Published: October 13th, 2012 at 12:15 pm ET
|
Dr. Bradford Weeks, MD: There’s some government studies, which are always underestimated, that there would be 225,000 cases of cancer from this.
View more from Dr. Weeks here
Published: October 13th, 2012 at 12:15 pm ET
|
sending...
Multiply by 10, and multiply by 50 for general disease.
Report Comment
Yep, at least it is the start of an admission of the damage.
Report Comment
225,000 is a big # compared to what we've been hearing —->
** Wolfgang Weiss, chairman of UNSCEAR —>
When asked "what health consequences he expected from Fukushima, he said: "From what I know now, nothing, because levels are so low."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/us-japan-nuclear-health-idUSTRE7354H920110406
** Gerald Laurence, Radiation Safety Consultant to the University of Adelaide said, "100 or so people may develop cancers in the long term…"
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-18/japans-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-may-cause-1300-deaths-report/981808
** "The number is so low we will never be able to link a single cancer case to Fukushima, says Kathleen Thiessen of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22074-fukushima-increases-risk-of-cancer–but-not-by-much.html
** Iulian Apostoaei at Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab in Tennessee — "This accident added 100 more to this fold."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22074-fukushima-increases-risk-of-cancer–but-not-by-much.html
Report Comment
And re: deaths from Fukushima —->
** Wikipedia = from 100 to 1,000 in the "population living near Fukushima"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
** LA Times headlined with "Radiation from Fukushima probably will kill 130 people"
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fukushima-cancer-deaths-20120717,0,5558890.story
** Stanford study: "…a range of possible death tolls, from 15 to 1,300, with a best estimate of 130. A wide span of cancer morbidities was also predicted, anywhere from 24 to 2,500, with a best estimate of 180."
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/fukushima-health-impacts-071712.html
Report Comment
How about listing all the suicides? And all the terminated pregnancies, or babies who have mutations and whose lives are terminated.
Report Comment
What a terrific rise of the massive underestimation! Keep rising till the underestimate reaches the truth, its afterall a BIPHASIC SUPRALINEAR shock delivered by reality! Like TEPCo what to stand on its head!
Report Comment
Calling it safe is CRIMINAL!!
Report Comment
On Fukushima Beach Movie Parts 1 – 4; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-fukushima-beach-movie-parts-1-4.html
Lessons From The Only Sea Coast Village In Japan To Survive Tsunami; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/lessons-from-only-sea-coast-village-in.html
Report Comment
Here is real cost and production data FOR SOLAR. Actual bids, real energy projections.
Solar at 3 cents per kWH
Get some before the cost goes up
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/10/radiation-continues-spreading-and.html
Report Comment
In 50 to 75 years from now, total between 10 to 50 Milion affected. Near 10 from cancer.
Report Comment
Exactly, as I predicted in the first 2 weeks after the disaster.
Report Comment
40% Fukushima kids with cyst after only 1 year. not too rose.
Report Comment
busby looks at the study of low sperm count in isreal due to uranium based weapons use. explains how fukushima had 2000 tons of uranium and explains chernobyl only had 50 tons.. there is more than cancer to worry about…
Pr Chris Busby on infertility risk around Fukushima, Japan, etc
Uploaded by radioactivebsr on Apr 13, 2011
Pr Chris Busby is asked by BSRRW.org secretary Ditta Rietuma to inform the Austrian radio reporter on the infertility risk in Japan. Additional to at least 400.000 cancers in next 50 years in the 200 km radium fr Fukushima, estimated using the more reliable ECRR-model ( http://www.euradcom.org and http://www.bsrrw.org/?page_id=83 ) instead of the official ICRP model. Estimation is based even on the epidemiology method of Swedish researchers Martin Tondel etc (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732641/pdf/v058p01011.pdf ). Anyway it is clear underestimation as it is made on the unreliable IAEA data reports, that might be many times higher in reality. The risks on fertility and other disease are not estimated in this number.
Busby describes Fukusima catastrophy as a global problem caused by systemic global encouragement on nuclear industry investments and US reactor sales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9lyxgJhc0c
Report Comment
heres a couple of studies that i put together. 1 is a study on chernobyl dementia and another ignoring radiation and trying to blame the dogs behaviour on ….stress
you cant make this stuff up!
repost
A connection between Chernobyl and a recent Japanese study on PTSD in dogs
"The dogs that lived through the disaster had stress hormone levels five to 10 times higher than the dogs that were simply abandoned or found as strays, the researchers reported in the journal Scientific Reports."
[...]
"“There is more and more evidence of a “Chernobyl dementia” phenomena (deterioration of memory and motor skills, occurrence of convulsions, pulsing headaches), caused by the destruction of brain cells in adult people (Sokolovskaya, 1997).”
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/10/13/a-connection-between-chernobyl-and-a-recent-japanese-study-on-ptsd-in-dogs/
blimey! the scientists in japan are completely wasting their time if they dont start taking radiation into account!! thats just dumbarse as my 99 year old irish feisty granny used to say.. she cheated at cards though!
Report Comment
Something not discussed much are the high rates of glaucoma seen after Chernobyl.
Report Comment
Glaucoma increases after almost every radiological event, just like excess mortality, heart disease, mental retardation and birth defects. None of these non-cancer outcomes are much discussed. However, they are well-known in the literature:
Radiation-Induced Neovascular Glaucoma: Dose and Volume Issues
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › … › Korean J Ophthalmol › v.24(6); Dec 2010
by AR Chang – 2010 -
Report Comment
What do people who claim no one has died due to Fukushima contamination think when they see this?
Are their brains programmed to block it all out somehow?
Report Comment
They only read what they already agree with.
Report Comment
They call it "hysteria".
Report Comment
The estimates always zero in on cancer.
There are so many, many more effects.
The Chernobyl Catastrophe-Consequences on Human Health.
Greenpeace 2006.
http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/Chernobyl_Health_Report.pdf
Report Comment
Zero deaths! Radiation is nutritious!
Report Comment