spent to achieve low levels of residual contamination.” The ICRP recommends exposure standards to governments for nuclear industry workers and the public…….http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/09/for-future-reactor-meltdowns-epa-means-extra-pollution-allowed/
Rising radioactivity in Fukushima’s leaking water
- 11,000 becquerels per liter – TEPCO’s measurement of Cesium-134 on July 9.
- 18,000 becquerels per liter — TEPCO’s measurement of Cesium-137 on July 8.
- 22,000 becquerels per liter – TEPCO’s measurement of Cesium-137 on July 9.
Fukushima Radiation Leaks Rise Sharply By William Boardman, Reader Supported News 11 July 13 “………Here’s another perspective on the same situation:
- 10 becquerels per liter – The officially “safe” level for radioactivity in drinking water, as set by the NRA.
A becquerel is a standard scientific measure of radioactivity, similar in some ways to a rad or a rem or a roentgen or a sievert or a curie, but not equivalent to any of them. But you don’t have to understand the nuances of nuclear physics to get a reasonable idea of what’s going on in Fukushima. Just keep the measure of that safe drinking water in mind, that liter of water, less than a quart, with 10 becquerels of radioactivity.
- 60 becquerels per liter – For nuclear power plants, the safety limit for drinking water is 60 becquerels, as set by the NRA, with less concern for nuclear plant workers than ordinary civilians.
- 60-90 becquerels per liter – For waste water at nuclear power plants, the NRA sets a maximum standard of 90 becquerels per liter for Cesium-137 and 60 becquerels per liter of Cesium-134.
At some of Fukushima’s monitoring wells, radiation levels were in fractions of a becquerel on July 8 and 9. At the well (or wells) that are proving problematical, TEPCO has provided no baseline readings. Continue reading
Permissible radiation doses established by polluters
For Future Reactor Meltdowns, EPA Means “Extra Pollution Allowed”, Counter Punch, Cutting Corners, Cutting Costs, Creating Cancer, by JOHN LaFORGE, 11 July 13,
“……….There is no exposure to ionizing radiation that’s safe. Even the smallest exposures have cellular-level effects that can lead to immune dysfunction, birth defects, cancer and other diseases. The National Academy of Sciences’ 7th book-length on the biological effects of ionizing radiation, BEIR-VII, declared that any exposure, regardless of how small, may cause the induction of cancer. BEIR-VII also explicitly refuted and repudiated the pop culture “hormesus” theory, promoted by industry boosters, that a little radiation is good for us and acts like a vaccination.
Today, the nuclear industry — military, industrial and medical — is required to keep radiation exposures only “as low as reasonably achievable.” This tragicomic standard is neither a medical nor scientific concept. It’s not based on health physics or biology. It’s merely the formal admission that radiation producers cannot keep worker or public exposures to a level that is safe — that is zero.
Exposure limits have been established at the convenience of the military and industrial producers of radioactive pollution, not by medical doctors of health physicists. The late Dr. Rosalie Bertell made clear 36 years ago in Robert Del Tredici’s book At Work In the Fields of the Bomb, “The people with the highest vested interest are the ones that are making the nuclear bombs. And it turns out they have complete control over setting the permissible [radiation exposure] levels.” Since then, little has changed in the regulatory world (although scientists have found that far more damage is caused by low dose radiation than was earlier thought possible): the ICRP’s 1990 recommendations to reduce worker and public exposures by three-fifths has yet to be adopted by the United States.
We can thank industrial and political roadblocks for that, yet in spite of them the government’s permissible dose (lazy reporters often write “safe” dose) of radiation has dramatically decreased over the years — as we’ve come to better understand the toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic properties of low-level exposures. In the 1920s the permissible dose was 75 rem (radiation equivalent man) per year for nuclear industry workers. In 1936, the limit was reduced to 50 rem per year; then 20-25 in 1948; 15 in 1954; and down to 5 rem per year in 1958. The general public is officially allowed to be exposed to one-tenth the workers’ dose, or 0.5 rem per year. The ICRP’s 1990 suggestion was to cut this to 2 and 0.2 respectively.
With cancer rates at pandemic proportions, adding higher radiation exposures to the effects of 80,000 chemicals that contaminate our air, water and food only makes our chance of avoiding the dread disease slimmer. Rather than permitting increased doses of dangerous and sometimes deadly radiation, especially following reactor disasters, the government should be acting to prevent them — like Germany, Italy and Japan — by preparing the phase-out of the country’s accident-prone nukes.
John LaForge is a co-director of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group in Wisconsin.
Need for better judgment in use of medical ionising radiation
We’ve known about the risks of radiation for some time, but these three studies quantify the risks. Essentially, they show that relatively low doses of ionising radiation, previously considered ‘safe’ can translate into excess cancer cases.
We believe that these findings call for a change in imaging practice. First, ionising radiation should be a consideration for the referring doctor when deciding whether a patient needs a scan (and if so, what type). Second, imaging techniques and machines that reduce ionising radiation doses should always be used. Finally, government funding models must be reviewed to ensure there are no inappropriate incentives towards a radiating scan.
For example, in Australia, if a young patient presents to a GP with low back pain and the GP orders a scan, Medicare would fund a CT scan but not a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), even though this may be a safer alternative in terms of radiation.
The body of evidence is growing. We need to start translating evidence into practice
The risks of ionising radiation: three new studies and their impact on imaging in sports medicine http://www.clinicalsportsmedicine.com/the-risks-of-ionising-radiation-three-new-studies-and-their-impact-on-imaging-in-sports-medicine-jessica-orchard-and-john-orchard~ Jessica Orchard and John Orchard 2 July 13, In 2012, two major studies were published about the risks of ionising radiation from imaging. Pearce and colleagues’ study in The Lancet examined the excess risk of leukaemia and brain tumours for children and adolescents exposed to computed tomography (CT) scans. They found that children exposed to cumulative doses of 50mGy (3-5 CTs) may have triple the risk of leukaemia, and doses of 60mGy may have almost triple the risk of brain tumours.[1] In addition, the Pijpe and colleagues’ GEN-RAD-RISK paper in theBMJ[2] study showed that women such as Angelina Joliewho carry a specific mutation associated with breast cancer (BRCA1/2), and who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of thirty, had almost twice the risk of breast cancer (with a dose-response pattern). This study involved lower doses, which we have previously considered fairly ‘safe’ (e.g. 4mGy from a single mammogram or shoulder X-ray).
On the basis of these studies, we wrote a blog post and started writing an editorial for theBritish Journal of Sports Medicine. While we were in the final stages of preparing the editorial,[3] a third study was published. The Matthews et al Australian data linkage study,[4] with an enormous cohort (11 million) showed that the adjusted overall cancer incidence for young people exposed to a CT scan was twenty-four percent greater than for those who were not exposed.
That is, one in every 1800 scans resulted in an excess cancer case. As the mean follow up time was only 9.5 years (relatively short in relation to the time taken to develop cancer), this suggests the true lifetime risk may be much higher. We await with interest the relative risk in older people to see whether the risks for the young also apply to those in middle age. Continue reading
Radiation exposure to workers at Hanford
Workers at U.S. nuclear site exposed — Levels “well above threshold for a High Contamination Area” #Hanford http://enenews.com/workers-at-u-s-nuclear-site-exposed-levels-well-above-threshold-for-a-high-contamination-area-hanford
Title: PNNL staffers exposed to radioactive tritium in Richland
Source: The Bellingham Herald
Author: Annette Cary
Date: June 27, 2013
Two Pacific Northwest National Laboratory employees inhaled small amounts of radioactive tritium while doing work in the Hanford 300 Area last month. […]
Tritium inadvertently spread outside the fume hood, including along the routes to radiological trash disposal.
“Contamination levels on the floor immediately adjacent to the fume hood were well above the threshold for a High Contamination Area,” according to the defense board staff report. […]
The event is still under investigation and it’s too soon to say if any changes will be made to laboratory procedures, [PNNL spokesman Greg Koller] said.
See also: TV: “It appears the worst case scenario has happened” at U.S. nuclear site — Most dangerous material on earth “out of control”? — A whopping 800,000 dpm measured outside tank (VIDEO) #Hanford
Radiation stored in forests of Chernobyl: the fire danger
27 Years Later, Radiation Still Hides Out in Chernobyl’s Trees (Fukushima’s Too) The April 26, 1986, meltdown of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power 
Plant scattered radioactive material across 58,000 square miles of eastern Europe. In a ring 18 miles from the destroyed plant, authorities set up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone—a place where no one is supposed to live (though of course some do.) Scientific American has the story of how, though the disaster took place decades ago, radiation persists in a huge area around the defunct power plant—ready to be re-released to the environment. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/27-years-later-radiation-still-hides-out-in-chernobyls-trees-fukushimas-too/ 30 June 13
In the forests around Chernobyl, the trees have absorbed some of the radioactive fall-out. Washed from the air by the rain, radionuclides are taken up by trees and stored for long periods. The worry, says Scientific American, is that a forest fire could loose this radiation back to the environment.
For almost three decades the forests around the shuttered nuclear power plant have been absorbing contamination left from the 1986 reactor explosion. Now climate change and lack of management present a troubling predicament: If these forests burn, strontium 90, cesium 137, plutonium 238 and other radioactive elements would be released, according to an analysis of the human health impacts of wildfire in Chernobyl’s exclusion zone conducted by scientists in Germany, Scotland, Ukraine and the United States. Continue reading
Hospitak sewage potentially a source of ionising radiation
Another Radiation Source To Consider: Hospital Sewage Forbes, Jeff McMahon, 30 June 13 Researchers found higher than expected levels of radioactive iodine at a Long Island sewer plant that receives effluent from the thyroid cancer treatment center at Stony Brook University, they report in the latest issue of Health Physics.
The research highlights the need for studies of wastewater treatment plants that receive effluent from thyroid cancer treatment facilities, say researchers Paula S. Rose and Lawrence R. Swanson of Stony Brook’s Marine Sciences Research Center.
“This study highlights that medical use can cause substantial fluctuations of I-131 in sewage sludge and the general need for more surveys of I-131 in municipal WCPCs (Wastewater Polution Control Plants),” they write in the August 2013 issue of Health Physics (subscription required).
Rose and Swanson found a concentration of radioactive iodine four times higher than previously published studies of the Stony Brook plant, and at levels that sometimes exceeded the federal dose limit for members of the public……. “Further evaluation of treatment plant worker dose at this plant has been recommended to the Suffolk County Sewer District based on the radiation doses presented here.”
The researchers studied three wastewater treatment plants on Long Island, but found the highest doses at Stony Brook, perhaps because a relatively small treatment plant there serves a regional thyroid cancer center. The Stony Brook Medical Center treats about 60 inpatient thyroid cancer patients per year.
Iodine-131 can be both a cause of thyroid cancer and a solution. Cancers can develop when the thyroid absorbs I-131 instead of stable iodine, and can be included in the cure after doctors remove the thyroid gland and use I-131 to destroy remaining cells. Patients dosed with I-131 become temporarily radioactive, as does their urine. ”Patient excreta” are exempt from regulation in the U.S., and are therefore released into sewer systems.
Iodine 131 has a half life of about eight days.
“Iodine-131 is readily measured in sewage sludge at the Stony Brook WPCP,” according to the study. “The primary source of this radionuclide is excreta from thyroid cancer inpatients treated at the Stony Brook University Medical Center. Frequent inpatient treatments, flow recycling, and sewage sludge removal practices cause 131I to remain in sewage sludge for at least 13 days after patients have left the hospital.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/06/30/another-radiation-source-to-consider-hospital-sewage/
Errors made by Japanese authorities in estimating Fukushima radiation exposure
Exposure data wrong for 16,000 in Fukushima KYODO HTTP://WWW.JAPANTIMES.CO.JP/NEWS/2013/06/26/NATIONAL/RADIATION-EXPOSURE-DATA-INACCURATE-FOR-16000-FUKUSHIMA-RESIDENTS/#.UC0KSDTWO6I JUN 26, 2013 FUKUSHIMA – Fukushima Prefecture and the National Institute of Radiological Sciences have said they erroneously estimated the radiation exposure of 16,118 people in a survey covering the first four months after the outbreak of the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
Among the roughly 420,000 people authorities have so far finished compiling data on, recalculations show 12,469 received higher doses and 3,649 lower doses than previously estimated.
The margins for revisions range from plus 0.4 millisievert to minus 0.2 millisievert. As a result of the revisions, it was learned that some people were exposed to more than 1 millisievert — the annual limit set by the government for ordinary citizens.
People polled were asked to answer in detail where they were between March 12 and July 11, 2011. Based on their whereabouts, the institute estimated their cumulative amount of external exposure by adding up daily radiation levels measured at their locations over the four months.
Used as reference were actual radiation readings at a number of monitoring posts in the prefecture as well as projections of the spread of radioactive substances by the SPEEDI computer simulation system.
But in some cases, the dates in the survey failed to match those in the reference data.
Radiation-caused deaths from Chernobyl nuclear accident
Scientific American: Up to 1 million eventual deaths estimated from Chernobyl exposure — Sweden, Finland, others concerned about risk of forest fires near disaster area http://enenews.com/scientific-american-1-million-eventual-deaths-estimated-chernobyl-exposure-sweden-finland-other-european-countries-concerned-about-risk-forest-fires-disaster-area
Source: Scientific American
Author: Jane Braxton Little and The Daily Climate
Date: June 24, 2013
At Chernobyl, Radioactive Danger Lurks in the Trees
For 26 years, forests around Chernobyl have been absorbing radioactive elements but a fire would send them skyward again – a concern as summers grow longer, hotter and drier […]
[…] scientists at several institutions in Europe and North America analyzed a worst-case scenario: A very hot fire that burns for five days, consumes everything in its path, and sends the smoke 60 miles south to Kiev. A separate worst-case study is underway looking at the risks for Sweden, Finland and other European countries heavily impacted by the 1986 explosion.
Women in their 20s living just outside the zone face the highest risk from exposure to radioactive smoke, the 2011 study found: 170 in 100,000 would have an increased chance of dying of cancer. Among men farther away in Kiev, 18 in 100,000 20-year-olds would be at increased risk of dying of cancer. [No mention of those under 20, who are at much greater risk] These estimates pale in comparison to those from the 1986 Chernobyl explosion, which predict between 4,000 and over a million eventual deaths from radiation exposure. […]
See also: 3 million children require treatment because of Chernobyl, many will die prematurely -U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000
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 