Everyone on Earth has been irradiated by Fukushima — “Shocking new study reveals true extent of global impact” — “Scientists are only just now confirming far-reaching effects” of nuclear disaster

Published: May 8th, 2017 at 6:54 am ET
By

251 comments


New Scientist, May 5, 2017 (emphasis added): Fukushima accident gave everyone an X-ray’s worth of radiation — “We don’t need to worry,” says Nikolaos Evangeliou at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, whose team has conducted the first global survey of radiation exposure caused by the meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant… Evangeliou’s team has calculated the approximate exposure of everyone on Earth to two radioactive isotopes of caesium… He has estimated the dose that most individuals received to be 0.1 millisievert. “What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each,” says Evangeliou… But Evangeliou says that the effects on wildlife around the plant might be more severe. Already, he says, increased levels of radiation around Fukushima have been linked to declines in bird populations there between 2011 and 2014. “There have also been reports of declines in other species such as insects and some mammals,” he says…

Daily Star, May 7, 2017: Global cancer fears as it’s revealed WHOLE WORLD got nuclear radiation blast; EVERYBODY on Earth was dealt a dose of radiation by the Fukushima triple nuclear meltdown, a shock new study has revealed… And the plant continues to release radiation to this day, despite efforts to contain the leaking. Now a study from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research has revealed the true extent of the global impact. Lead author Nikolaos Evangeliou told New Scientist magazine: “What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each.” According to the NHS website, people exposed to X-rays face the risk of developing cancer “many years or decades later.”… Most people got 0.1 millisievert of extra radiation from the Fukushima disaster

BGR, May 7, 2017: Japan’s nuclear disaster gave everyone on Earth extra radiation — It’s been over half a decade… but scientists are only just now confirming its far-reaching effects… each human on the planet received roughly 0.1 millisievert…

Evangeliou et al. (pdf), European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017: Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects… A large number of fission products were released and transported worldwide. We estimate that around 23% of the released 137Cs remained into Japan, while 76% deposited in the oceans. Around 163 TBq deposited over North America, among which 95 TBq over USA, 40 TBq over Canada… About 14 TBq deposited over Europe… and 47 TBq over Asia… 69 TBq deposited in the Arctic, as well. An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months… in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray… However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.

See also: UCLA Researchers: Fukushima “not only affecting that local area, but also worldwide” — Gov’t Expert: “Immediately the Iodine-131 plume moved eastward reaching US West Coast [then] covering entire northern hemisphere… Significant concern on the safety of the population and environment worldwide” (VIDEO)

Published: May 8th, 2017 at 6:54 am ET
By

251 comments

Related Posts

  1. Scientists: Fukushima radiation is causing “serious biological effects” — Disaster’s widespread impact now being revealed — “Major irreversible shifts” in ecosystems discussed — “High rates of abnormality and mortality”… severe damage to humans next? (PHOTOS) August 14, 2014
  2. Fox Business: Leading ‘pro-nuclear’ scientist admits our nuclear plants are “dangerous” and “error-prone” — Agrees we don’t even know true extent of Fukushima disaster or its impact (VIDEO) January 14, 2014
  3. Japan Times: The Titanic and The Nuclear Fiasco — “Catastrophic effects of Fukushima fiasco are more far-reaching and long lasting” — “Name has already become synonymous with disaster” April 17, 2012
  4. CNBC: Fukushima crisis “a global problem, not just a Japan problem” says professor… “Denial & cover-up clearly not working” — TV: “Many now say disaster has spun out of control, and its full extent hidden from public” (VIDEOS) September 5, 2013
  5. US Gov’t Contractor: Fukushima so fragile it can turn globally catastrophic at any moment — Concern about impact to West Coast from another meltdown — Danger of something “far worse” than initial event — “Substantial risk to stability of Asia-Pacific” — National Lab: Fukushima already a global disaster (VIDEO) June 9, 2015

251 comments to Everyone on Earth has been irradiated by Fukushima — “Shocking new study reveals true extent of global impact” — “Scientists are only just now confirming far-reaching effects” of nuclear disaster

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    ctd.
    she and/or other protestors expose alleged misbehavior committed by WHO, right outside of the headquarters building. Imagine this: Ten years on the same street corner every working day. It’s commitment and determination sans pareil.

    “The aim of the silent vigil is to remind the World Health Organisation of its duties. It was Hippocrates who formulated the ethical rules for health practitioners. The World Health Organisation ignores these rules, when it comes to protecting the health of the victims of the consequences of the nuclear industry”.

    Which brings forth: Ten years of hard work combating a difficult and challenging issue warrants public adulation beyond carrying posters back and forth, come rain or shine, trudging away in the heat of the sun or the freezing cold and snow in front of WHO Hdqs. Hopefully, this article serves that purpose for Alison Katz.

    The mission of Independent WHO is to expose WHO’s failings whilst calling for WHO independence away from influence by the worldwide nuclear syndicate: According to WHO Independence’s Web Site: “The World Health Organization (WHO) is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination.”

    Ms Katz worked inside the WHO for 18 years. She insists that WHO, in cahoots with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), dangerously misrepresents the inherent dangers of ionizing radiation, an insinuation that smacks in the face with egregiousness galore.

    Ms Katz’s April…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    April 2017 interview, which this article is based upon, can be heard in its entirety. The excellent interview of Alison Katz was handled by LIbbe HaLevy, producer and host of Nuclear Hotseat at: http://www.NuclearHotseat.com.

    This article condenses and summarizes her one-hour interview. As such, according to Ms Katz: “The health consequences of nuclear activity, whether they are civil or military, are not known to the public… There has been a very high level cover up… including the WHO.”

    For over 50 years WHO provided “a clean bill of health for nuclear power.” However, according to Ms Katz, that clean bill of health is not based upon independent science. It’s based upon “pseudo science” manipulated and largely controlled by the nuclear lobby and International Atomic Energy Agency, the Queen Bee of the pro-nuke Hive.

    Furthermore, within the “United Nations family hierarchy,” WHO is entirely subservient to IAEA. In turn, IAEA reports to the Security Council of the UN or the very top echelon of the power hierarchy of the world, including France, China, UK, U.S., and the Russian Federation. Far and away, these are the world’s biggest nuke heads.

    Connecting the dots leaves one breathless within a telling trail of pro-nuke advocacy of the highest order… hm-m-m, thus raising the question: How is it humanly possible for WHO to objectively, impartially, squarely and soberly analyze and recommend ionizing radiation issues on behalf of the general public?

    Is it at all…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    possible, even a little bit?

    As it goes, the IAEA has two mandates, which sound innocent enough: (1) to prevent proliferation of nuclear power and (2) promotion of the use of the atom on a peaceful basis, ah-ah-ah… oh well, never mind. In reality, IAEA is a commercial lobbying org promoting use of the atom, yet at the same time, it dictates WHO procedures, standards, and published articles on the matter of nuclear radiation, prompting a very pregnant question: Is this a conflict of interest for WHO? Answer: Yes, it is! WHO is a creature of the dictates of IAEA, which is the world’s largest promoter of the atom. Whereas, WHO is supposed to “independently serve the public interest,” not kowtow to a nuclear advocacy powerhouse that reports to nuclear powerhouse countries that have a deepening love affair with nuclear power, warts and all.

    For example, sixty (60) reactors are currently under construction in fifteen countries. In all, one hundred sixty (160) power reactors are in the planning stage and three hundred (300) more have been proposed. That’s a love affaire.

    Meanwhile, as for WHO’s mandate: It serves as the leading authority of standards for public health, coordinating research, advising member states, and formulating ionizing radioactivity health policies. However, IAEA has been usurping WHO’s mandate for the past 50 years. In fact, a 1959 Agreement (WHA 12-40) between the two says WHO needs prior approval of IAEA before taking any action or publishing…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    material dealing with nuclear, period!

    As a result of this 50-year conflict of interest, which is deeply embedded by now, Ms Katz claims WHO must, absolutely must, become independent, thus breaking the stranglehold of numero uno promoter of nuclear power over WHO, which is mandated to serve the public, not IAEA.

    Not only is there a serious conflict of interest, Katz claims WHO fails, time and again, to meet its mandate to the public, as for example:

    1) WHO remained absent from Chernobyl for five years even though the WHO mandate requires it to be present the “day after a catastrophe” to evaluate and provide assistance. But, WHO was MIA for 5 years.

    2) WHO does not issue independent reports on radiation issues. All nuclear-related reports are written by IAEA but published “in the name of the WHO.”

    3) Following Chernobyl, there were two international conferences held to analyze the implications of the catastrophe; one held in Geneva in 1995 and the second in Kiev in 2001. The “Proceedings of the Conferences” were never published by WHO; thus, never made public even though WHO claims the proceedings are publicly available. Confusing? Yes! To this day, the relevant question remains: What did “the analyses” show?

    As a result of WHO’s egregious conflicts, the world community has no independent arms-length source on nuclear radiation. That is a situation fraught with conflict and extremely difficult to accept, sans grimacing with a lot of teeth grinding.

    Once…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    Once again, with emphasis: There is no independent international authority reporting to the public on nuclear radiation…. none whatsoever. All information about nuclear radiation ultimately comes from the primary users/promoters of nuclear power even though they have a very big heavy axe to grind.

    Of course, there are independent scientists, but they face enormous obstacles in coming forward with the truth, thereby risking monetary grants and risking personal positions, as well as family livelihood.

    Not only that, but over the years all departments within WHO that dealt with nuclear radiation have been highly compromised. Even worse, according to Ms Katz, no senior radiation scientists work for WHO, none… nada.

    What constitutes the “nuclear establishment” is a fair question; it consists of the major governments of the world like France and the U.S but led by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the top dog, establishing standards for the world. Strangely enough, there are no health experts at ICRP, prompting a logical question: Why not?

    There is more to be concerned about, e.g., another shocking fact regarding ICRP, as if there are not already enough shockers with the thread that runs throughout nuclear power’s closely-knit network: Even though “ionizing radiation is mutagenic and always causes mutations, causing damage at the cellular level, there are no molecular biologists working in the ICRP” (Katz). Thus, the world’s largest…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    the world’s largest institution for determination of radiation standards for the public has no molecular biologists on staff. That fact is beyond belief, an eye-opener beyond all other eye-openers.

    It’s almost as if the regulators don’t give a damn about the effects of radiation on the general public. Do they?

    Fukushima

    Just after Fukushima in 2011, Ms Katz met with the Director General and five of the highest-ranking officials of WHO. The mayor of Geneva also attended the meeting; curiously, the City of Geneva, where WHO is headquartered, has an anti-nuclear provision in its city code.

    The outcome of that meeting clearly demonstrated to Katz, and to the mayor of Geneva, that WHO abdicated its responsibilities for Fukushima.

    However, a small victory ensued during the meetings as some solace was found when the Director General did admit, “there is no safe threshold of radiation.” And, she admitted to differences between internal and external radiation, which was a change of heart.

    Remarkably, the Director General also confessed a shocking level of incredulity that only 50 people died from Chernobyl, widely claimed by the Director General’s own organization, WHO. That is the final number (50) of deaths that WHO attributes to Chernobyl. Howbeit, it’s a fabricated number w/o any meaning whatsoever and not supported by observational data.

    Consequences of Chernobyl

    WHO held a Chernobyl Forum in 2004 designed to “end the debate about the impact of Chernobyl…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    impact of Chernobyl radiation” whilst WHO maintains that 50 people died.

    Here’s the final conclusion of that Chernobyl Forum ‘04: The mental health of those who live in the area is the most serious aftereffect, leading to strong negative attitudes and exaggerated sense of dangers to health and of exposure to radiation. Mental health was thus identified as the biggest negative aftereffect.

    Because that conclusion is so brazenly bizarre, the Chernobyl Forum ‘04 must’ve been part of an alternative universe, way out there beyond the wild blue yonder, maybe the Twilight Zone or maybe like entering a scene in Jan Švankmajer’s Alice, a dark fantasy film loose adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.

    Here’s reality: Chernobyl Liquidators fought the Chernobyl disaster. Eight hundred thousand (800,000) Liquidators from the former USSR, largely recruits from the army, with average age of 33, fought the Chernobyl disaster.

    According to an interview (2016) with a Liquidator, “We were tasked with the deactivation of the third and fourth reactors, but we also helped build the containment sarcophagus. We worked in three shifts, but only for five to seven minutes at a time because of the danger. After finishing, we’d throw our clothes in the garbage” (Source: Return to Chernobyl With Ukraine’s Liquidators, Aljazeera, April 25, 2016).

    “Estimates of the number of liquidators who died or became ill as a result of their work vary substantially, but the men of the 633rd…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    but the men of the 633rd say that out of the 259 from their group, 71 have died. Melnik says that 68 have been designated as invalids by a state committee, which investigates their health and determines whether or not their diseases are attributable to Chernobyl… Dr Dimitry Bazyka, the current director-general of the National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine in Kiev, says that approximately 20,000 liquidators die each year,” Ibid.

    As for total deaths, the Chief Medical Officer of the Russian Federation reported that 10% of its Chernobyl Liquidators were dead by 2001. The disaster occurred in 1986 with 80,000 dead within 16 years. Authorities out of Ukraine and Belarus confirmed Russian death numbers. Yet, WHO claims 50 died.

    Eighty-thousand (80,000) Liquidators, as of 16 years ago, dead from Chernobyl, and that body count, according to Ms Katz, leaves out the people most contaminated by Chernobyl, meaning evacuees and also 57% of the fallout for Chernobyl came down outside of the USSR, Belarus, and Ukraine, and in 13 European countries 50% of the countryside was dangerously contaminated.

    As for studies of the radiation impact of Chernobyl: “Thousands of independent studies in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation and in many other countries, that were contaminated to varying degrees by radionuclides, have established that there has been significant increase in all types of cancer, in diseases of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, urogenital, endocrine…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    endocrine immune, lymph node nervous systems, prenatal, perinatal, infant child mortality, spontaneous abortions, deformities and genetic anomalies….” (Katz)

    Hence, WHO’s handling and analysis and work on Chernobyl leaves the curious-minded speechless, open-mouthed, agape, and confounded.

    WHO’s Flawed Fukushima Report

    WHO issued two reports on Fukushima:
    1) Evaluation of exposure
    2) Likely health effects

    Alex Rosen of Int’l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War critiqued the two WHO Fukushima reports, found to be extremely problematic, and once again, similar to Chernobyl, shoddy work that sweeps way too much dirt under the carpet.

    Here’s the problem: WHO’s estimates of Fukushima radioactive exposure are at least 50% less than any other estimates, including estimates provided by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator) itself. But, WHO is supposed to be the guardian of public health concerns, not TEPCO.

    Also, two critical population studies are ignored in the WHO reports, i.e., all of the residents within the 20 km exclusion zone are eliminated, even though their radiation exposure would be very high, actually highest. The second group ignored is workers on site… ahem!

    Additionally, WHO cavalierly approved the Japanese government’s drastic change in annual maximum radiation exposure allowed for the general population up to 20 mSv per year.


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    Effects of Radiation

    The genetic effects of radiation likely exceed anything understood by the general public, as WHO and other health orgs do not properly educate the public about radiation’s risks: “The genetic effects, far from diminishing with time, increase” (Katz), which is extra bad.

    Years of research around Chernobyl show that the genetic impact of radiation to the human body becomes much, much worse as time passes. Thus, “radiation is both a continuing and a worsening catastrophe as time passes” (Katz). Radiation’s impact gets worse over time; it does not heal, does not dissipate, does not go away; it grows progressively worse, like the film sequels to Godzilla, which was conceived as a metaphor for nuclear weapons in the early 1950s.

    Indisputably, all organ systems of the human body are affected by radioactive contamination. Cancer is not the only nasty result of radiation exposure. Radioactive contamination affects the entire human immune system from head to toe, thus impacting every organ system in the body, e.g. musculoskeletal, etc. This damage to organs is in addition to the various cancer risks.

    After all, consider this, 30 years after the fact, horribly deformed Chernobyl Children are found in over 300 asylums in the Belarus backwoods deep in the countryside.

    Equally as bad but maybe more odious, as of today, Chernobyl radiation, since 1986, is already affecting 2nd generation kids.

    According to a USA Today article, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Kids…


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    According to a USA Today article, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Kids With Bodies Ravaged by Disaster, April 17, 2016: “There are 2,397,863 people registered with Ukraine’s health ministry to receive ongoing Chernobyl-related health care. Of these, 453,391 are children — none born at the time of the accident. Their parents were children in 1986. These children have a range of illnesses: respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, eye diseases, blood diseases, cancer, congenital malformations, genetic abnormalities, trauma.”

    It’s taken 30 years for the world, via an article in USA Today, to begin to understand how devastating, over decades, not over a few years, radiation exposure is to the human body. It is a silent killer that cumulates in the body over time and passes from generation to generation to generation, endless destruction that cannot be stopped.

    Where is WHO is kinda like Where is Waldo, but sadly the effects of ionizing radiation are not part of a game. It is deadly serious, forevermore. In the meanwhile, Fukushima irradiates and irradiates, limitlessly and so far, unstoppable. Where does its radiation go?
    Join the debate on Facebook

    Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at roberthunziker@icloud.com


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    Today is Day 2,259 of this ONGOING World Nuclear Emergency and if you've been duped by the concept of climate change as being based upon REAL SCIENCE – good luck with unfolding the 'SMOOTHY MATH' that projected that incredible nonsense. Its easy stuff to swallow and I was addicted too, till I woke up and realized it was just another gig to steal money from us all to fix something they would never have to prove that they had done or could even do IF IT WERE EVEN POSSIBLE.

    When the dust settles and your self imposed anxieties over this false event fades how pissed are you going to be when you realize that the climate change gig and the brain washing pills you've been swallowing to enhance your stupidity have been administered by the exact same "officials" trying to maintain their cushy well paying jobs in the projected renaissance of their global industrial nuclear complex. Now go ahead… Say ahhhhhhhh! Thank you for paying attention and please try and stay safe.
    Warmest regards,

    Steven Kaasgaard

    WildGreens-CANADA
    ***

    ***


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    Hey Obewanspeaks its you and a host of many others who've been keeping the light house going on this GIGANTIC under reported world crisis here at ENENEWS! Outstanding stuff you all have been spilling for the rest of the sleeping giant world population.
    Thank you thank you thank you to you and the rest of the crew who showed up on time and in place… who still stand on guard for the 99% mostly duped clowns (world citizens their pets and plants too) all of em too busy to see the BOLD PRINTED LIES we've had to put up with since 311.

    Hey…

    They just can't make this stuff up Eh?

    Hey I'll surely see you and the rest of the gang round here at the gates when our time cards and/or best before dates EXPIRE!
    At least we went down swinging eh?


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    Yes Stock!
    Always be prepared to draw thy father's sword in order to protect.

    Here are some people in our community who will not lay down as the nuclear nonsense receives another blessing from a non democratic process that seems determined to advance despite its inability to deal with the accumulating waste PROBLEM(S). Just ten years ago here in Canada alone we had enough nuclear tailings that if piled up could cover both sides of the trans-national highway here in Canada from coast to coast twice and eight FEET DEEP. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    Thank you for paying attention and please try and stay safe!
    Steven Kaasgaard WildGreens-CANADA
    ***

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uhbpiXEpGA


    Report comment

  • 23skidoo 23skidoo

    9 million people+ and their potable water are threatened by this 'live monster' at Pickering Ontario, Canada.

    Please see details of the campaign to shut this threat OFF once and for all!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jO-FB-esVM

    Thank you for paying attention and please try and stay safe
    WildGreens-CANADA
    ***


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Right around 1000 bananas ..folks.
    Bananas.. isotopes are measured in bananas?
    Are we are supposedly smarter then the apes?
    It's ok the Moon is made of cheese, we're all found under a cabbage patch, step on a crack break your mother's back…

    Fukushima’s meltdown gave every human on Earth 1000 bananas’ worth of radiation – ScienceAlert

    May 9 2017

    http://netizen24.com/fukushimas-meltdown-gave-every-human-on-earth-1000-bananas-worth-of-radiation-sciencealert/


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Cesium and other isotopes are in ever greater presence off the west coast.
    How long does an x-ray last?


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Everybody in the world got an x-ray dose?
    What is everybody in the world doesn't want an x-ray dose? or any other dose for that matter?


    Report comment

    • danger kitty danger kitty

      Hi Heart. You ask-"What is everybody in the world doesn't want an x-ray dose?". Well, we get it anyway. And that meets one definition of rape. Insertion of a foreign object (radionuclides) w/o informed consent. And the results in this case are murder.
      This is what pond scum posters like Yourmomma just don't get. We did not sign up for xray, no matter how benign 'they' say it is.


      Report comment

      • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

        Trespass upon my person and property and illegal taking of marine life, yes.

        https://trespass.uslegal.com/damages/
        https://www.federalregister.gov/taking-of-marine-mammals
        Another example: https://www.animallaw.info/article/federal-wildlife-law-20th-century#_ednref92
        In response to growing concerns over the exploitation of Antarctica, and consistent with previous treaties regarding Antarctica to which the United States was a signatory, the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 [cxxxiv] was enacted to prohibit the taking of any native mammal, bird or plant, or the introduction of non-native species. Dumping of pollutants in Antarctica is also forbidden under the Act.

        I don't know what laws are applicable to this unprecedented radiological release into the oceans and environment, but…

        I'm sure the ocean scientists will be along directly to see to it the greedy corporations responsible for the atrocities are accountable. They are, after all, the voice of the marine life, who have lost everything near and dear to them, including their own lives, but not before watching their pods also suffer and die.


        Report comment

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    https://jagadees.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-and-the-violation-of-womens-childrens-human-rights/

    Fukushima nuclear disaster and the violation of women’s & children’s human rights

    …And while the injustices faced by women and children in the immediate aftermath of the disaster were the result of policy failure and legislative inaction for a decade prior, the violations of their human rights resulting from the resettlement policy that has been rolled under current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are calculated and deliberate.


    Report comment

  • This is completely FALSE and is a fallacious comparison…

    "Fukushima accident gave everyone an X-ray’s worth of radiation — “We don’t need to worry”

    That statement is like comparing a apple to a turnip. They are in fact both foods but have little else in common.

    A x-ray at the doctors office DOES NOT expose you to particles and lasts only a few seconds. Cesium is a particle and can stay in your body forever radiating your cells. Once ingested it remains for days to weeks if it passes at all. It's also chemically toxic like lead only 1000's of times worse.

    So a x-ray machine contains the particles in the machine, fallout is the actual particles entering the environment.

    Most "down players" will only focus on the radioactive properties of fallout and conveniently skip over the fact that you are ingesting a toxic substance that can remain forever.

    While the body may pass these particles (very damaging to the kidneys) they can also lodge in certain organs and never be expelled. Since Cesium is a potassium analog it favors organs like the heart muscle.

    We need to debunk and put a end to the false x-ray comparisons! Those that spread them (the false statements and the poisons) should be held accountable.

    So if your'e looking for solid sources of information about fallout, seeing a statement like "it's like a x-ray or sunlight or a plane flight" should quickly show you who NOT to listen to.

    https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=482&tid=86


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      cesium is actually not very chemically toxic…not at all like lead, closer to salt or something


      Report comment

      • Jebus Jebus

        Really? How about reactive? As in causing a reaction. Chemicaly.

        Causing a change…

        Cesium – The most ACTIVE metal on EARTH!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytxx95g-kiA


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          when trying to figure out or explain why the relatively small amount of cesium in fallout is so bad, or could be a contributing factor to the death of ocean life, the chemical toxicity angle is a dead end. That sets us up for 'debunking'. Not good. Instead, investigate the specific activity, and radioactivity related effects.

          The median lethal dose (LD50) for caesium chloride in mice is 2.3 g per kilogram, which is comparable to the LD50 values of potassium chloride and sodium chloride.


          Report comment

          • Jebus Jebus

            Just wondering, talking about the exposure of a chemically reactive element. Exposure means exposed.

            So if exposure means I was exposed to c-137 I was exposed to cesium.

            Are you sure when that decay event happens, with c-137, there is no cesium there to react with oxygen in that cell?

            Are we sure it does not add to the peroxide result?

            Cesium reacts with oxygen. In pure form violently.

            How can it not cause an effect even in unstable isotope form?


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              Jebus, Im pretty sure your ideas of potential toxicity of the cesium element are embodied in the LD50 numbers. Cesium simply is not very toxic. You could use it to alkalize your body, and some people do that. You have to monitor for hypokalemia. Pinning the toxicity of C-137 on its chemical reactions is a dead end, as far as I can see. The quantity is very low. Any scientist would tell you that the toxicity of potassium and sodium chloride in your body, given there quantities, is much greater

              The median lethal dose (LD50) for caesium chloride in mice is 2.3 g per kilogram, which is comparable to the LD50 values of potassium chloride and sodium chloride.


              Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                potassium, key to life, burns and explodes in water

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5694559VoQ


                Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus

                See your projecting again and do not recognize I'm describing a force multiplier.

                A decay creats a chemical reaction in a cell.

                We make reactions with chemicals. Electrically. Heating. Cooling.

                Bonds are made, rejected.

                I do not agree to ignore the chemical aspect.

                Physicists ignore it. Beyond design specs.

                Ignoring that biology is why we are being overly irradiated today.


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  'See your projecting again' …what, you know me as the one who projects my views unfairly on others? Hippie Dog accuses me of something similar. Guess I will have to look into it.

                  Im not saying this is how it is, by I can imagine a group hired to disrupt the anti nuclearist effort. They sit around brainstorming…"those liberal obstructionist morons are whats left of the hippies" The guy says. "what we need is the 'Joe six pack' of hippies to gain their trust, then steer the conversation pointing to Woods Hole and other agencies as the only reliable source of information, while simultaneously demeaning the credibility of those pesky outspoken ones" "They seem to bond by offering songs from the sixties and seventies….and dont make him look too smart…he has to blend in"

                  Hippie Dogs message has been this since the beginning; Code and others are unreliable kooks while the only creditable reliable source of info is Woods Hole, the CDC etc. There is nothing you can do by way of activism, so just make sure you use reverse osmosis (solar distillation doesnt work he says), and know the source of your food. "lead, follow or get out of the way" is the his rhetorical theme, cementing the image of a Hippie who has done his homework and emerged a leader of common sense and get-er-done no nonsense Joe six pack American community….


                  Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus

                You give the LD50 for cesium in grams and we are talking nuclear decay and chemical reactions at the cellular level for one cell to be signaled into perpetual repair with it's off switch broken…


                Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  Jebus, sure, its a worthy investigation…but its no explanation at this point, given its low toxicity factor. The toxicity factor of the chemical reaction is > most likely < not the reason why C-137 is so toxic to ocean or land life.

                  If you look for a chemical reaction which is a force multiplier for radiation, I would start with water. Thats the center of action for free radical formation and reactivity. Water forms a loose but ordered layering in the cell and outside the cell which extends the chemical and physical system of the cell and cell surface biochemistry of macromolecules. This is the 'holism' of the cell which is 70% water.

                  the alkali metals can form somewhat stable super oxide radicals, but there is SO much more potassium.

                  'several metals and metal containing compounds are potent mutagens and carcinogens. The most often blamed are chromium, arsenic, nickel, vanadium, iron, copper and manganese. Although each of them has its own mechanism of action, it is believed that most of their mechanisms of action involve reactive oxygen species (ROS)'
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14758717


                  Report comment

                  • Jebus Jebus

                    Cesium-137 is among the most common heavy fission products. Fission of various isotopes of thorium, uranium, and plutonium all yield about 6% cesium-137. [1] This high fission yield results in an abundance of cesium-137 in spent nuclear fuel, as well as in regions contaminated by fission byproducts after nuclear accidents. [2] The large quantities of cesium-137 produced during fission events pose a persistent hazard. Its half-life of about 30 years is long enough that objects and regions contaminated by cesium-137 remain dangerous to humans for a generation or more, but it is short enough to ensure that even relatively small quantities of cesium-137 release dangerous doses of radiation (its specific radioactivity is 3.2 × 1012 Bq/g). [2-4]



                    Report comment

                    • Jebus Jebus

                      Along with its intermediate half-life, a combination of high-energy radioactivity and chemical reactivity makes cesium-137 a particularly dangerous fission product. Cesium-137 undergoes high-energy beta decay, primarily to an excited nuclear isomer of Barium 137, which in turn undergoes gamma decay with a half-life of about 150 seconds. [4] The energies of both the beta decay of cesium-137 and the subsequent gamma decay of the excited barium 137 are 512 keV and 662 keV, respectively. [4] In addition, cesium is much more chemically reactive than many of the transition metal fission products. As a group 1 alkaline metal, elemental cesium is quite electropositive, and is readily oxidized by water, forming highly soluble Cs+. [5] For this reason, elemental cesium-137 may contaminate large volumes of water during nuclear accidents, which are difficult to contain or process. [6]

                      Despite its prevalence in spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, cesium-137 is actually extremely rare. Its half-life is too short for it to persist from natural fission sources, and on earth it is a synthetic isotope only. Should further nuclear accidents be avoided, the dangers of cesium-137 will eventually cease.

                      http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/wessells1/


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      The point of its reactivity is that it leads to the solubility.

                      The key to all that is the specific activity, specific radioactivity is 3.2 × 1012 Bq/g. Each atom is a 'hot particle'. Its the concentration of radioactivity that makes a difference here. Otherwise radioactive cesium is chemically and radioactively just like potassium, and why the nuke industry sees it as such. What we want to do is point out the DIFFERENCES


                      Report comment

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      Hippie Dog is Correct! :)


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        Hippie is right about the difference of external vs internal exposure. But wrong about the chemical toxicity factor. He then links to a site with mainstream views which gives this message;

        'Less than 1% of the total ionizing radiation dose to people living in the United States comes from their jobs, nuclear fallout, the nuclear fuel cycle, or other exposures.'

        that is true, as far as it goes. But it totally undermines any concern about dangers of the nuclear industry, and compares background to man-made radiation. This is exactly what Woods Hole does, and in fact all mainstream agencies. This is the problem, a nearly insurmountable one, that the anti nukers face.


        Report comment

  • The Bilderberg "club" is meeting in Virginia right now, they even let a rep from China in this year.
    The key topics for discussion this year include:

    The Trump Administration: A progress report
    Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios
    The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks
    The direction of the EU
    Can globalisation be slowed down?
    Jobs, income and unrealised expectations
    The war on information
    Why is populism growing?
    Russia in the international order
    The Near East
    Nuclear proliferation
    China
    Current events

    Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.