Published: September 1st, 2012 at 12:33 am ET
|
Here are a few to get things started… leaving comments on the sites publishing this information probably couldn’t hurt.
Title: No big Fukushima health impact seen: U.N. body chairman
Source: Reuters
Date: Feb 1, 2012
The fact that some radioactive releases spread over the ocean instead of populated areas also contributed to limiting the consequences, said Wolfgang Weiss of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
“As far as the doses we have seen from the screening of the population … they are very low,” Weiss told Reuters. This was partly “due to the rapid evacuation and this worked very well.” [...]
Title: Nuclear accidents pose little risk to health: NRC
Source: Reuters
Date: Jan 31, 2012
The risk to public health from a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United States is “very small” because reactor operators should have time to prevent core damage and reduce the release of radioactive materials, U.S. nuclear regulators said in a study on Wednesday. [...]
Title: Health impact of Fukushima small
Source: Examiner.com
Author: Patrick Mason
Date: Feb 1, 2012
Patrick Mason, reactor engineer in Baton Rouge, LA
[...] The long term goal of TEPCO and the Japanese government at this stage in the game is to ensure that the public is safe and that the areas around Fukushima are cleaned of contamination and made safe for future public use. [...]
Published: September 1st, 2012 at 12:33 am ET
|
sending...
Nuclear plants more capable of dealing accidents than thought in past | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Report Comment
They are constantly spinning the facts. Take the comment about the Pacific ocean absorbing all of the radiation, a rational person would ask why this is a good thing. If this were true and all of the radiation went into the Pacific ocean and continues to go into the ocean then all of the worlds oceans will die. An intelligent person would ask how those miles high radiation discharges did not get into the upper atmosphere? The people who spin these lies have a very low opinion of people. Maybe with some reason as most people prefer to believe the lies.
Report Comment
Oh-ho…how about this: “Nuclear reactors operating in the United States are safe. They pose no threat to the people who live near them, even in the event of a severe accident.
Though many pro nuclear advocates believe that the above statements are true, we are generally reluctant to use those simple, declarative statements. Instead, we often obscure the truth with eye rolling complexity. We hedge our bets by talking about probabilistic risk models, worst case scenarios, and fault tree logic.”
Or this (!!):
“Nuclear reactors that have been built in the United States, operated by well-trained, licensed operators inculcated in a safety culture, and overseen by the watchful, always questioning Nuclear Regulatory Commission are safe neighbors. That statement is true even if an accident happens that is not mitigated by any protective actions other than the robust materials chosen during the initial design. If there is any effective operator action, the probability of damage is non-existent. Even in the event of a severe accident, areas near the plant will be suitable for human habitation.
Their liability insurance coverage is more than adequate.”
***OMFG this guy! These people!**** I am calming down before I attack. Hoooo.
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/02/nrc-releases-draft-of-reactor-accident-consequences-study-for-public-comment.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtomicInsights+%28Atomic+Insights%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Report Comment
http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/ NRC’s newest: “State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Report”
(SOARCA)
Under “Content Search”, enter: ML120250406 in “Search”
From the nice man who authored the above article…
save it while you can.
Report Comment
“The release of the SOARCA project report should calm a lot of fears, especially since the models can be validated by correlation to the accidental “theory to practice” events at Fukushima. The low probability accident of an extended total loss of electrical power has happened; there are reasonably detailed timelines available. Knowledge of reality can provide a sense of calm and reassurance to replace the fear of the unknown. It is like turning on the light for a child after they have had a scary dream so you can show them that there really is not a monster in their closet.”
“Have an Atomic Day!”
*hiss*
the comments on these articles are astounding.
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/08/spreading-calm-certainty-and-reassurance-about-nuclear-energy-counteracting-focused-fud.html
Report Comment
New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as fuel | Environment | The Guardian
Report Comment
Another genius idea……FML
Report Comment
Dan Linssen column: We must get started on nuclear energy plan | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com
Report Comment
The sustainability deception.
From the above article:
“To wean off fossil fuels and make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to add about 25 new plants per year for 40 years. But only about four new plants are being built annually. Why the resistance?”
Dan’s pro-nuclear, anti-blame! How convenient!
http://foremostpress.com/readers/linssen_d/blame.html -his book about this “addiction” of ours
“Then, for those who want to reduce the catastrophic impact of blame, Linssen maps out a pathway to more effective methods for dealing with bad events. He even provides a rescue plan for you when you’re the one caught in blame’s crosshairs.
We all live along society’s “fault line.” So, if you want to survive the blame earthquake, you’d better read this book”
He also runs a company that sells sustainable food containers:
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Wisconsin/Green-Bay/tosca-limited/30044434.aspx
“Sustainability” and nuclear power go together like … sheep’s clothing and wolves.
Report Comment
This book associates blame with an interesting selection of words: “catastrophe”, “rescue plan”, “fault line”, “cross hairs”. What an emergency for people to be identified as guilty parties!
He has subverted terminology typically used in association with nuclear, geographic, and other emergencies, and attached them to the new societal epidemic of accountability.
Report Comment
Nuclear expert overseas Fukushima clean-up – Lennox Herald:
Dr McKinley added: “Luckily, the releases from Fukushima were greatly limited [...]
He continued: “We know where the contamination is and that it is generally well immobilised onto surfaces such as roofs, roads and fields. All that is needed is to either wash it off or scrape away contaminated material and the job is done.
Report Comment
“Dr”? Surely it must be a typo…
Report Comment
“TOKYO —
A self-governing body in Tokyo which was tasked with carrying out a test incineration of radioactive debris from Onagawa, Miyagi Prefecture, announced Wednesday that radiation emitted by the incineration falls below the government’s legal limit.”
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/tokyo-to-begin-incinerating-tsunami-debris-after-test-burn-ash-deemed-below-legal-limit
Report Comment
We cannot wish Britain’s nuclear waste away | George Monbiot | Environment | The Guardian
Report Comment
http://enenews.com/journal-70000-reports-suspected-health-damage-every-year-germany-among-nuclear-workers-exposed-20-millisv#comment-198347
theres a whole load of evidence of british university compliance with the nuclear industry to minimise the studies already done in nelarus by the japanese.. a report by yamashita is cited around the world by the likes of geraldine thomas and the statistion richard wakeford..
its also popular in the usa as evidence of low mortality and no low dose damage..
thanks to mika noru who worked in belarus and provided the clinching evidence for me to the manipulation of this data ..
now.. george monibiot knows where to put the radioactive waste.. the same place he does the talking (his arse)
Report Comment
My apologies for going nutso in this great idea for a new thread. I didn’t mean to hijack it with batshittiness. Having a rough time the last few days missing my daughter terribly, not sleeping well if at all, cabin-fever…the usual excuses, I know.
This week has left me sheer- sorry you saw that.
Just so you know: I did not go today to pick fights in the very nest of trolls that is Atomic Insights; this would have only worked in their favor
Report Comment
Radiology benchmarks for food “too harsh” liberal Ministry Council
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0202/TKY201202020675.html
Report Comment
http://news.yahoo.com/chernobyl-experts-hopeful-fukushima-154948774.html
Chernobyl expert claims residents will be able to move back to Fukushima.
Report Comment
ER’s to be flooded due to health reform, they say.
“Hospitals brace for ED overload, enhance primary care”
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/hospitals-brace-ed-overload-enhance-primary-care/2012-01-12?utm_campaign=twitter-Share-NL
Maybe it’s true and maybe it will also be a convenient excuse when mass mystery sickness (radiation sickness) shows up in the ER’s.
“But not everyone is convinced health reform will lead to overcrowded EDs. That may be because the reform law focuses on boosting primary care services to direct non-emergent patients to less costly channels, according to The Gainesville Sun.”
Report Comment
An initial spike in ER visits that will taper off as the population decreases and sterility increases?
So government increases number of people covered, but a lot of them will soon be gone, so it will all even out in the wash.
Report Comment
(meant to be sarcastic btw – it’s a grim picture)
Report Comment
Will have to go back and pick up the links to all the info. on ICRP and how “effects of low level radiation” standards got established …. Reviewing credentials of founders of ICRP, AEC (now the NRC), IAEA, etc. is instructive on how we got into this mess. Reviewing how health physics was established as a discipline, and why they reject the Linear No-Threshold Model of radiation exposure is also instructive. Many have posted at EneNews on this subect. IMHO it would be good to gather all of that info. and post it here.
I’ll work on it as time allows. Suggestions?
Report Comment
Good idea. Our collective comments on the Fukushima wildlife chromosome thread seem to have the key elements of the story. Just when I thought we had it figured out, someone came out with more background info!
I would think it’d make for a long post, though, unless we stack them directly down (instead of the indented monsters I’ve made a few times, unless people don’t mind those).
I might want to add specific stuff to it, but I’m aiming to take a break for a few days from all this. Aiming being the key word.
Report Comment
HAZMAT in USA on Tuesday, 07 February, 2012 at 15:43 (03:43 PM) UTC.
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=HZ-20120207-34087-USA
“Fish taken from a lake in northern Vermont had similar levels of strontium-90 and cesium-137 as fish taken from the Connecticut River near Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.”
“The results are that cesium-137 and strontium-90 in Lake Carmi fish is in the same range as Connecticut River fish,” said Irwin. “We take this as some evidence that all fish in Vermont are likely to have radioactive cesium and strontium at these levels and that, as we’ve hypothesized, it is from nuclear weapons fallout and the releases of Chernobyl. All of us are glad to have proof and not just conjecture.”
“Cesium was found in both edible and inedible portions of the bass, he said, while strontium was found only in inedible portions, which include bones, the head, fins and scales. “There’s no danger in eating the fish,” said Irwin. “Should we ever find that there are reasons to restrict diet from any sampling for any kind of radioactive or toxicological events, we would keep in mind different cultures have different diets.”
…Nothing to do with any releases from Vermont Yankee, or Fukushima, or anything…just don’t eat the fins. Jeez.
Report Comment
From the same article:
“The sampling is part of an ongoing multi-state operation to help determine what is the level of the two radioactive isotopes in fish in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York. “We hope to further populate this data with fish taken from waters unaffected by nuclear power plants,” said Irwin. The states are also working with the a Food and Drug Administration laboratory in Winchester, Mass., to develop sampling and analysis protocols.”
Hmmm. FDA protocols…how reassuring this is.
Report Comment
2 more mass radiation sickness cover-ups, no doubt!
Case #1:
http://tinyurl.com/8x89ysm
“OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state health officials said Tuesday they are investigating reports of intestinal illness affecting at least 19 squads that participated in a weekend state cheerleading tournament in Everett.
Reported symptoms include vomiting and diarrhea, state Health Department spokesman Donn Moyer said. [...]
Intestinal illnesses can be caused by several viruses and bacteria that may come from a variety of sources, the Health Department said. Anyone with severe symptoms should see a health care provider, Moyer said.
[...]There have been reports of students suffering symptoms at Puget Sound-area high schools including Marysville, Ballard, Juanita, Mount Si and Skyline, KOMO reported.
Students from Pierce and Kitsap counties may also have become ill, Snohomish Health District spokeswoman Suzanne Pate told The Daily Herald of Everett.”
And so begins an intensified American obsession with germs! Watch how much precious money is wasted hunting viruses and bacteria, rather than considering the obvious first possibility: radiation. Cause and effect don’t reign here.
Whenever groups of people, especially young people, as we’re seeing, get a mystery illness at the same time, it will look suspicious. So a story has to be made up so the masses don’t suspect that mass radiation sickness is indeed happening. GI distress is especially typical of radiation poisoning.
Case #2 & 3:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/travel/illness-cuts-cruise-short/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10
“(CNN) — Passengers on the Crown Princess are coming home early from a Caribbean cruise, thanks to a second nasty outbreak of gastrointestinal illness. [...]
A second Princess cruise ship, the Ruby Princess, also experienced a recent outbreak of gastrointestinal illness. More than 100 cases of illness were reported during a sailing that returned to port over the weekend.”
Report Comment
[contd.]
They are trying to blame norovirus for the cruise ship illness.
So in addition to the other sudden mass illness stories popping up from both U.S. coasts, we have the cheerleaders + surrounding areas, and the cruise ship X 2.
Report Comment
OMG “it’s eyebrow raising [that 150 miles from Vermont Yankee fish and lakes have strontium90, cesium137 etc], but not because it makes these fish unedible” “fish were healthy to eat 2 days ago before anybody heard about this, it’s STILL THE SAME”
“What we thought, that that plant has not yet leaked any kind of radioactive materials of this nature into the environment where it could harm public health is currently true.” Because it’s past tense and it’s “still the same”? or because you haven’t released the data yet?
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/02/08/dnt-wptz-radioactive-fish.wptz
Report Comment
Japan’s nuclear radiation spreading, but no cause for alarm – HERALD-TRIBUNE
http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012/02/21/japans-nuclear-radiation-spreading-but-no-cause-for-alarm/
SALT LAKE CITY — Radioactive contamination from the Fukushima power plant disaster has been detected as far as almost 400 miles off Japan in the Pacific Ocean, with water showing readings of up to 1,000 times more than prior levels, scientists reported Tuesday.
But those results for the substance cesium-137 are far below the levels that are generally considered harmful, either to marine animals or people who eat seafood, said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
Report Comment
fukushima and mental health written by pro nuke scientist who advocates a future of miniature reactors that work hand in hand with green tech.. boing boing is one of the top ten most visited blogs online
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/01/fukushima-and-mental-health.html
Report Comment
ATTN ADMIN
PLEASE change the order of posts on this board of misleading articles
Most recent links should be shown at the top of the page instead of the bottom.
thank you!
Report Comment
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/sizing-up-health-impacts-a-year-after-fukushima/
I wrote this reply to this article in the NY Times that belittled the radiation problem in Japan. When I was done I realised it wound be a good standard reply to so many nuclear propaganda pieces I have read. So I give my permission to anyone who wants to reuse it as a reply to those kinds of articles.
External exposure levels is NOT the real problem in Japan. Internal contamination is the problem. Breathing radioactive particles into the lungs or ingesting contaminated food is the problem. Radioactive particles are on the ground, in the lakes, the rivers, the plants, the animals and the people. Radioactive particles are being spread throughout Japan by every activity, from the burning of contaminated matter, to the tree pollen blowing in the wind, to the people tracking it around on the soles of their shoes. Half the people in Japan are internally contaminated. Any article you read that does not address internal contamination is nothing but nuclear industry propaganda.
Report Comment
Here's another piece of propaganda.
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/03/02/fukushima-health-impact-minimal/
Report Comment
To: ENEWS
And where do you put the poisons, also how do they clean the ocean where most radiation fell on. There is far more open land and forests then roofs and paved roads. The radiated partials all ready taken in to the public's bodies are their pounding on cells for the rest of each one's life time.
Report Comment
Here's another piece of propaganda.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japans-post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes-beyond-radiation#add-comment
Report Comment
Here's another piece of propaganda.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/03/02/nuked-how-bad-was-fukushima/
Report Comment
Nuclear Overreaction; Just how dangerous are low doses of radiation?
Conclusion: Low doses of atomic-bomb radiation increased the lifespan of atom-bomb survivors.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-overreaction_633121.html
Report Comment
Any article you read that does not address internal contamination is nothing but nuclear industry propaganda.
+100
Report Comment
Here's another piece of propaganda.
"The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths."
http://www.nature.com/news/japan-s-post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes-go-beyond-radiation-effects-1.10179
Report Comment
Propaganda Alert !! "The lesson that the world needs to take away from Fukushima is that it is okay to build hundreds or thousands of new nuclear power stations and to place them quite close to the backyards of millions of people."
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/03/least-informed-piece-on-fukushima-yet.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtomicInsights+%28Atomic+Insights%29
Report Comment
That one is really heavy-handed. The author is a self-described nuclear advocate, and has spent his whole adult life in nuke-world, originally on the military side of it.
http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Rod-Adams-resume-web-1-8-12.pdf
Report Comment
Exactly…he is a pro nuke propaganda machine.
He lives and dreams the stuff.
Nuclear powered..tooth brushes..etc.
I guess he didn't get to handle enough DU weapons..to fry his brain.
Too bad….
Report Comment
http://global.the-liberty.com/2012/1691.html
This is pure blatant lie on the eve of the anniversary. There was no meltdown…. Sheesh!
Report Comment
Propaganda Alert !!
"Fukushima's Refugees Are Victims Of Irrational Fear, Not Radiation"
"If Germans or Japanese are that worried about radiation then a more sensible course of action would be to stop eating potato chips, beets, brazil nuts and bananas, all of which are relatively high but ultimately harmless sources of radiation."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/03/10/fukushimas-refugees-are-victims-of-irrational-fear-not-radiation/
Report Comment
WATCH THIS !!! WORST PROPAGANDA I HAVE EVER SEEN !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeWOGLCi9w
Report Comment
It's all UN nuclear industry supporting propaganda. And where did the narrator learn to speak English? His pronunciation is atrocious, typical of someone who thinks he is smarter than he really is.
The anniversary has the shills out in force.
Report Comment
Articles from the "Health" Physics Society News Cafe :
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Health-Physics-Society-News-Cafe/157387224301493?sk=app_2373072738
Propaganda from an enviro-dupe:
"The Making of a Radiation Panic: Overreaction to Fukushima Will Prove Costly"
"One year after Fukushima, independent scientists working for the UN say bluntly that irrational fears of radiation poisoning will cause far more harm than the radiation itself. Not a single individual from the Japanese public received a dangerous dose, according to the early and informal analyses by the scientists. (Conspiracy theories cannot survive against the constant independent radiation measurements uploaded on Twitter.) Even the 70 altruistic plant workers who stayed behind gained an additional cancer risk of just 0.002% — effectively zero in a country where four out of ten people get cancer…."
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2012/03/the_making_of_a_radiation_pani.shtml
Report Comment
"Health Physics" propaganda:
"..there exists a humanitarian crisis that is only getting worse due to a combination of unjustified fear of ionizing radiation and pressure to exploit this fear to advance a political or social agenda. The result has been a enormous unnecessary human suffering….
… hundreds of thousands of Japanese remain in limbo due to unnecessary evacuations and continued restrictions on habitation or even visitation to the area around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant…. survivors want nothing more than to recover what property they can and begin to rebuild their lives. Yet this has not been allowed to happen. Despite the fact that the radiation exposure in the exclusion zone is well within any reasonable safety limits, many have been bared from even visiting their homes. In the time after the disaster, domestic animals needlessly starved, property that could have been recovered was lost and serious chemical and biological hazards were allowed to fester. This continues to happen even as the reactors have been stabilized and the most worrisome isotopes have long decayed away.
In addition to this tragedy, the Japanese government continues to spend enormous amounts of money in the cleanup of areas where radiation “hot spots” would result in only the most minimal of exposure and in a policy of idling most of the country’s nuclear power plants, resulting in huge economic losses. What the people of Japan sorely need is to have the damaged regions of their nation rebuilt.
…Resources should not be wasted in the removal of small “hot spots” which are no more radioactive than clusters of uranium-bearing rock. All areas should be made accessible to visitation and most to resettlement. Repairs to local infrastructure and economic assets must take precedent over concerns of radioactivity that have little or no basis in science…
http://depletedcranium.com/an-open-letter-to-the-radiation-safety-professional-of-the-world/
Report Comment
More of the same:
"Fukushima's Refugees Are Victims Of Irrational Fear, Not Radiation"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/03/10/fukushimas-refugees-are-victims-of-irrational-fear-not-radiation/
Report Comment
Deepest thanks to Heart of the Rose for pointing me to Greg Palast's noble efforts exposing no authentic Seismic Qualification (SQ)at Fuku et al, going back to 3/14/11: http://www.gregpalast.com
The article I posted exactly one year later was a duplicate of his earlier work but did not say so :
http://pacificfreepress.com/news/1/11193-the-fukushima-story-you-missed-because-it-wasnt-told.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PacificFreePress+%28Pacific+Free+Press%29
I was so depressed about the widespread psy-ops disinfo (blades and kevin and aftershock had just given us new bombshells) that your correcting my doubts about Palast was a lifesaver.
I wonder why BBC, which is so suspect, keeps him on their staff, though. Even the good Judge got fired from Fox for being a truthteller.
Merci buckets again, Heart!!!!
Report Comment
Groan….
http://www.energyinfocenter.org/
Report Comment
According to this editorial by "Don Higson"
"It's time to revise the way nuclear incidents are rated. Failure to do so plays into the hands of anti-nuclear propagandists."
**and**
"As far as anyone knows, no member of the public received a significant dose of radiation attributable to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor emergency and no physical health effects of radiation should be expected."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328566.500-dont-compare-fukushima-to-chernobyl.html
Report Comment
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203160016
Asahi editor spills a ton of garbage as the truth.
Report Comment
http://youtu.be/K-MC9VBSWa8 this is interesting
Report Comment
Yes, very interesting…to think that something this small can emit so mcuh troubling news. Shows how serious a little bit of radiation can be.
No More Nukes, More Nukes No, Nukes No More!
Report Comment
Propaganda Alert !!
http://www.wdump.com/video/vidivodo/amator/japan-radiation-safety/1252188
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Report Comment
WTH ~ A capsule for removing radioactive contamination from milk, fruit juices, other beverages
EurekAlert
SAN DIEGO, March 27, 2012 — Amid concerns about possible terrorist attacks with nuclear materials, and fresh memories of environmental contamination from the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, scientists today described development of a …
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/acs-acf030712.php
Report Comment
Outright lies (and they must know it) in a Wall Street Journal pro nuke article dated with today's date
Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power by William Tucker
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577261341008387240.html?_nocache=1333675819389&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Darticle
The Taiwanese research (funded by the Nuke industry) which forms this articles core thesis that "Radiation is good for you" was shown to be outright industry fraud many years ago. A simple Wikipedia search and search of the Taipei Times reveals that. An independent study conducted over 5 years showed residents suffered genetic damage that will be passed down through the generations, higher cancer rates, and worse, higher rates of all manner of diseases. Low level radiation weakens every part of the body through genetic decay. The original industry study is held in derision. Laughable.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/04/29/0000083627
Wikipedia article mentioning the fraud – search for Taiwan on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents
There are so many lies in the above article that its hard to know where to start. But the core lie, the big lie that the article rotates around is that fraudulent science claiming radiation is good for you. The study that is quoted again and again is the bogus Taiwanese one.
Report Comment
ADMIN!
This one is easy to pick off – worth putting an article up on I would think. The independent Taiwanese scientist who exposed the industry fraud was threatened to try to stop him conducting his research. (and the fraudulent study is sited all over the place as proof low level radiation is good for you – even by Anne Coulter on TV)
A simple wikipedia search would have shown the WSJ that their editorial "expert" is either ignorant or (much more likely in my view) happy to quote long exposed fraudulent industry funded studies if they support the Nuke industry.
Report Comment
Sorry, the article is actually an older article, so you have probably already covered it. But this was in the comments section of the WSJ article from a commenter who appears to be a Taiwanese scientist. (gives name, credentials, quotes literature, is outraged, and speaks in Taiwanese style English)
Peter Chang Wrote:
Comment on the Article and another Non-scientific article cited.
Dear WILLIAM,
Your article on the Journal was a wrong joke to many serious scientists in Taiwan who had worked to evaluate the health effects of more than 7,000 civilians who had resided and studied in the radiocontaminated buildings since early 1980s till mid 1990s in northern Taiwan.
Let me share two serious researches, while you had quoted an article from a low-credit non-professional journal, which had been criticized by many scientific communities in the world.
On the more important Journal "Radiation Research" in 2008,
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR0732.1?journalCode=rare
Abstract, Radiation effects on cancer risks in a cohort of Taiwanese residents who received protracted low-dose-rate ?-radiation exposures from 60Co-contaminated reinforcing steel used to build their apartments were studied, and risks were compared to those in other radiation-exposed cohorts. Analyses were based on a more extended follow-up of the cohort population in which 117 cancer cases diagnosed between 1983 and 2005 among 6,242 people with an average excess cumulative exposure…
Report Comment
cumulative exposure estimate of about 48 mGy. Cases were identified from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry. Radiation effects on cancer risk were estimated using proportional hazards models and were summarized in terms of the hazard ratio associated with a 100-mGy increase in dose (HR100mGy). A significant radiation risk was observed for leukemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (HR100mGy 1.19, 90% CI 1.01-1.31). Breast cancer exhibited a marginally significant dose response (HR100mGy 1.12, 90% CI 0.99-1.21). The results further strengthen the association between protracted low-dose radiation and cancer risks, especially for breast cancers and leukemia, in this unique cohort population. In 2006, we also published an earlier report, in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553000601085980 Purpose: To assess cancer risks in a population that received prolonged low dose-rate ?-irradiation for about 10 years as a result of occupying buildings containing 60Co-contaminated steel in Taiwan. Materials and methods: The cancer risks were compared with those populations with the same temporal and geographic characteristics in Taiwan by standardized incidence ratios (SIR), adjusted for age and gender. The association of cancer risks with excess cumulative exposure was further evaluated for their relative risks by the Poisson multiple regression analysis. Result: A total of 7271 people were registered as the exposed popu
Report Comment
exposed population, with 101,560 person-years at risk. The average excess cumulative exposure was approximately 47.8 mSv (range < 1 – 2,363 mSv). A total of 141 exposed subjects with various cancers were observed, while 95 developed leukemia or solid cancers after more than 2 or 10 years initial residence in contaminated buildings respectively. The SIR were significantly higher for all leukemia except chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n = 6, SIR = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 – 7.4) in men, and marginally significant for thyroid cancers (n = 6, SIR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.0 – 5.7) in women. On the other hand, all cancers combined, all solid cancers combined were shown to exhibit significant exposure-dependent increased risks in individuals with the initial exposure before the age of 30, but not beyond this age. Conclusions: The results suggest that prolonged low dose-rate radiation exposure appeared to increase risks of developing certain cancers in specific subgroups of this population in Taiwan. I encourage all read these serious scientific works carefully and make necessary clarification. Prof. Dr. Peter WS CHANG, MD, MPH, ScD,, FRCP Taipei Medical University & Hospitals, TAIWAN
Report Comment
Its an outrage that the WSJ has not retracted their article. What a pack of crooks. Their lies will cost many more lives.
Report Comment
UCB 'experts' and their early comments. Just for the record.
U.S. Safe From Japan Radiation, Berkeley Lab Expert Says | March 22, 2011
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/03/22/mckone-q-a/
Radiation fears unfounded, campus expert says:
UC Berkeley New Center, Media Relations | March 17, 2011
http://bnrc.berkeley.edu/latest/radiation-fears-unfounded-campus-expert-says
Report Comment
Your Honor. I would like to submit the following statements as proof that many lives could had been saved had these 'experts' spoken the truth.
Report Comment
Apologies for Double Post but I really hope to reach readers who can give me their opinion.
I am very concerned about a possible "plant" at Environmental Health Perspectives, one of the leading environmental health journals.
The study purports to demonstrate that gamma radiation at 400X background has no health effects on mice. The study generalizes the findings to humans, but suffers from problems of ecological validity.
If you have a background in research, I would be grateful if you would take a look at my analysis and let me know whether you think the study is a plant.
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/plant-in-environmental-health.html
If my analysis is correct, then we are seeing a concerted propaganda campaign that will bend science to trivialize effects.
I know that science has been manipulated for decades but this would be a particularly gross example and its placement in EHP I find very worrying…
Report Comment
We’re outraged. And we expect you were, too. On April 23, 2012, the Washington Post editorial board writers callously dismissed the Fukushima nuclear disaster as “non-catastrophic.”
Go to Beyond Nuclear for full statement and actions they encourage people to take.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/4/30/were-you-outraged.html
The Post advocated the continued use of nuclear energy and dismissed Germany's green revolution as an "anti-nuclear frenzy," while omitting inconvenient deal-breakers such as cost, waste, safety, health risks and human rights. The paper taunted Germany and Japan – and the anti-nuclear movement – for looking to renewables but misrepresented Germany’s successes. And they utterly ignored those who have already paid the price for the nuclear fuel chain, like indigenous uranium miners, and its newest victims, the children of Japan whose future has been stolen. You can review the original editorial here: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/WP_Editorial_April23_2012.pdf
Report Comment
Articles that contain false or misleading information.
Found it.
CBS video link there for historical purposes.
How Close Is Japan To A Nuclear Meltdown ?
- CBS News Mar 14th 2011
Featuring – Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMXzHSVVVuM
Here's one thing she got right.
"It didn't work as well as they had hoped." – Squassoni
Report Comment
PROPAGANDA ALERT !! "The Mainichi"
"Fukushima hospital finds 99 percent of young children below minimum cesium level"
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120516p2a00m0na006000c.html
Report Comment
FDA Radiation Safety: FISH TESTING
Summer 2011 (note date)
from web page:
“FDA does not anticipate any public health effect on seafood safety.” (Maybe they should have?)
“At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States. At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S.” (Maybe they should fire their model maker?)
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm#sofar
Nothing has really changed in a year. They lied then, they knew, and they are still not going to tell the truth.
Report Comment