FORUM: Effects of low level radiation

Published: September 1st, 2012 at 12:22 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
894 comments


Please post links and information in the comment section below concerning the effects of low level ionizing radiation.

h/t Arizonan

Published: September 1st, 2012 at 12:22 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
894 comments

Related Posts

  1. FORUM: Methods for combating radiation and its effects September 1, 2012
  2. FORUM: Post Your Radiation Monitoring Data Here December 4, 2012
  3. FORUM: What should be done about Japan burning radioactive debris? September 1, 2012
  4. FORUM: Fukushima Webcam Discussion Thread December 27, 2013
  5. FORUM: Off-Topic Discussion Thread (Non-Nuclear Issues) for Mar. 25, 2014 – Present February 1, 2013

894 comments to FORUM: Effects of low level radiation

  • VanneV anne

    Autism And Nuclear Proliferation
    “During the last 100+ years which coincides with my life (I am 61) for the most part, the entire planet has been assaulted by high levels of human-created radiation of all sorts. From alpha to gamma rays, uranium mining and the use of glow in the dark materials, the production of materials for industry and above all, nuclear bombs and nuclear power: the amount of radiation we are exposed to today is higher and more frequent than in other eras. And this is causing cancer and birth defects. And one defect rising higher and higher is autism which today has been declared a gene mutation problem.
    “Radiation causes huge problems for human reproductive systems. Women develop a lifetime’s supply of eggs early in life. These are then exposed to radiation. Over time, these rays of energy hit chromosomes and cause the nucleotide to be altered so in the ATCG structure of the gene is shifted so an ‘A’ can be replaced with a’G', for example. Elements can be even entirely eliminated from the DNA or RNA strands….”
    http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/autism-and-nuclear-proliferation/


    Report comment

  • In case anyone is interested: as the first post on my still-not-fully-setup blog site, I just published the translation of a 2012 article on low-level radiation effects. It's about a group of bio-mathematicians at Helmholtz Zentrum in Munich who found evidence of significant irregularities in the birth statistics in regions around nuclear sites all over Europe: http://fukugeddon.com/?p=37


    Report comment

    • artika rama

      Great job :) seriously ,, thanks :)


      Report comment

      • You're welcome :-)
        I plan to create English captions for two TV reports ready over the weekend. Although they are centered on Europe, I think everyone should see them because they show the unholy alliance of nuclear industry, military and authorities like health agencies. And they provide shocking facts about the land-bound and ocean-bound waste disposal. Professor Busby plays an important role in one of them.
        It's a lot of work, after all. I guess in sum it's about 2.5 to 3 hours of video material.


        Report comment

        • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

          You mean like how they dropped thousands of barrels of nuke waste in only 90 meters of water, in the english channel and surrounding seas, when it was supposed to be thousands of meters deep way out to sea? And they're corroded and leaking and nobody wants to pick them up and dispose of them properly? And how nuke plants in europe run pipes out into the ocean to continuously emit nuke waste 24-7? And how all this waste is washing ashore? And the various nuke and health agencies under-report the shore contamination? One bright note, Ireland is ALLOWED (allowed-really) to sue for being contaminated by others. Sorry to high-jack your thread. Just had to vent my waste :-)


          Report comment

    • Arizonan Arizonan

      Excellent detective work. Thank you for posting. Gould has discovered this in published evidece across US….criminal reworking of statistical data. See his Low Level Radiation High Level Deception book. There are cancer cluster around every nuclear plant on the planet. We know enough and have enough European data to say that confidently now, although Gofman knew it and said it in the 1970s.


      Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    'Breast cancer rates higher near nuclear plant'
    “Cancer levels in women living close to a former nuclear power station are more than 15 times higher than the national average, a TV documentary will claim today.
    “The documentary reveals the shocking results of a survey carried out in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north Wales….”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-390454/Breast-cancer-rates-higher-near-nuclear-plant.html#ixzz2rv19rU6u


    Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      17β-Estradiol Enhances Breast Cancer Cell Motility and Invasion via Extra-Nuclear Activation of Actin-Binding Protein Ezrin
      “Estrogen promotes breast cancer metastasis. However, the detailed mechanism remains largely unknown. The actin binding protein ezrin is a key component in tumor metastasis and its over-expression is positively correlated to the poor outcome of breast cancer….”
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144228/


      Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      Effects of the environmental estrogens bisphenol A, o,p′-DDT, p-tert-octylphenol and coumestrol on apoptosis induction, cell proliferation and the expression of estrogen sensitive molecular parameters in the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007600100173X


      Report comment

    • bo bo

      Anne here is what I know locally – I personally think direct correlation to Pilgrim NPP, but last I heard public health specialists were trying to blame it on 'oh, you know, it could be that poor people have less access to health care… so it could be a poverty issue!'

      From CDC cancer cluster registry :
      In 1993, Cape Cod was first identified as having elevated breast cancer rates by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Further study found that breast cancer incidence was about 20% higher on Cape Cod than in the rest of Massachusetts, for 1982-1994. A state study of all cancers on the Cape, from 1986-1994, indicated that cancer rates were elevated for prostate, breast, and for melanoma. Currently, Silent Spring Institute is investigating exposures to pollutants over the past 40 years using a geographic information system (GIS), environmental and biological sampling, and interviews with 2,100 women.


      Report comment

    • Arizonan Arizonan

      Breast cancer rates also higher in Atomic Bomb survivors at extremely low levels.


      Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    Scientific dishonesty?
    Mattias Lantz and the Fallujah Uranium papers
    http://www.llrc.org/


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    First Analysis of Cancer Incidence and Occupational Radiation Exposure Based on the National Dose Registry of Canada
    “…The association between cancer and exposure to ionizing radiation has been well documented (1). Evidence for this association is derived mainly from data on atomic bomb survivors and from patients who, a few decades ago, received high doses of therapeutic radiation for diseases other than cancer. Associations between ionizing radiation and specific types of cancer, particularly leukemia, have also been well established. These results, especially for the atomic bomb survivors, are based on high exposures at high dose rates….”
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/4/309.long


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    TY, VanneV as there are very few people that understand the depth of the illusion/matrix created.


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    “…The four-year Reflex Study found genomes – the carrier of genes – were harmed by exposure to electro-magnetic fields from such technology.
    “Some of these genes were harmed beyond repair, leading to the potential development of ‘catastrophic’ diseases such as cancer, it was claimed….
    “The three million euro study found that cells exposed to high frequency radio waves showed a significant increase in single and double-strand DNA breaks, much of which could not be repaired….
    “Intermittent exposure of five-minute bursts proved to be more damaging to cells than constant radiation.
    Higher risk for older people
    ”The research also found that older cells were more susceptible to the emissions from low frequency bodies such as power lines as well as the high radio frequencies from telecommunications.
    "’In old people, the gene repair system is not as effective as it is in younger people, said Prof Adlkofer. ‘This makes them more vulnerable."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-331722/Mobile-phone-radiation-damages-DNA.html


    Report comment

  • jan

    Radiation from cellphones is not the same as the radiation you get from isotopes.


    Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      The topic of this forum is effects of low level radiatiion.


      Report comment

      • jan

        You mean the radiation from nuclear isotopes or from cell phones ?


        Report comment

      • clamshellernh clamshellernh

        I just got here on this discussion and I have about five projects going on so
        I would like to ask for any links that you may have on hand regarding my verizon wi if box
        And of course some real data on cell phones and the other gadgets we all have .
        That's if you have that at your finger tips Vanne
        Another question for the geeky types here
        Can I build a faraday cage around it , now my understanding is that it protect gadgets against EMPs
        Please explain if it will even work if I make a mini one
        And don't laugh at me ok
        I am trying to understand
        Would one protect myself against all this man made radiation .
        Thank in advance


        Report comment

        • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

          Most devices have a setup parameter that can be changed to lower the transmit power. If you have to use wifi instead of ethernet cable, I'd look into reducing the transmit powers as low as possible just above intolerable levels (throughput suffers too much). You don't have to have wifi if you can cable your equipment up which, in addition to limit radiation, helps to keep the local cops from snooping your signals.


          Report comment

          • clamshellernh clamshellernh

            Thanks but I'm lost
            Can I build something around it and still get it to work
            I'm a boob on this stuff .
            Funny I grew up with it as my dad is an electrical engineer and has all this stuff , I just played with the stuff he invented .
            Lasers , telsa coils gun cotton , anti gravity guns . And more ..
            I like being in this room with you all though
            I'm not supposed to plug but I will anyway
            Amazing1.com
            He has make it your self things like guider counters faraday Tessa's
            Wish I was talking to him though


            Report comment

            • SykeWar(DELETED) SykeWar

              I'm going on the assumption you're looking to reduce your exposure to 2-5Ghz radiation? And when you say Verizon wifi box are you talking about a cellur wifi modem MiFi device?

              You can build something around any such source with an opening that "directs" the emission (unidirectional) towards a point (a cell tower), instead of all over the place (omni directional). For example, I've used a small aluminum bread pan, bought at a store, to act as a reflector around a omnidirectional antenna thus focusing the signal in one direction. I'm not sure how that would work as you're dealing with a cell tower signal and a wifi in-house computer signal. Depending on antenna arrangement, you can maybe focus the cell antenna outdoors, through a window. But the wifi would be another story. You may be able to reduce the wifi signal power (check manual and forums) which I always recommend – why emit more than you need? Other than that, put it in a room, closet or area where there aren't people all the time.


              Report comment

        • VanneV VanneV

          This forum is so we can post articles once and not have to repeat them. Please feel free to read the entire forum. There have been posted many citations of studies. And there are continually new studies being published.


          Report comment

          • clamshellernh clamshellernh

            Vannne I'm so sorry
            You seem like the resident researcher and I have seen many times you posting info here there and everywhere on this site and yes some of the same things too .
            I have read so much here just thought seeing you were on the subject you might of had files in your computer .
            Sorry again I will not ask you for help again .
            We are all here for the same reasons for the most part and we all come from varying places of understanding some know more than others in things and we share . Some just know it all
            Be blessed


            Report comment

            • VanneV VanneV

              Sorry clamshellernh. I do have a hard disk and it was one time on line at a university server, but got deleted when the university went on to more sophisticated software.

              Still, I think I've already posted the most important info. already in this thread.

              And researchers, at least me, want to keep going forward with new research, which now is Fukushima.

              All the radiation we are subjected to act synergistically, and also with all the other poisons and toxins and GMOs, etc. in our environment.

              I'm 73 and I sill have to work and one of my dogs today looks like she is dying. She was fine yesterday, but was out in the snow yesterday. Today she can hardly walk or lift up her head.

              And I do get tired of all the games some visitors play on this website. Fukushima is sad and I have relatives on the West Coast and relatives here in Colorado where the radiation levels are unbelievably high, and in Kansas not far from St Louis where there also are high radiation levels. Also another child near a very bad reactor on the East Coast.


              Report comment

        • chev chev

          Efective faraday cages prevent transmitters from transmitting or recieving, in fact ,if they are to be effective you cant have conected cables running in or out of the cage either.
          that is my understanding!.


          Report comment

    • razzz razzz

      Hey jan, while you are trying to figure out if ionizing radiation is the only bad radiation to avoid, check the seal around your microwave oven door and make sure it is works properly.


      Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    The Myth of Low-Level Radiation
    Why safe levels are a myth
    “All radiation is dangerous, whether it is natural or man-made. There is no “safe” amount of radioactive material or radiation. ‘The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks’, reports Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation. (full article)
    “Why?
    “’It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and one gene to initiate the cancer or cell mutation cycle.’ (Helen Caldicott, Nuclear madness: what you can do). Hence, any exposure increases risk of cancer or genetic damage….
    Here’s another example: children of workers at the Lawrence Livermore Labs get more cancer. “A 1995 California Department of Health Services’ investigation of childhood cancer incidence among Livermore children and young adults (0-24 years), found two and one-half times the expected number of children with malignant melanoma living in Livermore at the time of diagnosis, more than six times the incidence of malignant melanoma in children and young adults born in Livermore, and elevated levels of brain cancer among children born in Livermore in the 1960’s.” (California Department of Health Services. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. Cancer Incidence Among Children and Young Adults in Livermore, California 1960-1991. September 6, 1995. Cited in announcement of “Community Health Training, Radiation Risk, and the…


    Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      Cited in announcement of “Community Health Training, Radiation Risk, and the Community“, December 9, 2000, Livermore, California, by Western States Legal Foundation)….
      “Nuclear power plants routinely emit radiation, at levels the government, the NRC and IAEA tell us are safe. These releases are legally permitted and required for the reactors to run; but they are not safe. When investigators of low-dose ionizing radiation revealed that levels of radiation lower than those permitted were causing cancer, government agencies attempted to suppress their findings…
      “Although much of the evidence has been suppressed, there are studies that demonstrate increased risk in populations that live close to nuclear power plants.
      “’There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. Among recent studies, a widely cited 2007 meta-analysis of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care. It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain. Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany. These recent results are not consistent with many earlier studies that have tended not to show such associations. But no…


      Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      But no credible alternate explanations for the recent findings have so far emerged.” (Nuclear-News)
      “We are in the middle of a terrifying scientific experiment in which we and our children are the subjects. Let’s face the facts that mixing the profit motive with the most dangerous technology is a very bad idea, and that natural forces and human error are reason enough to admit nuclear power is a mistake. It’s time to move on.”
      http://www.radiationtruth.org/the-myth-of-low-level-radiation/


      Report comment

    • Cisco Cisco

      Low level ionizing radiation…A discussion regarding disease is paramount. Compromised immune systems from low level ionizing radiation are the Achilles heel for bacteria and viruses that will begin to ravage the planet. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, birth defects, and all other auto-immune diseases will increase exponentially, leading to mass sickness, mutations, and premature deaths across large swaths of populated regions.

      The ELE is here. The only question is, how long will it take?


      Report comment

    • zogerke zogerke

      there is the melanoma…..


      Report comment

    • Excellent!

      ‘The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks’, reports Jacqueline Cabasso

      ’It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and one gene to initiate the cancer or cell mutation cycle.’ – Caldicott

      "Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, birth defects, and all other auto-immune diseases will increase exponentially,…" – Cisco


      Report comment

      • jan

        These are all well known facts for a long time.


        Report comment

        • Arizonan Arizonan

          Yes, I'm afraid so. Since Stewart's pioneering and painstakingly vast, long long term study of ionizing radiation to the fetus in the form of xrays, in the 1950s, we have known that gamma-like external exposures to this age group, barely above natural background, will double the risk of leukemia in the child. The nuclear cabal attacked Prof. Stewart mercilessly because her data did not match the data from the Atomic Bomb Survivors. This study has always been controlled by the nation that dropped those two bombs on other human beings. It was not even started until five years after the bombing, in 1950. It has never adequately dealt with the problem of a contaminated control group, a research design error that arose from an obsessive focus on the short intense external gamma rays emitted at the moment of the explosions. They never tested for or dealt with widespread internalized radioactive particles. Steven Wing gave a great critique of the study at the NY Symposium on Fukushima last year. It has been roundly critiqued by Stewart, Gofman, Bertell, Busby, and Wing, among others. Yet the nuclear cabal, the ICRP, IAEA, WHO, NRC, EPA, GE, HITACHI, etc etc all use outdated mathematical guesses to arrive at exposure levels and dose estimates. Gofman collated and analysed all existing world epidemiology on low level radiation, and his estimates of cancers per dose were about 34x higher than the cabal's. His weakness was really failing to deal with the organ concentrations of…


          Report comment

          • Arizonan Arizonan

            …the organ concentrations of various radioisotopes,ie, more strontium to bone, more casium to muscle, more plutonium to blood, etc, because of their chemical likenesses to calcium, potassium, and iron. This is therefore corrected for and updated in ECRR 2010. A free and worthwhile read for everyone on the planet. If you read anywhere that we do not know the effects of low level radiation, they either lie or are ignorant. No safe dose. The nuclear cabal has been randomly murdering people for 70 years now to increase profits and few courts have ever called them to account. Now TEPCO has made a profit of 190 billion yen, but at least twice Chernbyl, or two million, minimum, will die for it. Why would the nuclear criminals want to pay any attention to scientific evidence?


            Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    I'm glad that texting has taken over holding it to your head.


    Report comment

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    I had the honor of escorting Dr. Rosalie Bertell on a book tour of England many many years ago. I always thought this mathematical work she did estimating the real victims of the nuclear age as a whole was excellent. Thank you for posting the link here Anne.


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    Cell Phone Exposure Causes
    Brain Damage In Rats – Study
    http://www.rense.com/general34/ddma.htm


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.
    Leif G Salford, et al.
    “…We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241519/
    “…The reason for our choice of 12 to 26 weeks old rats is that they are comparable to human mobile phone addicted teen-agers with respect to age. The situation of the growing brain might deserve special concern from the society since biological and maturational processes are particularly vulnerable. The intense use of mobile phones by youngsters is a serious memento. A neuronal damage of the kind, here described, may not have immediately demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. It may, however, in the long run, result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal isease or even the wear and tear of ageing. We can not exclude that after some decades of (often), daily use, a whole generation of users, may suffer egative effects maybe already in their middle age. “
    http://www.hese-project.org/de/emf/WissenschaftForschung/Salford_Prof._Leif%20G./Nerve%20Cell%20Damage%20in%20Mammalian%20Brain%20after%20Exposure%20to%20Microwaves%20from%20GSM%20Mobile%20Phones%20%28short%29.pdf
    Photo of rat brain after 2 hours exposure to cell phone:
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/tts/rat_brain.jpg


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    'Unequivocal' cell phones cause cancer (E32)
    January 12, 2014
    “Insurers refuse public liability for cell phones….
    “There’s many many many others that are already deceased from this and are dying from this, younger than my husband. Some as young as 28 who are deceased and their neurosurgeons actually told them that it was probably their cell phone use….
    “Clinical studies find young men who keep phones in their pockets have much lower chances of producing offspring, while women often store them on their chest.
    “Tiffany Frantz, breast cancer victim: I would just tuck it into my bra.
    “RT: Tiffany Frantz got breast cancer aged just 21, right where since childhood she's stored her phone. …
    ” Some of the world's best selling smartphones register over a thousand times above normal levels….
    “Independent scientists meanwhile overwhelmingly find the most serious problems, from DNA damage to three times lower sperm counts, 290% more brain tumors, autism and birth defects….
    “France is moving schools back from Wi-Fi to cabled Internet.
    “Countries from Germany to Israel and Finland are moving to stop cell phone sales to kids. …”
    http://rt.com/shows/the-truthseeker/cell-phone-brain-tumors-471/


    Report comment

    • jan

      VanneV you are missing the point . That is not what this subject is about . It is about ionizing radiation . Being subject to low level radioactivity , like isotopes . Not cell phones.


      Report comment

      • clamshellernh clamshellernh

        I'm really sorry jan , and please do not take this wrong as it is just a observation , and the intent on my part is to have you examine it . Before you post something think of how you are coming across
        I've seen you do it and know you can .
        I have been here for a few years now
        I fell in love with the interchange of thought and genuine caring that exists here .
        The flow so it' felt was not so full of angry people .
        You seem so angry
        I feel it .
        This is just an observation not meant to unnerve you


        Report comment

      • VanneV VanneV

        Straw argument. All radiation causes cancer and other damage and disease, both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

        The topic in this forum is not limited to ionizing radiation:

        "FORUM: Effects of low level radiation"

        Straw arguments are not actually paid attention to and are completely unscientific, and also are not logical or rational.


        Report comment

        • VanneV VanneV

          This statement of mine was for Jan. And when we list studies that show nonionizing radiation causes cancer, ionizing radiation is just that much worse.


          Report comment

          • jan

            Totally not related . You and many others here do not know the difference between microwave radiation / non-ionizing radiation / ionizing radiation .

            You can not draw conclusions about ionizing radiation by looking at studies about nonionizing radiation . Cell phones and radioactive isotopes are not related at all.


            Report comment

        • Arizonan Arizonan

          Anne is correct. I suggested this forum originally and it says for low level radiation, not just ionising rad. Yes the focus is mainly on ionizing but I for one am always happy to learn more about the health effects of other kinds as well. Thanks to all who have shared scientific references here. We will need them for obewans suggested court case! :-)


          Report comment

          • jan

            Who is anne ? The discussion going on in the scientific community about the low level radiation has nothing to do with cell phones .
            I am beginning to realize that many people here, including you Arizonan, do not know the difference and therefore all the confusion .
            What scientists are mentioning about the harmful effects of low level radiation , they do not even think of cell phones . It is about isotopes .


            Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Jan, you really need to expand your mental prowess and horizons! :)


    Report comment

    • jan

      I think you and many others need to learn the basics of radiation . Cause i just realized while i have been discussing here for hours about low level radiation and you guys arguing me about research on cell phones , the main issue is that you do not know the difference between the two.

      I did not expect that on a forum dedicated to radiation .
      I think everyone here should at least study the basics and learn the differences between cell phones and isotopes.


      Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    Jan, they tried to warn us about the dangers of microwaves and cellphones but people believed what/who they wanted to believe;those people happened to be those who do not have our best interest at heart. They do sell us things that are horrible for us. Cigarettes come to mind. Do you not see a pattern here? Our health is at the bottom of the list. Who do you want to trust?


    Report comment

    • jan

      tsfw Thats all very well said but that was not the discussion point . We are not discussing the hazards of cell phones but we are discussing causes of melanomas .
      How about viruses causing cancer ? Shall we throw that in as well ?


      Report comment

      • zogerke zogerke

        actually you are not the only one here defining what is being discussed.


        Report comment

        • jan

          True , but how about i start arguing on viruses causing cancer while everyone is discussing building a wall around fukushima ? That would not be a correct argument either .Not related to the topic.

          If i say UV causes melanoma and someone says no it does not shows cell phones causing cancer as a proof , then they are totally missing the point .

          If they wish to argue on cell phones , we can do that too . But if they use that cell phone argument against my argument being UV related melanomas than i say no .
          You cannot use that argument because it does not make sense.
          I am not saying i decide the subject of the argument . I am only saying your argument against my argument is unrelated and illogical . You are comparing apples and peers.


          Report comment

          • zogerke zogerke

            jan, with all due respect, no one person on this site will successfully control what is talked about here, or how people react, or the humor, or the conjectures……not you or me or anyone…. except perhaps the enenews admin, and even he probably finds it's more like herding cats than anything else.

            without wanting to be unkind, it feels like you are instigating arguments, and finding things to nit pick, and making your same point again and again. You might have some other novel insights to share- why don't you try another topic or angle, post clean links to educate people about what you are finding and then let it go, to see the responses you get. Or not. Soon enough you will find those you generally agree with and those you don't. And feel free to disagree with something you think is egregious. But so many incessant critical statements- all of which belabor the same point- get bit tedious. I actually think folks on here do know the difference between ionizing and non ionizing radiation. And people are generally interested in exposing how radiation is harmful to human health, in all its manmade (and occasionally, natural) forms. And folks are interested in the truth about fukushima, and crowdsourcing sites with news and possible solutions. And supporting each other through the grief of loss and illness. If you can, kindly change your tune and your topic.


            Report comment

            • jan

              Well oke than ,I accept it the fact that cell phones cause cancer so melanoma is not caused by UV .
              Does that fit to the peoples expectations here ?

              Is that enough or do i also need to swear at Tepco as well.

              I do not care what people are generally interested in , if someone tells me UV is not causing MM, then i keep arguing that it does, simply because it does .

              I dont care how many times i repeat it , as long as they keep repeating the same argument i keep repeating mine.

              Surely you do not want em to change my point of view just to fit in the club do you?
              I give my argument and everyone is free to do so and if you do not like it , its simple, you do not reply .
              I am not here to mourn or satisfy anyone s expectations of what i should be saying .
              I say what i think and that is it.Whether you like it or not is not my concern.
              You cannot tell me what to say and what subject to talk about .
              If you do not like my discussions you do not have to answer.


              Report comment

            • clamshellernh clamshellernh

              Zeogerke , thank you so much , your a kind and generous spirit .
              Be blessed


              Report comment

              • zogerke zogerke

                thanks clamshell. i tried.

                still…love the quaker: there is no way to peace. peace is the way.

                and you too, be blessed….and take good care.


                Report comment

                • zogerke zogerke

                  and does remind me of dropsilla, a bit….in flavor.


                  Report comment

                  • zogerke zogerke

                    12 step program to avoid arguments with…..

                    1. we admit we have problem & are powerless before the urge to debunk people who lie to protect nuclear death machines
                    2. we come to believe that a power greater than ourselves (like the community here of wise folks) can help us regain sanity
                    3. made a decision to turn our hearts & hands to protecting human & earth life as we understand it, against nukes
                    4. make a fearless & moral inventory of ourselves and our ability to stay on track in the face of huge annoyance, manipulation& manufactured lies
                    5. admitted to the community, ourselves& our pets that we fell off topic
                    6. were ready to have the enenews community correct us so we can go back to work telling the truth in all ways possible
                    7. humbly asked our true peers here to help keep us on track
                    8.made a list of nuclear meltdowns and apologists we had tried to harm, and vowed to harm them in more effective ways with on topic arguments…excellent links, and creative ridiculousness
                    9.made direct amends except when to do so would support shills or confuse the newcomers
                    10. continue with personal inventory & when we were off topic promptly admitted it (i'm here!)
                    11. sought through concentration study & practice to strengthen connection to community of support on enenews & elsewhere so we have the wisdom & courage to spread the truth, debunk lies & make change for the better on this planet
                    12. carry this message to others & practice these principals here


                    Report comment

                  • clamshellernh clamshellernh

                    Smile setting disabled


                    Report comment

    • jan

      tsfw I think you do not know the difference between non-ionising radiation from cell phones and ionizing radiation from isotopes as well just like VanneV and obewan and a few others here.

      These are totally not related.

      Radiation can be in many forms from simple heat to microwaves to light . All unrelated .


      Report comment

      • tsfw tsfw

        Jan you are making a point that has no value- over and over and over again. It makes you feel better to say we don't understand, than for you to be proven wrong. Read what Zogerke said up there, he hit every nail. Would you be happy if we all said you were right even though we disagree? Is this day 2 or 3 of the same stupid argument? Ridiculous. You remind me of someone else who recently left here…you made your point, we disagree, GET OVER IT.


        Report comment

        • jan

          Tsfw I did read what zogerke said and i find both of you being rude. I am not arguing here on my own am i?

          If people do not want to argue they do not have to reply .

          I am free to keep on my argument as long as there is contra-argument . Why do not you attack people giving the contra-arguments then ? Are not you taking sides ? Is this a club rule?
          I will not argue when people stop giving me cell phone data causing cancers . If they know the difference as you say then why do they keep claiming it again and again then ? Since they do it again and again i wil have to answer again and again .
          Do you even know the difference i wonder?

          Discussing on same stupid argument for 2 , 3 days is ridiculous . First of all who are you to call our discussion stupid ?

          Am i supposed to report to you how long i may keep on arguing ? Are you the one to judge that ?

          Is this a club where even what people say is censored ?
          The same answer to you goes as zogerke . If you want me to stop my argument you just do not reply .That is so siple.
          If people have the right to respond to my argument i have the right to respond to them as well , how long ? Just as long as they keep telling me cell phones cause cancer and UV doesnt not cause melanoma . If it takes 2 3 more days or months i have no problem with that .It is none of your business.
          It is rude to try to dictate me what i can say and when.
          Both of you are being hostile and rude.
          I have nothing more to say to you both .


          Report comment

          • tsfw tsfw

            Oh it didn't start out stupid …


            Report comment

          • clamshellernh clamshellernh

            Eureka moment !,
            Let's drop this now
            Thank you vanne for sharing links and such
            I feel we have enough to put this to bed
            And jean it looks like we will have to agree to disagree


            Report comment

          • tsfw tsfw

            Jan it's your attitude that sucks. You are getting angry at people for not agreeing with you. I am not angry with you.

            You keep referring toa club mentality and that simply isn't true. Like you say, people are arguing with you – that suggests that you are not being thrown to the side as you suggest.

            We are used to people who come in here on a mission – you are clearly on one. Maybe that's what you're mistaking for 'club mentality.' We have a purpose in here, and you have another and that is where the clash is coming from.

            I have only started commenting in here in the past 6 or so months, and I still would never take up as much space as you have. I still feel like I'm in someone elses home and know that there is more for me to learn, than to teach or preach. I read things I don't agree with in here at times, but I don't make it my MISSION to prove people wrong. You are new and you have a chip on your shoulder. I have disagreed with people in here too, I just don't keep it going for 4 days. Much more graceful and effective, if you state your opinion and move on. People did listen to you JAn. I watched them listen. They just disagreed. Get over it.

            What you are saying is that you will shout it from the rooftops until someone agrees with you. You must be a treat in real life. Do you have the right to behave that way, of course you do. We can't stop you. But you are being received a certain way for a reason. Maybe look at your approach or…


            Report comment

            • tsfw tsfw

              something. Calling people rude or suggesting they have no idea what they're talking about, isn't a good one.

              If you feel so passionately about your 'cause' or whatever it is, why don't you start your own forum? This is a place to share ideas, not beat people over the head with them.


              Report comment

      • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

        San, possibly unrelated due to magnitude, one microwave oven go faulty is not going to kill 2000000 people with cancers, pollute the Pacific then the Indian ocean and fish and then drinking water and then the air and then circulate, and it won’t cause lies as to what killed you – I fried in a microwave oven. So yes in many aspects it not related, but in some it is. When exposed to microwave where you don’t feel heat, it is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and after 20kHz you don’t hear. Put your Geiger in a microwave and see if there is a flash reading before it trips.


        Report comment

        • jan

          How about electricity . That is also colourless tastless odorless and can kill you after a few hundred volts so electricity is the same as low level radiation . Lets discuss that .


          Report comment

          • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

            Electricity can generate x-rays, it can be ionizing as well, if you are shocked be a kVA source and live, you will have a nasty taste in your mouth, it has a magnetic field, and electricity is associated with loads of electrons, but copper and gold will not suddenly go radio-active as plutonium does. You might as well discuss acid if you wish, or a DC battery, there is also a free electron involved (many to be more specific) but the magnetic field or electrolyte does not expose so much of it to your body as does loads of radio-nuclides in the environment from a NPP. Maybe the quantity of exposure is the key here. I have tried.


            Report comment

            • jan

              What did you try ?
              Yes xrays are like free electrons flowing in the air and ionising molecules and changing them .
              Very harmful and carcinogenic but some how normal electricity cannot hurt anyone (unless a high voltage ) . Weird electrons.


              Report comment

              • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                Where is it said that normal electricity cannot hurt anyone?


                Report comment

                • jan

                  If its low voltage it will not hurt you .


                  Report comment

                  • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                    First of all obfuscation is involved without pinpointing amps and volts in this case, but I give you this ‘weird electrons”, but also weird neutrons and weird protons and weird atoms because for 68 years they have been experimenting with nuclear after the outcome of it was totally predictable, yet they did not believe it in spite of it being right before their eyes. The facts are there. Did you put your Geiger in the microwave and switch it on? You are assuming too much. See it for yourself.


                    Report comment

                  • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                    High current can kill you, even at low volts. Genetic damage will result only if enough thermal heat is created. The "Free" electron is something quite different. jan, If you don't understand the difference then I suggest you do a bit more research…


                    Report comment

                    • jan

                      A car battery cannot kill you .
                      Thanks for the advice but i know difference . Is everyone so friendly here ?


                      Report comment

                    • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                      Jan, please give us the quantities of electrons you are talking about, I will give you the formula v=IR Tell me what is your body's resistance for 12v DC and what is the ampere. I am waiting eagerly.


                      Report comment

                    • clamshellernh clamshellernh

                      Me too haze
                      May this not blow up for the next few days


                      Report comment

                    • jan

                      Hmmm SInce we are talking about a car battery , i think 12 volt and 17 ah ? Is that it ? Just guessing .
                      Sorry i cant say exactly , i dont know much about cars .


                      Report comment

                    • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                      And what is your body's resistance?
                      Remember you said 'same electrons' in your analogy, you don't like to be specific. Is that why you don't like Anne's links? They are specific. Are you just having a good time here Jan?


                      Report comment

                    • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                      You do seem to be doing a fair bit of guess work jan.


                      Report comment

                    • jan

                      I do not know the exact numbers are you going to shoot me ?
                      What is your problem ?


                      Report comment

                    • jan

                      eatlessndie Seriously chill out . I dont know much about the car batteries . You tell me if you do .
                      Why are you guys /girls so pissed off? It was just a theoretical question . Are the car accu s censored topic as well?


                      Report comment

                    • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                      You're quite defensive. Take a few deep breaths and sit down in front of the telly for a bit.


                      Report comment

                    • jan

                      I am not defensive , you are offensive. So tell me what is the resistance of the body , i am all ears.
                      What is the point i should learn.


                      Report comment

                    • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                      Jan, out of pure interest, did you ever read a radiation reading off any Geiger in your life, have anyone in your family died of cancer, have you ever lived near a nuclear facility or have you ever taken a keen interest in the environment and talking about shoot – If Robin Hood had to steel to feed the poor, what would he have done when the poor were dying of radiation illnesses?


                      Report comment

                    • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

                      It will depend on the internal resistance of the battery and to give you an idea how it is calculated: if your body’s resistance can be brought down to 400ohm by being soaked with a conductive fluid for instance and enhanced by pulsing circuitry or condition you could calculate the coulombs by multiplying the time with 30mA for a good shock. You could end up getting an AC shock from a DC battery, but that is not radiation. Once again Jan, please try it for yourself and don’t just believe what I say. Many questions but you haven't answered one


                      Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    PS: In 2+ years I have not ever seen it go religious in here.

    Please let's not let it go that way in here please please please.


    Report comment

  • clamshellernh clamshellernh

    Tsfw
    I agree let's not get into that
    Sharing our spiritual place in all this should not be discouraged


    Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    Oh no, I'm saying I DON'T think we should share our personal religious beliefs in here. That starts wars …literally. We have enough to cope with in here.


    Report comment

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Yes, Jan we do understand the difference. Many of us have been at this many years. I thot the words ionizing and nonionizing helped, as there are many nonradioactive isotopes, but those that are, are all decaying with enough energy to be called ionizing. Let me quote from the wonderful 523-page tome, Radiation and Human Health, by the late Prof. Dr. John Gofman, 1981, page 19: "If an xray of 100 kev
    (one thousand electron volts) transfers its energy…to an electron and sets it in motion in biological tissue, that electron willl have 100 kev energy…..this is an enormous amount of energy compated to a chemical bond. Indeed, 100 kev is enough energy to break 14,000 to 20,000 ordinary types of chemical bonds. ..There is no chemical bond in biological tissue which is strong enough to resust breakage by such energy, since even the most powerful chemical bonds are of energies of about 1/14,000 the energy of high speed electrons. In actual fact, however, the electron with 100 kev of energy, set in motion by the xray, does not simply break 14000 or 20000 separate (chemical)


    Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    Christ on a crutch it's another Socref. I scroll and all I see is JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN-

    DAY 4 of the same argument by the way.

    Don't these people ever get tired gees.


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Jan is pushing an agenda and maybe she is in the dermatologist field. She is convinced she is right and some of what she brings may be correct and yes certain people may need to take precautions in the sun. This whole conversation/approach though pushes the negative effects created by the constant spewing Nuclear Radiation Contamination pollution to the back burner.

    Skin cancers like many cancers started to skyrocket after 1945 and those 2053 Nuclear bomb blasts all over this earth. Damage to the ozone from such folly was to be expected. Damage to our ecosystems and planetary functions was to be expected.

    Real problems and consequences are now being felt worldwide everywhere because nobody paid attention to this Nuclear folly and then reigned in this Nuclear Cabal.. :(

    We all know this can not end well for biological life as the numbers do not lie…


    Report comment

  • scottyji scottyji

    "Cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26014693

    Look at the map half way through the article on cancer incidence rates by country. What countries on the map have the most nuclear power plants?
    Hmmmmmm….


    Report comment

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    MamaBears AgainstNukes have just published a number of links proving a relationship between exposure to low-level radiation and a range of health effects besides cancer: heart disease, immune system damage, diabetes, mental illness, lowered IQ, sex ratio changes and Down's Syndrome, among others. Chronic exposure to low-level radiation is the biggest public health scandal in human history.
    https://www.facebook.com/mamabears.againstnukes


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    Plutonium may be many times more dangerous than previously thought. The cancer risk from exposure inside the body could be 10 times higher than is allowed for in calculating international safety limits.
    “The danger is highlighted in a report written by radiation experts for the UK government, which has been leaked to New Scientist. The experts are unanimous in saying that low-level radiation emitted by plutonium may cause more damage to human cells than previously believed. Their opinion could provoke a rethink of the guidelines on exposure to radiation.
    “Several tonnes of plutonium have been released into the environment over the last 60 years by nuclear weapons tests and nuclear plants.
    “Concern over the harmfulness of plutonium is growing because of discoveries about the subtle effects of low-level radiation. Researchers in Europe and North America have shown that the descendants of cells that seem to survive radiation unharmed can suffer delayed damage, a phenomenon called "genomic instability" (New Scientist, 20 January 2001, p 4). Cells adjacent to those that are irradiated can also sustain damage, known as "the bystander effect". And an increase was found in the number of mutations in small pieces of DNA called mini-satellites that are passed from one generation to the next. The fear is that these effects could trigger cancers and other ill effects. …”
    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/07/15/3348.aspx


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    The Brief Wondrous Life (and Long Dangerous Half-Life) of Strontium-90
    http://capitoilette.com/tag/john-f-kennedy/


    Report comment

  • pure water

    Radioactive Fertilizer—The Surprising Primary Cause of Lung Cancer in Smokers:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/10/radioactive-fertilizer.aspx?e_cid=20140210Z2_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140210Z2&et_cid=DM40239&et_rid=423002193
    As far as the majority do not smoke, pay attention to this from the link above:
    Fluoridated Water—Another Hidden Source of Radioactive Polonium

    You can also consume polonium by drinking fluoridated water, courtesy of the fluorosilicic acid used. While pharmaceutical grade fluoride is a harmful-enough drug, this is not the type of fluoride being added to drinking water. If it was, at least then it would be a pure, uncontaminated form.

    Rather the fluoride that is typically used to fluoridate local water supplies is a frequently contaminated chemical byproduct created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process. It's a concentrated, highly toxic chemical riddled with hazardous impurities, making it extremely expensive to safely dispose of when not sold for profit as a water additive.

    Uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium. Furthermore, polonium decays into stable lead-206, which also has significant health risks—especially in children—and research has indeed shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption in your…


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    AUTISM UPDATE…..

    The last 2 years have seen the highestnumbers EVER!!

    http://www.chron.com/life/healthzone/article/US-autism-estimate-rises-to-1-in-68-children-5357639.php

    I have no studies or evidence, but I can connect the nuclear dots!!


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Certainly it now appears to possibly be happening though various genetic misfires inside the womb… :(

    Do we know of any DNA Scramblers out there? Gee, me thinks Nuclear Radiation Contamination is certainly one..babies need to smile more often when in mommies tummy.


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Herbert Abrams, Stanford University School of Medicine, spoke at the "Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident" Symposium.

    Important points from his presentation called "The Hazards of Low Level Ionizing Radiation: Controversy and Evidence"

    * The BEIR VII report – health effects from 0 to 100 millisieverts (mSv)

    (a) "High radiation doses tend to kill cells, while low doses tend to damage the genetic code (DNA)"
    (b) Found a 3% increase in cancer at low doses
    (c) Found one excess cancer in 100

    * Mechanisms of cancer induction:

    - Damage to DNA
    - Single strand breaks
    - Double strand breaks
    - Oxidative changes in nucleotide bases
    - DNA deletions, gene and chromosome damage

    * "There is NO evidence of a threshold below which no cellular damage occurs."

    * 300 million medical x-rays are performed a year; 120 million dental x-rays

    * Significant lifetime excess cancer risks for 12 cancers, including lung, liver, breast, prostate, stomach, colon, thyroid and leukemia

    * Breast cancer has almost a 100% excess risk.

    * @ 100mSv = per 100,000 people, found excess cancers of 800 in males and 1300 in females; excess deaths 400 males and 610 females

    http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Yes, this information has been compiled for all to see, yet, we still build more of these cancer causing Nuclear Death Maiming Rattle Traps.. very sad. :(

    Another Nuclear Power Plant is slotted for a complete meltdown within 4-6 years. :(

    Best course of action is to ban all this "Nuclear Technology Application" worldwide! :)

    We humans must do this now!


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Since this video keeps getting removed, I thought it was important to transcribe what Dr. Gofman says in the video, since his research on low level radiation is invaluable
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf4G0NRBfqY

    Dr. Gofman:

    “What’s the order of magnitude of the problem that’s been created by radiation in the 20th century? Today manmade activities added up in total exceed the dose from natural radiation.”

    “Every increment that we add to that natural radiation will exact its price in human health, and human health with respect to some very miserable diseases such as the genetic disorders and heart disease and cancer.”

    “50% of all cancers in the 20th century have been caused by ionizing radiation of the type we would call low-level.”

    “Recently I wrote a book on the subject of breast cancer and stated that my best estimate backed up by considerable evidence is that about ¾ of all the breast cancers of the 20th century were induced by ionizing radiation of one sort or another, including medical. This is not a small problem and we there therefore need to give attention to every source of low-level radiation exposure to the public.”

    "In the early days of the post-war period when radioactivity became available in large quantities as the result of the existence of nuclear reactors, many of the people working in the field said, ‘Well, what dose can we allow people to have which will be safe?’


    Report comment

    • Mack Mack

      (continued)

      "I wrestled with that question for over 20 years, and in 1986 on a talk about Chernobyl, I presented to the American Chemical Society, my initial calculations which said:

      There cannot be a safe dose, because at the lowest possible dose, which is one radiation track through the cell, I have proved that cancer is the result.”

      –> Regarding Tritium:

      “Many people thinking about Tritium say ‘oh we don’t have to worry about tritium; the energy of the radiation is so low that we don’t even need to think about it.’ But that is a cardinal error! It is true that the energy of each beta particle emitted by tritium is very low, BUT there’s another problem. When you have a very low energy beta particle interact with biological tissue to produce the damage to genes, the damage to chromosomes, and the risk of future cancers, the lower the energy of the radiation, the WORSE it is in terms of biological hazards. Tritium is FIVE TIMES as hazardous as bomb radiation for the same total amount of energy delivered. And that’s a general law, a rule of physics. I don’t think any person who is reasonable at all can doubt that I have demonstrated THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE because I have shown with a multitude of studies that we get cancers down at the lowest doses. Now that’s been resisted… but the United Nations scientific community in 1993 has come out and joined me in exactly the same kind of analysis. Their conclusion: THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE.”


      Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        (continued)

        “Children are most sensitive with respect to the generation of cancer and leukemia from radiation. The study of breast cancer in Hiroshima with radiation from the bomb has shown that children under 20, women under 20, are the most sensitive; that from 20 to 40, they are less sensitive to the breast cancer generation, and beyond 40 even less sensitive. That’s not theory. That’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And the sensitivity of the young being greater means we should exercise every precaution that we protect our children from sources of radiation no matter how small.”

        —> Marion Fulk, retired Lawrence Livermore scientist

        “There are so many diseases in the children that are caused by low level radiation. It’s terrible.”

        “I cannot overemphasize that there is no safe amount of radiation particularly for stochastic or random damage to the DNA.”


        Report comment

        • bo bo

          Mack, thank you, this is GOLD

          Repeating -

          'When you have a very low energy beta particle interact with biological tissue to produce the damage to genes, the damage to chromosomes, and the risk of future cancers, the lower the energy of the radiation, the WORSE it is in terms of biological hazards. Tritium is FIVE TIMES as hazardous as bomb radiation for the same total amount of energy delivered. And that’s a general law, a rule of physics…'

          Tritium, low level radiation, and 'short half lives'
          These are such big lies !!!!!


          Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Health effects at radiation levels LESS than 100 mSv —>

    * Increases in leukemia in children under 5 years of age who got 1.5 mSv to bone marrow.

    * A dose of 10 mSv to the embryo and fetus causes "a significant and quantifiable increase in the risk of childhood cancer."

    * A Canadian study found a "statistically significant excess cancer incidence and mortality risks for solid cancers” at an average dose of 6.5 mSv

    * An average dose of 34 mSv shows a significant "increase in solid-cancer-related mortality."

    * “a significant excess risk for acute leukemia was seen in individuals who died at younger than 20 years of age and who received bone-marrow doses from 6 to 30 mGy

    * At 40 to 70 mSv, a statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer risk was found

    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.long


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Sources for info on health effects of low-level radiation:

    * "Nuclear Radiation: There Is No Safe Dose" by Dr. Quijano
    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose

    * "Poisoned Power, The Case Against Nuclear Power Plants Before and After Three Mile Island" by Dr. Gofman discusses the health effects of nuclear effluent released from nuclear power plants
    http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/

    * "The Code Killers" by Ace Hoffman
    http://www.acehoffman.org/

    * "GreenMedInfo.com – Why There Is No "Safe" Level Of Radiation from Fukushima"
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/greenmedinfocom-why-there-no-safe-level-radiation-fukushima

    * "Health effects of low level radiation"
    http://www.llrc.org/health/healthpage.htm

    * Learn what Dr. Wertelecki, Dr. Yablokov, Dr. Wing, Dr. Fairlie, Dr. Mangano, Dr. Abrams found regarding low level radiation health effects:
    http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf

    * "Late and Low-Level Effects of Ionizing Radiation"
    http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=6a01adbd-9f6d-411d-9b18-05e0fc73cd65

    * "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" by Herbert L. Abrams http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/health_risks_from_exposure_to_low_levels_of_ionizing_radiation/


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Dr. Busby–>

    “…Gamma rays, they produce on interaction with matter, with living tissue, they produce fast electrons and it’s these fast electrons which cause the damage. They interact with tissue; they produce ionization and that can damage the DNA which is now known to be the target for these effects. Because if the DNA is damaged then the cell can go out of control ultimately.

    But the effects of these are not just cancer effects. There’s also a whole range of effects on human health, and in fact you could probably argue that nearly every type of human health condition can be affected harmfully by radiation.

    Ionizing radiation, whatever its source, external or internal, it produces these electron tracks and it’s the electron tracks that are the cause of the problem. They react with DNA and they cause fixed mutations, cancer and of course genetic defects which can be passed across the generations.”

    http://vimeo.com/15382750


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.