Published: September 17th, 2012 at 1:44 pm ET
|
“What’s most remarkable is that children, and most especially girls, are the most at risk of radiation-induced cancer. In fact, girls are almost twice as vulnerable as same-aged boys, and a 5-year-old girl is 5 times and an infant female 7 times more vulnerable than a 30-year-old man. So girls bear the brunt force of radiation’s impact on the human race.” -Ian Goddard, Dec 11, 2011
The latest Fukushima thyroid survey results are available here: http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.com/2012/09/fukushima-thyroid-examination-part-2.html
About 700 more boys were examined (21,382 vs. 20,678), yet girls had considerably more medium and large sized cysts.
None/Smallest: No Cyst – Cyst under 3mm
- Boys: 18,001 (10% more boys than girls)
- Girls: 16,344
Small: Cyst 3.1mm – Cyst 5mm
- Girls: 3,624 (21% more girls than boys)
- Boys: 2,985
Medium: Cyst 5.1mm – Cyst 15mm
- Girls: 704 (79% more girls than boys)
- Boys: 394
Largest: Cyst over 15mm
- Girls: 6 (3 times more girls than boys)
- Boys: 2
See also:
- Nuclear Expert: Fukushima risk underestimated -- 5% of young girls will get cancer living in 20 milliSv/y for 5 years -- "Actually worse than that" -- Hot particles NOT included & only counts cancers, not other effects (VIDEO)
- Gundersen: 20 percent of young girls living in some areas around Fukushima Daiichi will get cancer from radiation over their lifetimes (AUDIO)
Published: September 17th, 2012 at 1:44 pm ET
|
sending...
why such a large discrepancy? Is it due to dietary or metabolic differences? Anyone know or possibly conjecture as to why there's such a major difference between girls and boys?
Report Comment
Asia regularly dismisses females on any research tests. They are, and have always been, sexist. That's why.
Report Comment
Yes, so true. And, in fact, women are routinely not included in most product testing or scientific research unless it is specifically targeted to women. As an example, the symptoms AND the treatment for heart attack in men and women are different, yet until the past decade, no heart attack research included women. An oversight? An assumption that men could always be the measure of what was normal and healthy for both sexes? There are some who argue that until societies resolve their dismissal of the female as less than male, they will be unable to value the Earth as a living planet. It is not coincidence that it is called Mother Earth and not Father Earth. Is Western technology based upon stereotypical male attributes or female? Penetrating, extractive, explosive, controlling, intentional, in charge. And, natural resources? Wild, abundant, mindless, soulless, instinctive, waiting to be tamed, to be taken. What would technology based upon female attributes look like?
Report Comment
Hormonal differences and the uptake and storage of radionuclides. Females bear the brunt of nearly all environmental toxins because of this. Which is, of course, one of the darker unacknowledged reasons these practices are allowed to continue. Everyone knows on some level that someone somewhere will be harmed from these technologies. Everyone knows this. But, most tell themselves that just a few will be harmed. They lie to themselves. And, those in positions of power to be the primary controllers of these technologies – corporations and governments which are all nearly predominantly run by males – know on some level that they are less threatened by them, and are inclined not to act. Few would even understand that they operate from these levels of reasoning. It's just human nature – when you are in the group that does better by something, you support it even knowing that the other group (The Others) will suffer to some degree. The blame is put on the people for being more susceptible, not on the technology. Of course, this dynamic occurs in any power imbalance, not just between the sexes. We see this argument being made by the Japanese government against the victims of Fukushima, for example.
Report Comment
thank you vic. Your explanation makes perfect sense to the 'intuitive' side of my brain; why I mentioned metabolic differences.
I'll be meditating on how this imbalance will 'moderate' the outcome of human offspring. It's as though nature had the insight to protect its diverse forms by impeding population growth in species that utilize nuclear power technologies.
Augmented by our focus on Fukushima, we're also discovering the vast amount damage that's been done throughout the planet. If this is not – immediately – brought under control, our species may very-well succumb to a massive die-off. This ongoing (epidemiological) research into how humans (in this case, children) are being affected by radiological toxins, is clear evidence to how this 'moderating' mechanism may work…
Report Comment
If that article were about my child I'd be on the phone right now choosing an adoptive parent and updating my wishes because people at Tepco, the Japanese government, and American government would have to go explain this situation to God, and I'd be the one to personally arrange their trips.
What are they going to do? Kill me?
Report Comment
chris busby and heart attacks in children at 50bq/kg of C137 for one year has 25% of heart cells destroyed, leading to heart attacks – heart tissues do not repair. kids in Belarus should have ecg, and all of them evacuated if it shows arythmias.
I reckon Japan is MUCH worse than this, already. who is checking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Kkuo-IK-A
another one for the media intuned/enslaved.
Loran Moret and Desiree Rover
5 months ago, long, on topic, particularly at the half way mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuu7h3wRuI
Report Comment