TV: Alarm over “Catastrophic Leak” at US nuclear site — “Emergency response underway” — Surge in radioactive leakage after “essentially blowing a hole” in massive tank containing “deadliest substance on earth” — Former Worker: “I was very shocked to hear it breached that significantly” (VIDEOS)

Published: April 20th, 2016 at 5:19 pm ET
By

280 comments


KING 5 News, Apr 18, 2016 (emphasis added): Leak worsens in massive Hanford tank holding nuclear waste; An emergency response is underway at Hanford, where a tank is leaking radioactive waste — A leak in a massive nuclear waste storage tank at the Hanford Site has expanded significantly, KING 5 learned this weekend… one former tank farm worker said the leak should be considered a major problem. “This is catastrophic. This is probably the biggest event to ever happen in tank farm history…” said former Hanford worker Mike Geffre… Until now, the leak found by Geffre was very slow. The liquid would almost immediately dry up… Sources told KING the disturbance caused by the pumping must have exacerbated the leak: essentially blowing a hole in the aging tank allowing the material to leak more quickly… “The hazards to workers just went up by a factor of 10,” said Geffre… [A current worker said,] “There’s always the question, ‘Are the outer shells compromised’”? The accumulation of waste in the outer shell also means the deadliest substance on earth is that much closer to the ground…

KING 5 News transcript, Apr 18, 2016: No one knows if the waste has already leaked into the soil… (Mike Geffre, former Hanford worker): “I was very shocked to hear that the tank had breached that significantly and that much waste had been [leaked?] in that short of time.”

KREM, Apr 18, 2016: ‘Catastrophic’ event at Hanford prompts emergency response; Over the weekend, a leak in a massive nuclear waste storage tank expanded significantly

KREM transcript, Apr 18, 2016: It’s being called a catastrophic leak at the Hanford nuclear site… Mike Geffre a former Hanford employee… told KING 5 that a leak of this magnitude is quote catastrophic… (Official:) “It’s just one more ‘Yes, the tanks are failing.’”

KIRO, Apr 18, 2016: Significant amount of waste leaks within Hanford double-shell tank… So far, no waste has leaked from the tank into the soil beneath it, but checks are ongoing… The DOE says the increased rate of leakage may have occurred because of work inside the tank dislodged material that was partially blocking leak sites.

KVEW, Apr 18, 2016: An alarm activated yesterday while crews were pumping waste from tank AY-102… The Department of Energy notified the state Department of Ecology that a leak detector alarm went off… The alarm indicated an increase in waste seeping from the primary tank into the space between the primary and secondary tank, known as the annulus.

KPLU, Apr 19, 2016: Increased Leakage From Huge Tank of Radioactive Waste At Hanford Sets Off Alarms — An apparent surge in leakage from a huge tank of radioactive waste set off alarms at the Hanford nuclear site… instruments detected a sharp rise of toxic brew in the space between the inner and outer tank walls.

Weather Channel, Apr 19, 2016: ‘Catastrophic’ Leak Found in Nuclear Waste Tank at Washington State Storage Site — An ongoing nuclear waste leak in Washington State has rapidly intensified over the past weekend, leaving workers scrambling.

Tri City Herald, Apr 18, 2016: Significant amount of waste leaks within Hanford tank; Leak estimates surge from 70 gallons to 3,000-3,500 gallons… An alarm for a level detector in the annulus sounded about 3:30 a.m. Sunday… It dropped by about three-quarters of an inch… raising the possibility that it might be leaking from the outer shell.

AP, Apr 19, 2016: “We’re continuing our checks of the tank to determine whether any material might be escaping from the tank itself,” said Jerry Holloway of Washington River Protection Solutions, which manages the underground tanks for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Broadcasts: KREM | KPLU | KING 5 News

Published: April 20th, 2016 at 5:19 pm ET
By

280 comments

Related Posts

  1. TV: Leaking tank at U.S. nuclear site may be in far worse condition than previously known — Workers shocked by new findings #Hanford June 21, 2013
  2. 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 June 22, 2013
  3. TV: Leaking Strontium-90 is “boiling the material around it” at U.S. nuclear site — Eating through tank liners (VIDEO) May 12, 2013
  4. TV: Leak at U.S. nuclear site “has grown substantially” — “The worst of the worst on planet” — “Much more bright green liquid than before” #Hanford June 14, 2013
  5. U.S. nuclear worker brought to tears over leaking waste — “I was ready to sell everything and move to the woods” (VIDEO) April 29, 2013

280 comments to TV: Alarm over “Catastrophic Leak” at US nuclear site — “Emergency response underway” — Surge in radioactive leakage after “essentially blowing a hole” in massive tank containing “deadliest substance on earth” — Former Worker: “I was very shocked to hear it breached that significantly” (VIDEOS)

  • HanfordOnHeart HanfordOnHeart

    I was confused about where they were putting the waste they pumped out of the tank (apparently it goes into other tanks). In my research, I came across this story, which left me even more confused:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hanford-officials-prepare-pump-nuke-waste-back-tank-38514114

    It sounds like they decided to pump the waste back into the leaking tank, which makes no sense–won't it just leak out again? This story also indicates there are about 45,000 gallons left in the tank, while the Weather Channel story above says about 20,000 remain. That's quite a difference!


    Report comment

    • Hanford; Leaking Poisonous Heavy Metal And Radioactive Elements Into Air and Into Columbia River, Multiple TOP SECRET Green Runs Experimenting On Towns Downwind
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/02/hanford-leaking-radioactive-fluids-into.html


      Report comment

    • hamster

      I agree with your understanding of the article. It is poorly written, or else deliberately written, to be unclear as to where the leaked material is being put, and how the leak will be stopped. Personally, I think they write this stuff this way on purpose, to obfuscate the real danger and calm people who are not paying close attention.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      From the ABC mews story (link above):

      "Hanford Nuclear Reservation officials prepared Tuesday to pump thousands of gallons of leaked radioactive waste back into a 46-year-old storage tank that contains toxic leftovers from the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons in Washington state.

      Government officials said none of the radioactive waste appears to have been released into the environment, and there is no known danger to the public."

      2nd paragraph = standard DOE/NRC/nucleoape lie. For those of you who are new here, remember those words. And if you hear them and are close by (50 mi., 70 km. miniumum), you should probably consider running for your life.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Proposed: a new Alphabet letter fed agency: the Dept. of HRC, or DHRC:

        Department of Harmful Rumor Control

        Those tanks aren't leaking, they are spewing. Big difference. Don't say our tanks are leaking. That's a harmful rumor.


        Report comment

  • from a distance from a distance

    This Enenews article is newsworthy.

    Submit this Enenews article as a News Tip to your local paper, etc.

    It's a quick and easy way to raise awareness:

    Here are some News Tip links:

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=submit+news+tip


    Report comment

    • Hanford; Lethal And Leaking; A Race To Armageddon? 60 Minutes – Hanford Released 1 Million Curies Radioactive Iodine So Far, Human And Animal Negative Health Effects Detailed
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/hanford-lethal-and-leaking-race-to.html


      Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        Here a tank, there a tank, everywhere a tank-tank….

        More is bad. So is this "just more" or "more of the same"? And who has catalogued what has already happened across the years, how much and where? It seems like just yesterday that we were clear that Unit 4 at Fukushimna being so-called still in tact and with rods safely removed, was a total fraud.

        And time, and deterioration of tanks everywhere, makes everything worse.


        Report comment

        • from a distance from a distance

          Dr. Conrad Miller does a really good overview

          of Arnie Gundersen's findings from his trip to Japan:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYaKFlWd2MY


          Report comment

        • PostNuclear PostNuclear

          Normally I agree with you, WNTF, but on the issue of whether fuel rods were removed from unit 4, I must disagree. Tepco has much to be ashamed of at Fukushima, but their efforts to remove fuel rods from the spent fuel pool was a good effort with the needed result (for mankind).

          The removal of fuel from SFP4 was real. There are innumerable still pictures, and multiple videos, schematics, and diagrams, delivered by Tepco and by independent news organizations around the world, over a period of years, to support this view. Aside from the pixelization of the pivot/bearing areas of the fuel transfer cask nobody has found any sign of photoshopping these images or videos.

          The evidence to support the opposing view (that it was a hoax) has only a mismatched set of pics, comparing a March 2011 pic of the building skeleton, with the views of inside the superstructure from 2014. There is no honest attempt to identify and compare features of the inside photos to the outside photos of the completed superstructure.

          As Tepco builds toward addressing SFP3, further evidence is already accumulating that the activity is REAL, that the reactor 3 superstructure and fuel transfer preparation is also NOT a hoax.

          If fuel removal from SFP3 doesn't go well, those that cling to the notion of SFP4 being a hoax may soon have to choose whether Tepco perpetrating hoaxes or not, because you can't disbelieve Tepco's account of the removal of fuel from SFP4, but at the same time believe them…


          Report comment

          • BanReactorsForever BanReactorsForever

            PostNuclear,
            No way reactor 4 had it's spent fuel pool emptied as claimed by Tepco. No way. Despite your beliefs in "independent news organizations." "The removal of fuel from SFP4 was real. There are innumerable still pictures, and multiple videos, schematics, and diagrams, delivered by Tepco and by independent news organizations around the world, over a period of years, to support this view. Aside from the pixelization of the pivot/bearing areas of the fuel transfer cask nobody has found any sign of photoshopping these images or videos." Quote from Post Nuclear.
            Anyone who looks at actual pics of the blown up leaning over reactor 4 building knows that the videos claiming to show the removal of spent fuel from R4 sfp are all bogus. The videos purporting to show the inside of R4 building are in fact a different building altogether. Lies. Deadly radioactive lies. That is all the stories of Fukushima Reactor 4 spent fuel removal are. Damn nuker lies. Anyone who believes the nuker mouthpiece media whores over me ought to go look at pics of the exploded building then reconsider if those "independent news" videos are faked. Nuclear safety is a lie. There is no such thing. Reactor 4 sfp went dry, exploded and caught fire. Spreading it's radioactive death smoke all over the planet. Ban Reactors Forever


            Report comment

          • BanReactorsForever BanReactorsForever

            Just google image search, "reactor 4 Fukushima", and it becomes instantly obvious that the entire building was heavily damaged or outright blown up. Look at the what is left of the roof! Look at the collapsed wall sections! Look at the melted out fuel blob that spewed out of the wall! There was no spent fuel to remove because it all exploded or burned up afterwards. Hence why Tepco wants to trick people into believing their lie that the spent fuel pool in reactor 4, and every other reactor at Fukushima, was intact and the spent fuel didn't burn up and go airborne. There are archived cam vids showing strong evidence of reactor 4 sfp fires. Fuku had to be evacuated if I recall correctly. Pretty sure other commenters here know more about this evidence. I can look in my own archives.


            Report comment

          • I will have to agree with Ban Reactors Forever… SPF4 fuel offload is a hoax. Every thing i have seen on this tells me that the structure and hood are to hide some OTHER work being done at reactor #4. The fuel offload story was cover for what ever was being so covered up about the real things going on at reactor #4 that had to be secret. All the video about the offload process is very stinky and i think it was all shot at another reactor all together. The video is not seamless so it is suspect. It shows things that are inconsistent with the new structure added to #4. And why all the Photoshop shit with the photos of reactor #4 during the cleanup of the area? Some have suggested that the Japanese had a clandestine weapons production facility built into the complex… a view i can relate to on many levels looking at the lies and fraudulent photography of the process. The damage to reactor #4 is screaming at the top of its lungs that their is a ton of hidden and secret shit going on there. No one is talking about the CSFSU, let alone moving or planing to move it. Every indication is that they have more fun in store for us all to suck down with our GMO Corn Flakes and our puss filled RGBH milk. I have a stick and i will continue to beat TEPCO until they suck it up tell the truth and move the POOL… The fuckers.


            Report comment

            • BanReactorsForever BanReactorsForever

              Japan's Clandestine nuclear weapons program and Fukushima are conjoined. Much evidence exists linking a nuke weapons program and Fukushima. There is also another secretive, underground nuke facility very near Fukushima Daiini. Nuke energy is a front for nuke weapons production. Japan's govt has much to hide


              Report comment

            • Sickputer

              The idea of 5 years of a Unit 4 switcheroo (presumably Units 5 or 6 used as the decoy) is an intriquing concept. How masterful must there have been a massive lie so big that maybe even the Holocaust and moon walker disbelievers barely come in above a Unit 4 subterfuge.

              Did they hoodwink the Kennedys? Use the IAEA visitors as stooges or accomplices? With nearly 50,000 workers, did they incinerate the ones refusing to carry the Biggest Lie of the 21st Century to the grave?

              Is it impossible to believe that fuel rods in Unit 4 could burn for a week straight and then a dozen or more reagnitions blanket the site?

              The official story Is that scores of tons of skinny nuclear rods burned time and time again, yet the sturdy fuel rod assemblies remained intact for eventual removal.

              I really don't care if this building was/is used as a hoax. There is a much bigger hoax which is the suppression of health issues and contamination levels in Japan proper and the Pacific Ocean radiation washout and worldwide distribution.

              Those larger global coverups have been obscured by the intrique of individual unit coverups.
              Keep the big picture and follow the money and the contamination levels and extinctions of earth species. That's my focus. Anyone who wants to prove a Unit 4 massive sleight of hand is only going to convince me if hundreds of the 50,000 workers are interviewed and verify that as a Japanese Tepco/government master lie.


              Report comment

              • PostNuclear PostNuclear

                One consideration a person could use to understand what really happened to unit 4 as a result of its two hydrogen explosions (both of which were less severe than the unit 1 explosion) is this: The massive concrete walls of primary containment helped prevent these hydrogen explosions from damaging the fuel pools (4th and 3rd floors), as depicted here at time = 9:49.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLZ_Zy1VhMI

                In this frame (with the video paused at 9:49), the destruction of the relatively weak shell of unit 4's 5th floor (enclosing the fuel transfer crane) can be compared to the mostly undamaged massive concrete walls of the fuel loading floor and its attached primary containment below.

                Tepco engineers removed the mangled steel of the 5th floor of unit 4, exposing the fuel loading floor (at the top of the equipment pool and spent fuel pool).

                Tepco then constructed the new, shiny, gray and white, unit 4 superstructure and subsequently removed the fuel from the unit 4 spent fuel pool, as depicted here at SimplyInfo.org, a trustworthy source for competent analysis:

                http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11357
                http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=9818

                Note that the first link from SimplyInfo also shows the loading of the shiny, new fuel transfer crane.

                Please be articulate in any reply. Call out "unit 4" and/or "spent fuel pool" and/or "equipment pool" and/or "5th floor", etc. Do not be ambiguous (e.g. "fuel pool"), lest your reply be misunderstood.


                Report comment

  • Ho Lee Fuk Ho Lee Fuk

    Do people who work at nuke plants realize how wonderful and safe of a job they have? Do they ever say to themselves, "this is brilliant way to boil water"? Do they care or realize they are poisoning the earth and innocent creatures?
    I guess it doesn't matter anyway
    ~Sum Ting Wong


    Report comment

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      It's about the money..it is always about the money..nothing else matters..but the money.


      Report comment

    • Nope, they are all pretty much 'programmed' to believe the hormesis theory.

      Nothing radioactive can ever hurt them. It only increases health.

      DOH!


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        no, they dont go by hormesis, they go by the ICRP linear no threshold model. That is the actual problem, not hormesis. We have a dying ocean because of the linear no threshold model, not because of hormesis. The planet could become completely uninhabitable because of the standards and scientific status which does not include hormesis. By the time pro and anti nukers understand hormesis, the earth will already be toast…Its pretty clear neither pro nor anti nuker reads up on hormesis…thus all arguments are just based on feelings.

        "Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue[16] that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility despite population and scientific evidence. Therefore, estimating Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure"


        Report comment

        • unincredulous unincredulous

          Even I question what side you are on when it is late.

          Low dose radiation killed the beagle puppies Dana Durnford often references, right?

          The Lnt madel says all radiation is bad for you, right?

          If they go overboard on safety, it's not like they can lower the allowable limits of k40 and tax the shit out of filtering it out…oops, they might…

          It's not like they give a shit in government circles anyway. They put high level waste where it's illegal anyway. Conca bragged about it.

          I'm sure there is no hormesis in man made ionizing radioactive elements that a walk in the sun could not do better.

          I'm really way past bedtime, exhausted. I'm a callin you a radical… no, just tired. Even tired I walked myself through it, cause I know you are just acting the part of a lure-fish.

          Found myself here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

          Reading this: "Furthermore, individuals contaminated with radium (60) or thorium (61) did not show excess cancer when the cumulative dose was less than a few gray. No carcinogenic bystander effect has been observed in these individuals (60,61). The proliferation and promotion of potentially mutant cells seems to be inhibited by normal cells surrounding irradiated cells, and only doses greater than a few gray with resulting massive cell damage promote carcinogenesis."

          Lead me to wonder about the potassium naturally being able to even render a dose greater than a few gray.

          And thinking about how…


          Report comment

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

            Linear and no threshold are two different parts of a theory. No threshold means you can't add any radiation at all without killing more people. The rise in cancer is much more than linear. The ocean has been dying for many years. The BP use of nuclear to frack in the Gulf of Mexico destroyed the Gulf of Mexico. Russia and France and other countries have dumped radioactive waste in the oceans. Japan has been doing it for 80 years. Using MOX fuel is the final insanity. A no threshold model says that you can't have any fossil fuel or nuclear energy or weapons. Every country that has nuclear reactors is polluting the air, the water, the land, and it all winds up in the ocean. All nuclear waste eventually winds up in the ocean.

            Looking at Hanford, there is no way to encapsulate nuclear waste for even 100 years. The earth is already uninhabitable. Continuing the nuclear nightmare is complete insanity.

            Everyone understands the theory of nuclear hormesis and it is rejected because it totally false. It is just a false model created by the nuclear industry so they can keep on polluting the earth with more and more radiation. There is no way anyone can solve the horrors created by the atomic age.

            The nuclear industry should be completely shut down forever worldwide instead of promoting quack snake oil.

            The part about no threshold is correct, but the line is supra linear, not just linear, and there are thousands of studies which prove this.


            Report comment

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

              I am replying to this post:

              CodeShutdown
              April 21, 2016 at 2:32 am
              no, they dont go by hormesis, they go by the ICRP linear no threshold model. That is the actual problem, not hormesis. We have a dying ocean because of the linear no threshold model, not because of hormesis. The planet could become completely uninhabitable because of the standards and scientific status which does not include hormesis. By the time pro and anti nukers understand hormesis, the earth will already be toast…Its pretty clear neither pro nor anti nuker reads up on hormesis…thus all arguments are just based on feelings.
              http://enenews.com/alarm-catastrophic-event-nuclear-site-emergency-response-underway-surge-radioactive-leakage-after-essentially-blowing-hole-massive-tank-containing-deadliest-substance-earth-former-worker-very/comment-page-1#comment-764710


              Report comment

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                “Radiation is Good for You!” and Other Tall Tales of the Nuclear Industry
                By Karl Grossman | CounterPunch | September 8, 2015
                “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a move to eliminate the ‘Linear No-Threshold’ (LNT) basis of radiation protection that the U.S. has used for decades and replace it with the 'radiation hormesis' theory—which holds that low doses of radioactivity are good for people.
                “The change is being pushed by 'a group of pro-nuclear fanatics—there is really no other way to describe them,' charges the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) based near Washington, D.C….”
                https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/radiation-is-good-for-you-and-other-tall-tales-of-the-nuclear-industry/


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                The scientific and lawful radiation dose understanding and regulation that allowed all this nuclear poison is because of the ICRP LNT model, and not because of hormesis. This was my statement. Who is disagreeing with it? Lets be clear.

                Is this complicated? Are we lawfully radiated because of hormesis or the ICRP standard? A simple answer will suffice.

                If the ICRP model was not legal, then nuclear would not be legal. Hormesis is not part of the legality of the situation. Fight it all you want but it doesnt do anything to end nuclear

                PJ, how many hormesis papers did you read? Dr G, how many did you read?

                In case you two cant recall what Ive said, let me repeat; Im not saying small doses of nuclear fallout are good for you. i.e. Im not a hormesis pushing nuclear shill as you think. On the other hand Im not going to throw out scientific study and inquiry. Maybe the study of effects of low level radiation will reveal why life was thriving with background radiation and is dying in one generation with similar or less amounts of nuclear fallout? Who knows. Book banning and censorship was never good

                We have always lived in a sea of radiation, but only nuclear fallout caused small brains, cancer clusters and ghost towns. How many millions of animals have genomic instability, small brains and die every year from radon and k-40?


                Report comment

                • Code, it is funny and amazing that both PT and Doc cannot actually bring themselves to even properly read up on hormesis, and then spend so much energy spinning things in different ways.


                  Report comment

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                    No threshold means that no radiation can be added without harming life.

                    I wonder why anyone would disagree with BEIR VIII, Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Alice Stewart, Dr. Rosalie
                    Bertell, Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Dr. Linus Pauling, and thousands of other scientists?

                    The atmosphere around the earth is less of a shield against harmful UV and cosmic rays? This is due to HAARP, space launches, CERN, larger ozone hole due to Fukushima, etc., and the weakening of the magnetic field around the earth. Harmful is harmful.


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      and how many are being born without brains because of radon PJ? Lets put some numbers on it. Say if the bomb test era was a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is K-40 and radon?

                      Looking at the chart I would say radon must be a 100 compared to bomb test 9, am I right? After all, harmful is harmful, sin is sin, good is good and…well we get it; the earth was poison from the get go…one of the creators little errors. He had so many other things to make, can you blame him? Blame?!? God Forbid! (code lifts apron to cover face, qu8ckly ousting any heresy, so deep-seated was the horrors of the inquisition an burning relatives on the stake)

                      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2015-04/ncrp_160_sources_of_radiation_exposure_pie_chart.jpg


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      aint no threshold when your gone…doom doom doom, aint no threshold when your away…doom doom doom. But seriously, when you look at a linear no threshold graph, what is the level of radiation at the zero point where danger and dose come to null? Is the radiation dose;

                      A) zero
                      B) 70 bq/kg


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Any radiation added to the environment causes harm. Plutonium, curium cause the most harm. No one even knows the deadly cocktail being generated at Fukushima. No one can get close enough to measure anything because the radiation levels are so high. It even kills off the robots.

                      Even natural uranium causes harm.

                      I wonder why they spend so much money and time calculating the risk from harmful UV index every day every hour for any locality you can think of?

                      So who says that radon is beneficial and hormetic?

                      Very high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure
                      http://uv.willyweather.com/co/boulder-county/longmont.html

                      This is only April in Colorado. When the sun is higher in the sky in the summer, the UV index will be extreme for hours at a time. Cosmic radiation is deadly, and the increased cosmic radiation is deadly.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      It starts at zero. Please see the charts at my website:

                      http://envinfo.org


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      starts at zero. Ok then…how did they get all that potassium out of the people?

                      Before saying the calculated it based on extrapolation from high dose bomb victim data….recall that there is no test which indicates morbidity from normal potassium levels. ….ok NOW you can say they derived the danger mathematically from poor data,…the same extrapolation which puts K-40 at half the danger of C-137.


                      Report comment

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      How much 40K and 14C are in the typical human body?

                      More than 0, about 7000bq more.

                      http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      People can get lethal cancer at the rate of 4 per 100,000 people. So K-40 starts at zero. You don't have to take the K-40 out.

                      The arguments about K-40 are completely specious. A person can get cancer from background radiation. Even more reason to never add any more radiation from man-made sources. Radiation is what it is. It only takes one atom and one cell to cause damage that can become cancerous. However, radiation also causes heart attacks, lowered immunity so that people have always died from infections or leukemia, the flu, stokes, etc. How many died of flu during WWI?


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “…The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe" the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster….”
                      https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/\
                      Natural radiation undoubtedly lowered their immunity.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Under no circumstance will the natural K40 or that blazing sun or the core of this Earth ever go away.. and so your entire argument is..

                      …wait for it~!

                      specious |ˈspēSHəs|
                      adjective
                      superficially plausible, but actually wrong: a specious argument.
                      • misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty.
                      DERIVATIVES
                      speciously adverb,
                      speciousness noun
                      ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘beautiful’): from Latin speciosus ‘fair,’ from species (see species) .


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “…What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal….”
                      http://earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us

                      Cracks in Earth's Magnetic Shield
                      Immense cracks in our planet's magnetic field can remain open for hours, allowing the solar wind to gush through and power stormy space weather.
                      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/03dec_magneticcracks/


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “…In 1900 heart disease and stroke were responsible for one in seven deaths in the United States….”
                      http://www.rush2013.com/magazine/read/heart-disease-in-the-united-states-after-1900_7.html

                      You really can't prove that these deaths from heart attack weren't caused by internal radiation.

                      The average life expectancy in the US in 1900 was 45 years old. We know more about nutrition and have greater availability to fresh fruits and vegetables all year long.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Since 1900, cardiovascular deaths have risen from 1 in 7 to 30%.

                      “…Heart disease is the leading cause of death for people of most racial/ethnic groups in the United States, including African Americans, Hispanics and Whites. For Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders and American Indians or Alaska Natives, heart disease is second…”
                      http://www.theheartfoundation.org/heart-disease-facts/heart-disease-statistics/
                      “…cardiovascular deaths represented 30 percent of all global deaths…”
                      https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F3+of+all+deaths+caused+by+heart+disease&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “…Ian Goddard Explains the Linear No-Threshold Model and Looks at Epidemiology Since the 2006 BEIR VII Report

                      “Ian Goddard put together a video explaining the often debated "linear no-threshold" radiation health risk model. Nuclear proponents often argue that at doses below 10 rem there is no harm; they propose that there is a threshold below which radiation causes no harm. Other proponents argue that hormesis theory shows that radiation at low doses has a protective effect. Ian reviews human epidemiology studies that have been published since the National Academy of Sciences published its radiation health study in 2006. The BEIR VII study had concluded that the linear no-threshold model provided the best fit of the available human epidemiology. Ian's look supports that the BEIR VII study represents or underrepresents radiation health risk and that the linear no-threshold model is still appropropriate.

                      “Epidemiology studies cited by Ian Goddard:

                      “Pooling of dose responses animated

                      “National Academy of Sciences (2006). BEIR VII. http://www.nap.edu/read/11340

                      “Solid-Cancer Dose Responses (adult and mixed age) Post-BEIR VII

                      “Boice JD et al (2006). Mortality among Radiation Workers at Rocketdyne (Atomics International), 1948–1999, Radiat Res. 166(1 Pt 1):98-115. http://pubmed.gov/16808626

                      “Cardis et al (2007). The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer…


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      The reality is we must not demonize that which we can not control and that is an organic natural process of this Earth.

                      We must all learn to choose our intellectual battles.. wisely.

                      The truth of the matter is that our terraforming of this plant in non organic natural ways has caused massive pain and suffering for billions of creatures/species on this planet.

                      Creature comforts of man have cost the biodiversity of this planet to shrink at alarming rates as varied species have gone extinct and/or are heading towards complete extinction.

                      Cancer is a process and a signal generated by the immune system alerting the cancer victim that something is wrong.

                      Gee.. what could be wrong..says he! :)

                      Take a look around once in awhile and follow the dollar bills flying all over the place.

                      Earth is now in very serious trouble and so is mankind.. :(
                      http://www.menshealth.com/health/1-in-2-people-will-get-cancer


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “Cardis et al (2007). The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res. 167(4):396-416. http://pubmed.gov/17388693

                      “Ronckers et al (2008). Multiple diagnostic X-rays for spine deformities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 17(3):605-13. http://pubmed.gov/18349278

                      “Muirhead et al (2009). Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br J Cancer. 13; 100(1): 206–212. http://pubmed.gov/19127272

                      “Ozasa et al (2012). Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases. Radiat Res. 177(3):229-43. http://pubmed.gov/23289384

                      “Metz-Flemant et al (2013). Mortality associated with chronic external radiation exposure in the French combined cohort of nuclear workers. Occup Environ Med. 70(9):630-8. http://pubmed.gov/23716722

                      “Kashcheev et al (2015). Incidence and mortality of solid cancer among emergency workers of the Chernobyl accident: assessment of radiation risks for the follow-up period of 1992–2009. Radiat Environ Biophys. 54(1):13-23. http://pubmed.gov/25315643

                      “Davis et al (2015). Solid Cancer Incidence in the Techa River Incidence Cohort: 1956–2007. Radiat Res. 184(1):56-65. http://pubmed.gov/26121228

                      “Sokolnikov et al (2015). Radiation Effects on Mortality from…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “Sokolnikov et al (2015). Radiation Effects on Mortality from Solid Cancers Other than Lung, Liver, and Bone Cancer in the Mayak Worker Cohort: 1948–2008. PLoS One. 26;10(2):e0117784. http://pubmed.gov/25719381

                      “Richardson et al (2015). Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 351:h5359. http://pubmed.gov/26487649.

                      “Solid-Cancer Dose Responses (children) Post-BEIR VII

                      “Spycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study. Environ Health Perspect. 123(6):622-8. Shown @ 6:20 but not included in the pooled graph graph due to x axis being dose rate, not cumulative dose. http://pubmed.gov/25707026

                      “Pearce et al (2012). Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 380(9840):499-505. http://pubmed.gov/22681860

                      “Mathews et al (2013). Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 21;346:f2360. http://pubmed.gov/23694687

                      “Kendall et al (2013). A record-based case–control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980–2006. Leukemia. 27(1):3-9. http://pubmed.gov/22766784

                      “Child-only leukemia…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “Child-only leukemia graphs shown after 6:55 are from Pearce and Kendall above.

                      “Pooled solid-cancer studies animation:

                      “Note: the pooled graphs use the Excess Relative Risk (ERR) standard where baseline risk is valued @ 0. Included graphs using the Relative Risk (RR) standard, where baseline risk is valued @ 1, are fit into the pooled graph by the standard definition: ERR = RR – 1

                      “In the case of Mathews et al (2013) (fitted @ 3:21), the y axis is Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR), which is equivalent to RR. Additionally, the x axis in Mathews is a count of CT scans. As per Table 8, the average scan in the 5-year-lag group whose graph I used (given it is between the 1- and 10-year lag groups) was 4.5 mSv, with the maximum data point representing a sub-group with an average of 3.5 scans, hence 15.75 mSv is the x-axis value for the highest-dose data point (see Mathews Fig 2 for the 1-year lag and Appendix Figures A(a,b) for the 5- and 10-year lag graphs http://bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2013… , of which I used the 5-year lag).”
                      http://www.environmental-defense-institute.org/radhealth.html


                      Report comment

                    • Angela_R

                      Why are cosmic rays harmful? Because they carry sub atomic particles; for instance protons and electrons.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Oops..
                      The truth of the matter is that our terraforming of this "planet" in non organic natural ways has caused massive pain and suffering for billions of creatures/species on this planet.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      World Health Organization: Prolonged Exposure to Even LOW Level Radiation Increases the Risk of Cancer
                      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-29/world-health-organization-prolonged-exposure-even-low-level-radiation-increases-risk


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      not to be a stickler PJ, but out of the 13 or 14 links you provide to prove that background radiation is dangerous, all but two of them are for exposure to man made radiation.

                      Of the two pertinent papers, one interestingly shows no danger to low levels of radon, commonly regarded as our biggest source of radioactivity. It does show a correlation with gamma, but the study period is post bomb test era. Not the most convincing… The other one has this rebuttal, for what its worth

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529019/

                      In case you are confused about it, I will say again that I have no doubt background radiation causes ionization, free radicals and DNA damage and can be harmful. I have said this several times, so please let it sink in. But we can see that nature was doing great before the nuclear era and there is in fact no evidence that natural sources of radiation were contributing to cancer or disease. While it may have, there is a very conspicous difference now with mans fission products. Make no mistake, there is more so called natural radiation in the ocean than man made. The more you ascribe illness to it, the less you implicate fallout. Isnt that obvious?

                      Say you have five dogs in the house and a child with bite marks. I argue that all but one dog never bite and so it must be Nuky that bit little Susan. You argue that all dogs bite, so Nuky is off the hook


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      The links are Goddard's considered studies that show that the LNT model is the most reasonable we have. These studies from the last decade show that there is NO THRESHOLD to radiation exposure.

                      So, which of the two studies are dealing with natural radiation?


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Here is the basis for your specious argument:
                      "The more you ascribe illness to it, the less you implicate fallout. Isnt that obvious?" This specious argument is the only one those who argue for radiation hormesis. The real argument is that life was just barely possible once the radiation levels decayed from the beginning of the planet. Adding much more dangerous radiation than even the radiation which created the earth is a death blow to the planet.

                      STOP ALL NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY IMMEDIATELY.


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      The other basis for your specious argument is “there is more so called natural radiation in the ocean than man made.”
                      In the age of nuclear definition of radioactive isotopes to say there is “much more” radiation says nothing. And why are you now calling it “so called natural radiation”. Your statement is so vague it is totally unscientific and completely irrelevant. The ocean is dead.

                      Are you arguing that if we just add more K-40, the ocean will be even more diluted and life will come back? There is no such thing as radiation hormesis. Adding K-40 will not help. And there is lethal natural uranium and thorium also in the ocean.


                      Report comment

                  • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                    Gee stock, the post in between you and I seems to confirm your statement. :lol:

                    You musta got the 'deluxe' crystalball!


                    Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    stock, perhaps the fervor is stronger than the frontal lobe synaptic throughput.

                    Uncanny how it goes on and on though.


                    Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters

              Rae: dumping nuclear waste into the ocans…. "Japan has been doing it for 80 years."

              80 years? Is that a typo? Since 1936? Really? That would have been before the Manhattan Project.

              How long?


              Report comment

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

            Replying to the article cited by unincredulous at 5:53,
            the studies they list to support their thesis actually disprove their thesis.

            The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

            The medical community in the US makes a huge amount of money using nuclear medicine for cancer and for diagnostic tools to ward off medical malpractice suits.


            Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            uni, you talking to me? "Even I question what side you are on…"

            Make no mistake; nuclear has an Achilles heel; the ICRP dosimetry

            Hormesis wrangling is for knee jerkers


            Report comment

        • unincredulous unincredulous

          normal cells inhibit mutant cells by surrounding them. And philosophizing that naturally occurring potassium elements surround the k40 ionizing potassium may be mirroring that in nature somehow. The design of life…

          Better teach man made nuclear reactors to make all their elements do the sandwiching of rads with non rads of similar element when they split in releasing energy. If they can't do that then they shouldn't even play with the shit. They are like three week old babies running a chainsaw.

          So yeah, it is thought provoking stuff. I book marked that for more alert reading. later

          Shut them all down


          Report comment

        • unincredulous unincredulous

          Ultimately leading to a final thought about CERN: They blast particles at each other and look for shadows of these particles that hop into existence for a moment, and disappear.

          But how do they know that at less than super duper velocity impacts the particles don't jump into existence by forces not understood, not needing to be forced. And no way to check that out. I hope they read this and it drives them nuts. Maybe a higgs-Bosun particle jumps out of a banana everytime a comparison is made with death dealing man made shitium. Like crawling under the skin and the particle is causing insanity in scientists causing the dumbasfuck syndrome. Maybe these itty bitty particles are smart. Maybe they have intelligence. Maybe they hollowed out building 6 at the world trade center to give the scientists nightmares. Maybe they fly the foo-fighters. Maybe they are demons as some say, dark matter. Maybe they are wrapped around Shinzo Abe's nueral pathways, and there actually is a way to drive them out into pigs like Jesus did. Maybe i need to sleep now


          Report comment

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

          According to LNT, the more radiation you are exposed to, the more risk for cancer. It is not a theory that is killing the ocean. It it 80 years of splitting the atom with atomic weapons testing, nuclear energy, and now Fukushima.

          According to LNT, there should never be coal mining, there should never be atomic weapons or depleted uranium used or creating more and more nuclear waste. At low levels, it is a supra linear.


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            per your admonitions, you forgot to add K-40, the largest source of radiation in the ocean

            "It is not a theory that is killing the ocean. It it 80 years of splitting the atom with atomic weapons testing, nuclear energy, and now Fukushima."

            What legally allows the nuclear industry to exist and say their stuff is less dangerous than background PJ? Hormesis? ICRP LNT model? ….here lets make it easy, a multiple choice;

            A) the ICRP LNT theory

            ~or~

            B) the ICRP LNT theory


            Report comment

            • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

              https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22639911_The_reversible_replacement_of_internal_potassium_by_caesium_in_isolated_turtle_heart

              "By perfusing the isolated turtle heart with Cs solution, most of the intracellular K can be replaced by Cs."

              There is much danger in similarities of man-made v natural. The similarities result in effects not recognized by the living system in plants and animals as detrimental. They are not the same. Though the heart is fooled, the human brain should be able to decipher this. Does less sunshine and potassium mean I can tolerate more cesium and plutonium? NO. There is no safe dose of man-made.


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                fascinating HillBilly. non radioactive cesium is not considered more dangerous than potassium chloride if I remember right. So…finally PJ and DG can replace the k-40 (K for Killer) and live healthier lives without all that radiation. Whew…its quite a relief.


                Report comment

              • Cesium;

                The metal is extremely reactive and pyrophoric, reacting with water even at −116 °C (−177 °F).Although the element is only mildly toxic, it is a hazardous material as a metal. It has a melting point of 28.4 °C (83.1 °F), making it one of the few elemental metals that are liquid near room temperature.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium

                Yea, got to get me sum o dat.. and inject it straight in… sounds a lot like mercury, only worse. Maybe it will cause spontaneous combustion after being injected?

                Sarc.


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  but its no more toxic than salt!

                  "Nonradioactive caesium compounds are only mildly toxic. Exposure to large amounts can cause hyperirritability and spasms, due to the chemical similarity of caesium to potassium, but such amounts would not ordinarily be encountered in natural sources and nonradioactive caesium is not a significant environmental hazard.[105] The median lethal dose (LD50) value for caesium chloride in mice is 2.3 g per kilogram, which is comparable to the LD50 values of potassium chloride and sodium chloride."

                  potassium nitrate is used in gunpowder


                  Report comment

                  • Try it out for awhile and report back to us Code. You will be the resident expert on it, and get kudos from everyone here, surely.

                    Try substituting cesium for potassium and salt and see how it goes.

                    Give it a couple months and reduce your salt and potassium intake to as close to zero as possible, and substitute cesium completely.

                    Why not experiment and report back your direct experience with all of the beneficial properties of cesium after 6 months or so?

                    Of course, do this under medical supervision, as this will also give you lots of ammo for something.. But what is it that you are trying to prove?


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      actually Dr G, I was thinking YOU would be happy about the idea of being able to reduce the dangerous radioactive potassium.
                      We know you believe the potassium is dangerous because you have written many posts on it. PJ also makes many posts on the dangers of potassium. It is thanks to PJ's links that we know just how dangerous it is; half as dangerous as cesium 137! This is incredibly alarming because there are 12,000 bq/m3 of potassium compared to 10 or 15 bq/m3 of C137 in the pacific (except proximity to Fukushima of course). SO, thanks to the tireless efforts of you and PJ, we now know what the REAL DANGER in the ocean is! Yes, in fact you have done the pro nukers a great service by convincing the public that all of the cancers and deaths are much more likely to have been caused by potassium than cesium 137! Either you realize this or you dont…either way it looks bad.

                      Im sorry you couldnt tell that I was being facetious about replacing your potassium with cesium to rid your body of radiation (hands fly up into the air as I start to swoon from the mere mention of the word…catch me…Im fainting). I myself can hardly figure out what the heck people are talking about around here half the time!

                      Let me explain; Dr G and PJ are frequently attempting to counter my exposure of the differences of man made to background, and so I have a running question you no doubt recall; If potassium is as dangerous as you say it is per your many links and articles, then surely…


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      ahem…as I was blabbing about; If potassium is as bad as you and PJ claim it is then surely you have enough confidence that you can outsmart mother nature and by removing the K-40 from your system enjoy better health. Im keeping my radioactivity, but oddly neither of you have answered ye or nay. So now HillBilly shows this study how it can be done…and Im asking you, isnt it a little funny? Now you can actually live free from you largest internal source of radiation! Jump up and down for joy, cmon! Celebrate! Of course no one would ACTUALLY do it, even though, and dont miss this; it is not considered more dangerous than sodium salt or potassium salt! I see the humor. Why is it everyone can jibber jabber away but I have to explain every little damn thing (code runs into his room slamming the door and pouts, looking for heavy metal music….DAMN, all code has is classical! See? See how unfair?)


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      People have to have potassium all the time to stay alive. Your arguments, Code, as usual are totally straw arguments. However, potassium levels are checked with blood chem panels. Too much is unhealthy, and too little is unhealthy. When you eat fruits and vegetables with potassium you also get many phytochemicals to help combat radiation exposure. K-40 is the least problematic of the radioactive isotopes. If K-40 were extracted from food, all the good nutrition would also be extracted from that food.

                      NO ONE is taking radioactive cesium supplements. And no doctor is prescribing those cesium supplements made from stable isotope.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      well, you are wrong about people taking cesium supplements, and the rest doesnt make sense. You yourself have linked to the official papers which say cesium137 is only twice as bad as K-40. I refute that

                      What is the source of your greatest radiation exposure PJ? Answer please


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      I've never linked to a study that shows that cesium-137 is only twice as lethal as potassium-40. It is you that keeps telling us about some paper, not me.

                      “Highly-radioactive fission products such as Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 emit 10 to 20 million times more radiation per unit volume than does Potassium-40. So which one of these would you rather have in your bananas. 2 grams of cesium-137 is more radioactive than 2 tons of potassium-40”
                      http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/images/StarrFS05.jpg
                      http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Cesium chloride, the non-radioactive salt, is promoted as an alternative treatment, also known as “high pH therapy,” for cancer.Nov 12, 2015”
                      https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/integrative-medicine/herbs/cesium-chloride

                      “…I should note that I do not know where any cesium doctors are right now….

                      “The Importance of Potassium in the Blood (i.e. Serum or Plasma)

                      “A quote from the University of Maryland:
                      • “Hyperkalemia is an excess of serum potassium. Most potassium in the body (98%) is found within cells; only a small amount usually circulates in the bloodstream [i.e. the serum]. The balance of potassium between the cells and the blood is critical to the body. It affects the way the cell membranes work and governs the action of the heart and the pathways between the brain and the muscles. If you have excess potassium in the blood, it is usually excreted by the kidneys. However, the levels can get too high if your kidneys aren’t working right, which is the most common cause of hyperkalemia. Another cause is damaged cells’ releasing potassium into the bloodstream faster than even normal kidneys can clear it. Medications or diet may also affect the amount of potassium in the blood. Hyperkalemia is a serious condition that must be treated promptly.http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsConditions/Hyperkalemiacc.html
                      “Here is a quote on what cesium chloride does to potassium in the body of a cancer patient:
                      • “Some patients on cesium develop evidence of potassium depletion so…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “Here is a quote on what cesium chloride does to potassium in the body of a cancer patient:
                      • “Some patients on cesium develop evidence of potassium depletion so serum potassium needs to be monitored along with uric acid blood levels. Any alkaline therapy changes the ph of the body toward a more alkalotic state. This causes movement of potassium into cells [i.e. which depletes serum potassium] which may result in low serum potassium values. This movement of potassium into cells means that a person can become seriously depleted of potassium even if there is no diarrhea or vomiting.http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james14.htm
                      “In other words, cesium chloride does not drive potassium out of the cancer cells, rather it drives potassium into the cancer cells, thus reducing blood serum potassium levels. Potassium must be supplemented to the cancer diet to increase the amount of serum potassium. However, if the serum potassium get too high, then hyperkalemia can result. It is this delicate balance of serum potassium that forces a cancer patient to have their serum potassium level checked every couple of weeks. Kidney damage can result if serum potassium gets too high, but drinking high levels of water generally takes care of this problem.
                      “Symptoms of hypokalemia (too LITTLE serum potassium) include:
                      • “… fatigue, muscle weakness and cramps, and intestinal paralysis, which may lead to bloating, constipation, and abdominal pain. Severe hypokalemia may result in muscular…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Severe hypokalemia may result in muscular paralysis or abnormal heart rhythms (cardiac arrhythmias) that can be fatal.”http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/potassium/index.html
                      Symptoms of hyperkalemia (too MUCH serum potassium) include:
                      • “… tingling of the hands and feet, muscular weakness, and temporary paralysis. The most serious complication of hyperkalemia is the development of an abnormal heart rhythm (cardiac arrhythmia), which can lead to cardiac arrest.”http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/potassium/index.html
                      “In other words, both hypokalemia AND hyperkalemia can lead to muscular weakness and abnormal heart rhythm. While these are strong statements, getting your potassium level checked every 2 or 3 weeks should easily give you the ability to keep your potassium in a safe range (by making slight adjustments if your potassium levels get slightly above or slightly below the normal range).
                      “All of this is another reason to listen carefully to what your vendor tells you about both cesium chloride and potassium doses.
                      ________________________________________
                      “Advice
                      “It would be advisable for you to have your blood uric acid, electrolytes, potassium, magnesium, calcium and sodium levels checked at least once every 3 or 4 weeks, even if you take the recommended dosages of cesium and potassium. The potassium may become too high or too low or the magnesium or calcium levels may become too low!!
                      “Hypokalemia (too LITTLE potassium in the blood…


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      “Hypokalemia (too LITTLE potassium in the blood serum) and hyperkalemia (too MUCH potassium in the blood serum), can lead to a dangerous irregular heartbeat! Contact your physician if increased fatigue, irregular heartbeat, or significant blood pressure changes occur during treatment.
                      “It is also important to look for TRENDS in potassium levels. For example, suppose your first reading for potassium is 4.5, and 3 weeks later it is 4.3 and 3 weeks later it is 3.8 (these are actual numbers from a cancer patient). All of these are within acceptable ranges. However, if this TREND continues, the next reading will not be within acceptable ranges. If you see a trend like this, then you should immediately increase your dose of potassium or increase your consumption of foods that are high in potassium (see below)!! Of course, if the trend is going up, and is about to go off the chart, then you should reduce your dose of potassium (see below). Generally, however, if the dose does need to be changed, it needs to be increased.
                      “Of course, don’t change anything in your protocol without checking with your cesium vendor. He may have a different opinion as to how to interpret these numbers….”
                      http://www.cancertutor.com/alkaline/


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Here is a chart from 2009. Since Fukushima the exposure to man-made radiation is much, much more. This chart is of radiation exposure to people living in the US. K-40 in 2009 was only 2% to 2.5% of the total radiation exposure. It isn't even listed separately on the chart, but is about 1/2 of the internal exposure.
                      https://www.google.com/search?q=man+made+radiation+ocean+image&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioxvG0rKHMAhWJsIMKHemUAMgQ7AkINw&biw=312&bih=155#imgrc=XNFNYxamz9bJwM%3A


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Code, what is your argument?

                      Everything is dead in the Pacific Ocean. Are you arguing that it is K-40 that killed off all the marine life?


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      Code, there are dangerous radioactive isotopes in the fish caught off the West Coast. Where did they come from?


                      Report comment

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

                      28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima
                      http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280

                      The Fukushima Endgame: The Radioactive Contamination of the Pacific Ocean
                      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fukushima-endgame/5420188

                      Fukushima Radiation in Pacific Reaches West Coast
                      http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/fukushima-radiation-in-pacific-reaches-west-coast/


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      PJ, what is your largest source of radiation exposure? Its dangerous background is that not the case?

                      If you have five snakes and your dog has been bitten and is foaming at the mouth, and I happen to know from observation that only one snake is poison, and the other four are not, then we know which snake bit your dog. But PJ argues that all snakes are poison. To prove the toxicity, she links to this fact sheet

                      http://phi.nmsu.edu/~pvs/teaching/phys593/potassium.pdf

                      That fact sheet is in this document

                      http://www.gfxtechnology.com/ArgonneRadFacts.pdf

                      that document has this fact sheet on cesium

                      http://www.gfxtechnology.com/ArgonneRadFacts.pdf

                      where we can learn that C-137 is only twice as bad as K-40

                      I tell PJ that Im differentiating background and man made on the basis of observation; nuclear fallout is killing the animals on land and sea where the greater amount of primordial radiation did not. In her effort to disprove me, she and also Dr G try to prove how dangerous background radiation is. I say fine, who am I to know…but you cant have it both ways; If background is as dangerous as you keep saying it is (and make no mistake, they HAVE MADE THAT ASSERTION, then nuclear is not the only enemy…we have the far greater exposure to radon and the internal K-40. So they can stay their course, and Im sticking with mine; we live in a sea of radiation, but only fallout shrinks brains and kills starfish


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      See this typical radiation dose pie chart, much like the one PJ is using.

                      http://image.slidesharecdn.com/p6radioactivematerialsrevision-120429175031-phpapp01/95/p6-radioactive-materials-revision-5-728.jpg?cb=1335722054

                      This is what the public sees and its what scientists believe. Note how small the dose from artificial radiation compared to radon and potassium from food. Ive been arguing against it for some time. PJ and Dr G in turn are arguing against me. I wonder if they realize that if you argue the radioactive danger of pre nuclear age radiation, that you are arguing against the contribution from anthropogenic?

                      Let me explain; A company comes to spray your yard with insect killer. Your dog gets sick and your chickens die. You just KNOW it must be this poison, but the company says look at the science; our synthetic pyrethrins are just like the stuff in your chrysanthemum flowers and our neonicotinoids are just like the stuff in tobacco plants. Science has it all worked out and they give you some links to prove it. I say wait, your birds didnt die and your dog was living with the chrysanthemums and tobacco. But two neighbors, PJ and DG bring out all kinds of stuff to prove that natural pyrethrin and nicotine are bad just like the company stuff. You decide to sue the company but it doesnt work because everybody says there is no proof the flowers and tobacco didnt kill the birds and make the dog sick. I know, its hard to grasp with our little brains


                      Report comment

                  • Code, try calling a bunch of medical doctors and see if any of them will even entertain this idea of ingesting cesium in whatever form you want as a substitute for salt and/or potassium.

                    Odds are they will hang up on you, laugh loudly, or have some other reaction, but very much doubt you will find ANYONE with a professional medical degree that would be willing to be involved in such an experiment, for VERY GOOD REASON.

                    After talking with a medical doctor about cesium, (who has a major in chemistry), stated an opinion that this was a crazy idea, and no one in their right mind would attempt it.


                    Report comment

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  Pay attention.. :)

                  "Caesium is a relatively rare element as it is estimated to average approximately 3 parts per million in the Earth's crust."

                  Not dangerous until manipulated by man..


                  Report comment

                  • Angela_R

                    We ingest sodium chloride, more commonly known as salt. But do we expect the sodium to become dangerous, or the chlorine to turn into a lethal gas?

                    Yet it appears that we believe a radioisotope will break away from an element and go on a rampant fissile excursion through our bodies?

                    My stomach is a container that houses acid, but no, it is not a nuclear reactor.


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      My stomach is a container that houses acid, but no, it is not a nuclear reactor.

                      glad to hear that Angela


                      Report comment

                    • Angela_R

                      And neither do I have a cyclotron, perhaps you are aware of some who do?

                      The Wikipedia article attempted to differentiate by referring to natural nonradioactive caesium; yet like potassium, natural caesium has radioisotopes.

                      However, naturally, no atom or isotope is ever found alone in nature. in fact they are found together with others of their elemental family united as compounds or ores i.e. they have a relationship with one or more other elements.

                      Should you hear of readings for isotopes, not elements, purported to have been found in the ocean or in the atmosphere, then know they are not normal


                      Report comment

      • BanReactorsForever BanReactorsForever

        The Cult of Nuclear is built upon lies, misinformation, groupthink, greed and arrogance. The Nuclear Cult leaders rely on groupthink and greed to brainwash their minions into spreading their nuclear lies and misinformation. For the subordinates of the nuclear cult leaders there can be no questioning of the myth of "nuclear safety". Critical thinkers who ask questions will be kicked out of the cult and lose their career in nuclear. There is no other option for nuclear workers; believe in "nuclear safety" or be excommunicated from the Cult of Nuclear. How arrogant are these nuke cult leaders who think they can play GOD and control this evil nuclear fission? How arrogant are these nuke cult leaders who think they can poison US and our CHILDREN and get away with it?!? Nuker criminals must face the death penalty for their mass murders and deceptions. Many poor nuke workers need a job and didn't learn to critically think. It is the pro nuclear educated leaders and "scientists" who must repent, or die, for they truly do understand what damage their greed driven obsession with nuclear fission really costs. Dana Durnford and Kevin Blanch know a few things. Durnford and Blanch know that the most evil monsters on this planet are nuclear scientists and the other scientists who support them


        Report comment

        • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

          Remember their..one's job..is their soul.

          Brainwashing is/was complete..on this one.

          Just think of the other billions of humans whom are also brain washed and there you will find the taught by others ongoing problem at hand.

          62 people are living very comfortably..3.8 billion others.. not so much.


          Report comment

  • Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

    Cree Indian Prophecy


    Report comment

  • My luck is impossible.
    I've done my best. Praying I can find work before the heat eats me alive.


    Report comment

  • theworldisalie theworldisalie

    So wait a minute, you mean we can't just simply store this eternal poison in tanks and forget about it? You mean we don't have any plan to deal with any of this?

    Oh hey! the 6 o clock news is on!

    Hey what were you talking about again?


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Solutions…

    Humans, guardians of nuclear waste. Forever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOA74yUdrZ0


    Report comment

  • dunkilo

    The bath water for the DC ticks is ready!!Jump in ticks!!The waters fine:)


    Report comment

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    'let's make a deal' https://www.rt.com/usa/192300-hanford-nuclear-waste-leak/ "A deal struck between the US Dept of Energy and Washington state will allow a leaky radioactive storage tank at the heavily polluted Hanford Nuclear Reservation to remain as is for more than a year before its contents are removed." 2014


    Report comment

  • ISeePinkClouds

    Yes. This instills confidence in those in charge of Nuclear: (sarc)

    http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-japans-rokkasho-nuclear-reprocessing-plant-lives-on/

    "Although the final commissioning test will not be run until the plant gets the Nuclear Regulatory Authority’s (NRA) green light, operators are confident it will work as designed."

    “We consider that the technology [is] established,” said a company spokesperson. The prefectural government says it was in general agreement, although it believed that the test had some glitches: “We understand that the problems were overcome – we think.”

    http://www.king5.com/news/local/investigations/catastrophic-event-at-hanford-prompts-emergency-response/140990679

    If it was "anticipated",why wasn't it prevented?

    The U.S. Department of Energy released a statement Monday calling the leak an "anticipated" outcome of an ongoing effort to empty the tank in question. The Washington state Department of Ecology said, "There is no indication of waste leaking into the environment or risk to the public at this time."

    An honest opinion:

    “This is catastrophic. This is probably the biggest event to ever happen in tank farm history. The double shell tanks were supposed to be the saviors of all saviors (to hold waste safely from people and the environment),” said former Hanford worker Mike Geffre.

    Peace


    Report comment

    • PlowboyGrownUp

      A worker or somebody at Hanford reported leak(s) in 2011, but I can't find it right now.


      Report comment

      • PlowboyGrownUp

        One reference to 2011 "The problem occurred at the double-wall storage tank AY-102, which has actually been leaking since 2011. At the time, the leak was extremely small, and the waste would dry up almost right after spilling out between the inner and outer walls, leaving a salt-like substance behind. In March, the US Department of Energy began pumping what was left in the storage tank, which originally held some 800,000 gallons of waste. However, during this process – and after the alarms at Hanford went off – workers discovered that the leaked waste between the storage walls had reached a depth of 8.4 inches. Pumping work on the tank has been halted as officials reevaluate the situation and figure out how to get to the leaked radioactive waste." http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/database/index.php?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=ED-20160419-52982-USA


        Report comment

      • ISeePinkClouds

        Yes.PlowboyGrownUp.Ty. I had just seen these links. There are better links. One with a diagram I haven't found again. Spaghetti, and Fried Squash,here. Peace


        Report comment

        • PlowboyGrownUp

          U got squash already? Had too many cold nights here, but the plants are coming along now.


          Report comment

          • ISeePinkClouds

            Yes.PlowboyGrownUp.This squash is store bought. Squash does grow very fast,and very well here. Later this Summer I will have Squash,Tomatoes,Peppers,and Melons.

            It has only rained once in six months. That was last week. 5 inches of rain in 45 minutes. The ground was dry the following morning.

            The only sure way I have found to grow here,in the Chihuahuan Desert,off grid,is to use drip irrigation,and fabric row covers. The plants are set below ground level,where dirt is dug out from the bed. The bed is mulch and volcanic soil,with nitrogen fertilizer. This makes for a fine garden.

            Peace


            Report comment

            • PlowboyGrownUp

              Recently planted som 'jerusalem artichokes'. Nothing to do with Jerusalem. They put up a stalk similar to sunflowers.
              Makes tubers that taste like potatoes only better. Easy to grow and they spread quickly. Good survival plant.


              Report comment

      • BanReactorsForever BanReactorsForever

        Seattle's KING 5 news investigations', "Hanford's Dirty Secrets." It's on Youtube and maybe still on King 5's site


        Report comment

    • PlowboyGrownUp

      "The Energy Department is counting on the tanks, built in the 1960s and 1970s, to last for decades more, and has pumped into them thousands of gallons of radioactive liquids scavenged from older tanks that leaked or were at risk of leaking."


      Report comment

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "149 of these single shell tanks were built at Hanford between 1943 and 1964. 83 single shell tanks are located in the 200 West Area, with another 66 single shell tanks found in the 200 East Area. However, even with 149 tanks available, the volume of chemical wastes generated through the plutonium production mission far exceeded the capacity of the tanks. Some of the liquid waste did end up being put into holding facilities and some was poured into open trenches. Some of the wastes that were put into the tanks didn’t stay there, as the heat generated by the waste and the composition of the waste caused an estimated 67 of these tanks to leak some of their contents into the ground. Some of this liquid waste migrated through the ground and has reached the groundwater.

    Between 1968 and 1986, Hanford engineers built another 28 tanks to be used on the Site. These tanks were sturdier, made with a second shell to surround the carbon steel and the reinforced concrete called “double shell tanks”. Three double shell tanks are in the 200 West Area, with another 25 found in the 200 East Area."
    http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/TankFarms


    Report comment

  • from a distance from a distance

    Latest Hot headlines from 'Nuclear Hotseat'

    - Hanford: “Eight inches of the most toxic stuff on earth leaking between the inner and outer containment shell.”

    - “The top 5 US nuclear power plants where employees made the most allegations about safety problems from 2012 through 2015”

    5. Indian Point in NY
    4. Susquehanna in PA
    3. Browns Ferry in AL
    2. Watts Bar in TN
    1. Millstone in CT

    - Great interview with Nancy Foust of the amazing website SimplyInfo.org

    SimplyInfo.org “holds and manages the largest public archive of data on the Fukushima disaster in the world”

    http://nuclearhotseat.com/2016/04/20/nuclear-hotseat-252-simplyinfos-nancy-foust-wfukushima-kumamotosendai-facts/


    Report comment

    • from a distance from a distance

      This is interesting

      Nancy gave an updated status of the melted nuclear fuel in Units 1, 2 and 3:

      Unit 1 – general consensus = fuel is not in the reactor vessel; some of the fuel is in the torus room and the torus tube which is an area that's outside of containment + small amount of fuel fragments in contaminated water in basement

      Unit 2 – best estimate = bulk of the fuel left reactor vessel, ended up in pedestal directly below it, and has burned in some form down into the base-mat concrete

      Unit 3 – nobody knows = not very high levels of radiation in torus room and torus tube


      Report comment

  • from a distance from a distance

    The always-interesting "miningawareness" blog weighs in on Hanford:

    " Nuclear Waste Contractors Under US Gov Investigation; Given $13.7 Million Bonus for “Very Good” Ops; “Excellent” Tank Management But Alarm Just Went Off Indicating Increased Tank Seepage of Rad Waste "

    https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/nuclear-waste-contractors-under-us-gov-investigation-given-13-7-million-bonus-for-very-good-ops-excellent-tank-management-but-alarm-just-went-off-indicating-increased-tank-seepage-of-rad-wa/


    Report comment

    • PlowboyGrownUp

      Beware a reduced cash flow – "URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC dispute these investigations and claims and intend to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC cannot provide assurances that they will be successful in these efforts. The resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows.”


      Report comment

    • from a distance from a distance

      …AND…

      " Leaking Hanford Nuclear Waste Tanks "

      " This was actually top news in the early 1990s and there were worries about how quickly the contamination would reach the Columbia River and how to block it. It was such top news that even those of us with heads in the sand recall it. Since the US government hires contractors that apparently don’t know what they are doing, why is it importing foreign HEU and plutonium nuclear waste? The current Hanford contractor for the leaky tanks is a consortium comprised of AECOM (due to recent purchase of URS), EnergySolutions (owned by Energy Capital Partners – mostly former Goldman Sachs investment bankers led by Doug Kimmelman), and French state owned AREVA, which would be bankrupt if it weren’t French State owned. If AREVA knows so much then why did the US take French HEU (highly enriched uranium) or HEU waste off the hands of the French? Why didn’t the French take Swiss HEU waste or Swiss plutonium? Why, instead, was it dumped on America? "

      https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/leaking-hanford-nuclear-waste-tanks/


      Report comment

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Is this the one? I think so. Yes, I have seen it. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. The one more screw up so over the top that people just can't see giving nuclear another chance. The moment they finally cast for the far more sane technology which is truly clean and green:

    free energy that's better than nuclear despite some drawbacks will surely get the nod of approval. It's time to improve our lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojqOMWTgv8

    It has to be better


    Report comment

  • ISeePinkClouds

    Yes. http://netc.com/ Kyushu is lit up on NETC. Very odd. Peace


    Report comment

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    M5.2 and M6.0 Ecuador today within a couple of minutes of each other.


    Report comment

  • ISeePinkClouds

    Yes. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

    Five light quakes in California. Four along the San Andreas Fault,one at Mammoth Lake.

    M 5.8 – 62km NE of Namie, Japan

    M 4.5 – 6km WSW of Beppu, Japan

    Why is Kyushu glowing?

    Peace


    Report comment

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "Why is Kyushu glowing?" It's been all shook up?


    Report comment

    • ISeePinkClouds

      Yes. PlowboyGrownUp. Ty. The counter markers were red during the earthquakes. Then they were green,and red again when it rained.
      They have been green since the rain past. It is raining again there in Kyushu,now.`

      http://www.accuweather.com/en/jp/fukuoka-shi/223544/weather-radar/223544

      This suggests that the moisture condensing above Fukushima NPP was contaminated by radioactive gases,and steam,or particles,then carried by wind currents,or clouds,until it falls out as Radioactive rain. This time,over Kyushu. Conjecture.

      It could be radiation in the air,or moisture,in the lower atmosphere,is captured by falling rain,and delivered to the surface. Conjecture.

      It could be different sources at different times. Conjecture.

      Shutting Japan's Nuclear Reactors down immediately is the only sensible thing to do. No Conjecture here.

      Peace


      Report comment

  • ISeePinkClouds

    Yes. http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/goeswestpacusir.html

    The dark blue seen just past mid-North Pacific is the remnant of both of the typhoons that passed over Japan on the 14th-17th.

    That moisture will be highly radioactive. Stay out of this rain.

    Peace


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/us-playing-dangerous-game-musical-chairs-nuclear-waste/

    by SARAH ZHANG
    04.20.16

    THE US IS PLAYING A DANGEROUS GAME OF MUSICAL CHAIRS WITH NUCLEAR WASTE


    Report comment

  • laconic93

    But Scientist are STUMPED on why babies are being born without brains in central Washington State.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/birth-defect-in-babies-washington-state_n_5333676.html

    Hey Watson, what is the main cause of babies been born without brains?

    Exposure to RADIATION, No sh*it Sherlock.

    Notice that the incidents of Anencephaly started in 2011 the same year as Fukushima and the same year that the worker reported the lead.

    incidence of major birth defects (594 cases or 0.91%) among the 65,431 registered pregnancy terminations for which parents were not biologically related accords well with a large series of contemporary Japanese births at the Tokyo Red Cross Maternity Hospital, where radiation exposure was not involved and overall malformation frequency was 0.92%. No untoward outcome showed any relation to parental radiation dose or exposure.

    The most common defects seen at birth were anencephaly, cleft palate, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, club foot, polydactyly (additional finger or toe), and syndactyly (fusion of two or more fingers or toes).

    http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/japan-faces-fresh-earthquake-panic-7797362

    … To the dismay of rattled survivors, the latest quake happened close to the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster …


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/what-s-on/leisure-time/powerful-bbc-alba-documentary-examines-lessons-of-chernobyl-and-fukushima-1-4105700

    Powerful BBC ALBA documentary examines lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima

    … This international documentary to be screened on BBC ALBA – filmed in Belarus, Japan, the lands of Norway’s Sami reindeer herders, and in the Outer Hebrides – poses the question: what lessons have been learned? …


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://drsircus.com/world-news/release-of-tritium-from-fukushima-planned/

    … The line between safe and unsafe radiation is murky, and children are more susceptible to radiation-linked illness. Tritium goes directly into soft tissues and organs of the human body, potentially increasing the risks of cancer and other sicknesses.

    "Any exposure to tritium radiation could pose some health risk. This risk increases with prolonged exposure, and health risks include increased occurrence of cancer," said Robert Daguillard, a spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yet Yang suggests people just drink it up!

    Scientific American writes, “Tritium is difficult to get a grip on from both a radiological and human health perspective. On the one hand, there is evidence that the risk from tritium is negligible and current standards are more than precautionary.

    ''On the other, there is also some evidence that tritium could be more harmful than originally thought. Cancer is the main risk from humans ingesting tritium.

    ''When tritium decays, it spits out a low-energy electron (roughly 18,000 electron volts) that escapes and slams into DNA, a ribosome or some other biologically important molecule.

    ''And, unlike other radionuclides, tritium is usually part of water, so it ends up in all parts of the body and therefore can, in theory, promote any kind of cancer.” …


    Report comment

    • rogerthat

      The National Physicians for Social Responsibility and Citizen Awareness Network say that tritium, like other radionuclides, is a serious threat to the health of humans and the environment.

      Ira Helfand, a doctor at Cooley Dickinson in Northampton, Mass., and the co-founder and a former president of National Physicians for Social Responsibility biggest concern is that tritium can cross the placental barrier. It has been said that radioactive tritium concentrates in the fetus at 200 times the mother’s level of contamination. Tritium has been known to cause birth defects, cancers and mutations.

      This was confirmed in animal studies, as documented by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

      "Several statistically significant effects were found at various (tritium) levels, in no apparent relationship with dose," it stated. "These included microcephaly (shrunken heads, also observed at Hiroshima), sterility, stunting, reduction of the litter size.

      "It absolutely can hurt you," Helfand said. "To say it can’t hurt you is irresponsible. It indicates the bias and the agenda of our current regulatory agencies — not to regulate but to promote." "As with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer and genetic effects, including developmental abnormality and reproductive effects," stated the Citizen Awareness Network. …


      Report comment

      • rogerthat

        Of course tritium is hazardous, said John White, Region 1 Branch Chief of the NRC during a conference call with the media, as is any nuclear isotope. "In the case of cancer, leukemia, and genetic damage, the scientific consensus is that every additional exposure to radiation adds to the total risk and therefore to the incidence of these diseases in exposed populations," according to a document produced by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

        One nuclear expert put the danger of tritium into perspective. "I don’t think it poses a risk any greater than two or three packs of cigarettes a day," said Paul Blanch, who has worked in the nuclear industry for more than 40 years and opposes the relicensing of Vermont Yankee. …


        Report comment

  • rogerthat

    for wonks:

    http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:197638

    Propriety, Shame, and the State in Post-Fukushima Japan
    Klaus Kuraudo Yamamoto Hammering


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763

    NATURE | COMMENT

    Peer review: Troubled from the start
    Alex Csiszar
    19 April 2016

    Pivotal moments in the history of academic refereeing have occurred at times when the public status of science was being renegotiated, explains Alex Csiszar.

    Referees are overworked. The problem of bias is intractable. The referee system has broken down and become an obstacle to scientific progress. Traditional refereeing is an antiquated form that might have been good for science in the past but it's high time to put it out of its misery.

    What is this familiar litany? It is a list of grievances aired by scientists a century ago. …


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/nuclear-nightmare-safe-side-of-the-fence-screens-at-the-flicks/Content?oid=3770766

    Nuclear Nightmare: Safe Side of the Fence Screens at The Flicks
    April 25, 7 p.m., presented by Snake River Alliance
    By Harrison Berry


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    I think Admin, left out some related posts.
    (Rare, and thank you Admin for all you do)

    Cemetery full of dead babies missing brains next to US nuclear site — Funeral Director: Almost all infants we have died the same way… “that’s pretty much all I see on death certificates” — Few miles from “most contaminated place in hemisphere” — “One of largest documented anencephaly clusters in US history” (VIDEO)
    March 23 2016

    http://enenews.com/one-largest-documented-clusters-history-video

    This is what it comes to!
    This is the link.
    Propel DU weapons, this is the result.
    The result of a multi- reactor melt down?
    The link:

    TV: Surge in babies being born with extra arms, legs after Fukushima — “I feel officials know the cause is radiation” — Nurse says many are getting abortions to avoid ‘inconvenient’ babies — “High number of stillbirths” — Many people reporting cancers, even far away from Fukushima (VIDEO)
    April 18 2016

    http://enenews.com/tv-surge-babies-being-born-extra-body-parts-after-fukushima-feel-officials-radiation-nurse-many-getting-abortions-avoid-inconvinient-babies-high-number-stillbirths-many-people-reporting-ca

    What's not to understand ..that nuclear material provides mutation and death???


    Report comment

  • oldster

    The murderous, and life and health threatening, criminal irresponsibility of the nuclear industry has been enabled by the general societal corruption of language and discourse, which most prominently features lies and censorship, but also tenaciously avoids the accurate and forthright, and embraces the realm of knee jerk spin, when it comes to 'controversy' involving the PTB.

    In the articles and statements cited by the administrator, the vague and soothing words "material" and "waste" are used, and when there is a reference to radioactive waste there is no further detail, and when there is a reference to "the deadliest substance" it is not named.

    We entered into the nuclear age with baggage of the culture of deception ubiquitous. Oligarchies and criminals on high hold the culture of deception indispensable for retaining control. That is a terminal mistake in the nuclear age. The forthright, integrity, unfettered clarity, are indispensable. Possible, and our only slim chance.


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    https://www.rt.com/usa/338987-plutonium-mox-carolina-putin/

    Plutonium mess: SC wrangling with DOE over nuclear waste facility, Russia grows angry
    Published time: 8 Apr, 2016

    …“That’s a lousy plan. That is absolutely the dumbest freaking plan I could think of.”


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    https://www.rt.com/usa/340234-hanford-nuclear-waste-leak-washington/

    ‘Catastrophic’: Up to 3,500 gallons of nuclear waste leak at Washington State storage site

    Published time: 19 Apr, 2016


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    http://world-nuclear-news.org/WR-EnergySolutions-and-JAPC-team-up-on-decommissioning-2104164.html

    …EnergySolutions said to ensure the successful implementation of its new agreement with JAPC, staff from the Japanese company will participate in the decommissioning work being carried out at Zion.
    … …
    …JAPC submitted its decommissioning plan for Tsuruga 1 to the country's nuclear regulator for approval in February this year. The company said it expects to take 24 years to decommission the unit. The decommissioning is to be carried out in three stages: the first stage, lasting about nine years, will involve preparing the reactor for dismantling (including the removal of all fuel), while the second, also lasting nine years will be to actually dismantle the reactor and other major equipment. The third stage, taking about six years, will involve the demolition of the reactor building.

    JAPC said it anticipates a total of some 20,600 tonnes of solid waste to be generated during the decommissioning of Tsuruga 1. This will include about 40 tonnes of high-level waste, 1990 tonnes of intermediate-level waste and 10,760 tonnes of low-level waste. The remaining waste will not need to be treated as radioactive waste.

    JAPC has been decommissioning Tokai unit 1 since December 2001. The 166 MWe gas-cooled reactor – which operated between 1966 and 1998 – was Japan's first commercial power reactor.


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    http://ynaija.com/mondiu-jaiyesimi-nuclear-energy-nigerian-state/

    Mondiu Jaiyesimi: Exploring the option of nuclear energy in Nigeria


    Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    http://www.examiner.com/article/radioactive-savannah-site-to-receive-japans-703-pounds-radioactive-waste
    April 17, 2016

    …No man’s land. The site 300 square miles of death from ducks, turtles to collard greens over a period of 39 years, produced radioactive materials for the U.S. nuclear weapons program from 1953 to 1988, five reactors at the site made 36 metric tons of plutonium-239. IT is 310 miles of land that supports 12,000 employees and 37 million gallons of radioactive waste in 49 holding tanks. The plants are extremely expensive to build, prone to accidents and create environments of radioactive toxic communities down stream. The facilities are nothing but radioactive nuclear messes for generations to come.

    Britains ships, Pacific Egret and Pacific Heron, have already left Tokyo, the Japan Atomic and Energy Agency in a pledge made in 2014, and are headed for the Savannah River site. The ships will have on board enough to make 6,000 atomic bombs along with naval guns and other protection.Once there was an incident so bad it caused the water to Savannah to be shut off.”



    (embedded video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgQ9c9_fmi4


    Report comment

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingJesus

    The shocking lies continue:

    After Five Years, What Is The Cost Of Fukushima?
    “…Strangely, the costs that never materialized were the most feared, those of radiation-induced cancer and death. No radiological health effects have yet to result from the Fukushima disaster – neither cancers, deaths nor radiation sickness – although the WHO models indicate a slight increase is statistically possible. No one received enough dose, even the 20,000 workers who have worked tirelessly to recover from this event.
    “The direct costs of the Fukushima disaster will be about $15 billion in clean-up over the next 20 years and over $60 billion in refugee compensation. Replacing Japan’s 300 billion kWhs from nuclear each year with fossil fuels has cost Japan over $200 billion, mostly from fuel costs for natural gas, fuel oil and coal, as renewables have failed to expand in Japan. This cost will at least double, and that only if the nuclear fleet is mostly restarted by 2020….”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-five-years-what-is-the-cost-of-fukushima/#1d2a356a6016


    Report comment

  • Bill Withers, one of my favorites. He often sang of hormesis and relationships, lol, and not relationships with hores of radiation.
    ————————————————-

    CodeShutdown
    April 21, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    aint no threshold when your gone…doom doom doom, aint no threshold when your away…doom doom doom. But seriously, when you look at a linear no threshold graph, what is the level of radiation at the zero point where danger and dose come to null? Is the radiation dose;

    A) zero
    B) 70 bq/kg


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      Yes, I dig a soul man. I maintain that Zero dose on those linear graphs is 70 bq/kg because its nearly impossible to take out k-40 and it was certainly there for epidemiology. Of course now we know you can perfuse with cesium and it does take it out, so were one step closer to a radioactivity-free life


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        when we say that potassium is dangerous because of its radioactivity…and make no mistake; the official word is that its half as dangerous as C-137…there is an implication. The implication is that we know better than nature how to design an earth and biological ecosystem. I say hold on buckerooo, talk about hubris!

        There are more unknowns than knowns. The proof is the exponential increase in scientific discovery…

        set background radiation as the null point and see mans fission radionuclides for what they are; an infinite increase in deadly radioactive poison, never before stuck in our lungs or coursing through our beating hearts until the atomic era


        Report comment

  • flannelman flannelman

    Hanford's tanks or the overall site earthquake proofed or prepared? Cause that portion of the planet gets uppity from time to time.

    I doubt they gave it much thought through the Manhattan project days or the rush rush production in the following decades.

    And it seems thinking about it now won't matter much. Can't deal with the mistakes of the past there at the best of times.


    Report comment

  • Seismic escalation should be expected in Sw Japan, following the result of earth orbiting into a fast moving coronal stream. With an impending blast from a recent m6.7 cme, and a period of 12 or more hours of seismic calming, I'd imagine an impending earthquake of monstrous scale to take place within 96hours of this posts execution.
    All Japanese users please consider bracing yourselves for the potential should you find merit in the information at hand.

    Life update:
    Needs beginning to escalate, can use any donation platforms, city services tell me I'm of too much use to be useless. Applied myself all week with minimal positive feedback.
    Friends want me to travel to them for temporary hospice, but I can't afford it at current.
    Truly need assistance at this point to keep living under such extreme elements. It's too hot, I miss my Heather, I miss my home, and I miss my friends; I just need something to work out in my favor, just to keep me going. It's not too much to ask. I've needed more in my past, but this is just too much for any one person to have lived through, all at once…

    So please, be safe good friends, if I lose anything else I'd go insane.

    Not much to say now. Can't boost free WiFi forever, and the days over in job searching terms.
    With all my love
    Tg


    Report comment

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    http://atomicinsights.com/rational-reason-fear-radiation-dr-wade-allison/

    11:30 -12:30 minute mark Indoctrination of our children.

    Better find out what your young ones are being told about nuclear safety in school.

    First, you get the young ones and brainwash them. Then, the kiddies will tell their parents what they learned in school who will repeat the propaganda at the pub. Get em young or get em drunk, says Wade Allison. But never argue with sober adults or you will lose, says he.


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    skizexq typed these pixels of light:

    "I think the folks at Hanford say a lot about themselves with their sign: https://cdn.rt.com/files/2016.04/article/571642b2c361886e088b4586.jpg

    Maybe they could spend a couple thou and restore it? Looks like it has had a wee bit of oxidation and God knows what else."

    SP: In all fairness to the poor fokkers working at Hanford, that sign was a disgrace in 2005, but presumably they deep-sixed it by now:

    Photograph taken by en:User:TobinFricke in January 2005.

    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hanford_Site_sign.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

    In 2005 they didn't have as much attention as they do now. Yes, we are watching carefully and little escapes scrutiny.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.