New Goddard’s Journal: Landmark study presents “strongest evidence to date that cancer risk not only exists at low doses of radiation, but may be even greater per unit of dose than at higher doses” (VIDEO, 16 min.)
55 comments to New Goddard’s Journal: Landmark study presents “strongest evidence to date that cancer risk not only exists at low doses of radiation, but may be even greater per unit of dose than at higher doses” (VIDEO, 16 min.)
So… We could move to Fuku to avoid the low doses they are giving us here?
Low dose and high dose are not nearly as important as the types of isotopes and their actions in the body. Even if low dose is claimed to be more harmful than high dose who the hell would believe it? Low dose alpha emitters can be 1000 more likely to cause cancer in you than an equal gamma emitter. It's all just bunking around the bush. The truth is that all three arguably 4 types of radiation can cause lethal damage to the body through accumulation over time and in short periods of high dose exposure levels. It's all bad and dust ball xenon molecules are just the firecrackers to start the multi-isotope death cloud. God I hate the rain.
Glad you did, AiGeezer! And glad Admin posted it here as well.
I just read through it quickly and noted one of the health issues they saw early on after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were epidemics of pneumonia and influenza. I know Japan experienced some of that this past year, and unfortunately, the PNW and West Coast (where my family and friends are) seemed to have a spike in these this past Winter/Spring:virulent upper respiratory illnesses lasting over a month, and cases of pneumonia in several family members who had never had it previously. Also, Washington State has been experiencing a whooping cough (pertussis) epidemic for several months now.
Also interesting to note that, in addition to cancers which take longer to manifest (slower growing), one of the biggest health issues was circulatory diseases…we've been seeing lots of heart attacks and strokes in relatively younger folks post-Fuku. Just an anecdotal observation, but it would be good to compare with U.S. CDC data post-3/11.
great post admin.. another fine piece of research by ian goddard!
heres the dirt on uk nuclear universities that are trying to support the under 100 mSv/year hypotheses.. and the info on their funding spree in fukushima in september
the video headlines have also been censored along with many things recently but the comments are intact with some investigations and links to recent busby talks about the scientific establishment concerning nuclear coverup and criminal malfeasance…. heady stuff
"Beta radiation can cause both acute and chronic health effects. Acute exposures are uncommon. Contact with a strong beta source from an abandoned industrial instrument is the type of circumstance in which acute exposure could occur. Chronic effects are much more common". EPA
Hey guys. My two cents: Great piece from Goddard. Thanks admin and others.
No dose is a good dose when it comes to man-made radioactive materials in our environment. I think the information presented here may give some good clues to those who really want to do something about the Fukushima mess. It seems like we have a few choices: We can either spread all the material around as evenly as possible…or we can sweep it all together into piles.
The problem with spreading it is that it subjects everything to chronic, low dose radiation…as well as continuing to collect into hotspots via rain, wind, or consumption. If we spread it around, we will have to constantly keep re-spreading.
If we sweep it into piles, we can then either bury the piles or shoot them into space. Space would be preferable, but our ability to accomplish would be on par with the pyramids or greater. Burying it as deep as possible is easier to manage, but it's still on the planet, and thusly subjected to re-dispersal one way or the other.
I say we all start sweeping, but we need organisation. I don't believe any politician that debates employment issues…unemployment should always be 0%. Anyone not currently working is an environmentalist and steward of our earth.
Hmmm…I think you may have come up with one possible solution for creating jobs, kind of like a WPA public works project: cleaning up radiation fallout. However, those doing the cleaning would need good protective clothing.
But if our gvts won't admit where the hot spots are, how could they implement such a project without coming clean? (sorry for the bad pun.)
Mitochondrial DNA gets damaged with radiation exposure. There were victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that were thought to be malingering. They had no energy. Our mitochondria are like the cell's engines and potassium is key to energy production inside the mitochondria. (Cesium's effect?) These victims weren't malingering, they just had too many mitochondria damaged to function well.
Here's a study of mitochondrial DNA in a population that lived in a "naturally" high radioactive area in India.
"Radioactivity is known to induce tumors, chromosome lesions, and minisatellite length mutations, but its effects on the DNA sequence have not previously been studied. A coastal peninsula in Kerala (India) contains the world's highest level of natural radioactivity in a densely populated area, offering an opportunity to characterize radiation-associated DNA mutations. We sampled 248 pedigrees (988 individuals) … We sequenced their mtDNA, and found that the pedigrees living in the high-radiation area have significantly (P < 0.01) increased germ-line point mutations between mothers and their offspring. In each mutation case, we confirmed maternity by autosomal profiling. Strikingly, the radioactive conditions accelerate mutations at nucleotide positions that have been evolutionary hot spots for at least 60,000 years." from: Natural radioactivity and human mitochondrial DNA mutations
Lucy Forster*†‡, Peter Forster†§, et al http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13950…
"Our mitochondria are like the cell's engines and potassium is key to energy production inside the mitochondria. (Cesium's effect?) These victims weren't malingering, they just had too many mitochondria damaged to function well."
Thanks, ML! I just learned something new (er…or relearned it, after having forgotten about it, since my college Biology 101 class was so long ago..)
I read that plants absorb cesium as it mimics potassium. Some plants grow bigger than normal as a result…But in people, too much cesium displacing the potassium would cause this disruption of the energy cycle inside the mitochondria, yes? Thereby causing people to feel tired…
Gee, my energy has been zapped for much of this past year. Can't tell if its the stress of knowing much-too-much now about what's happening at Fuku and all things nuclear, or if my cells have indeed been zapped a bit too much since breathing in 40,000 times background of Xenon-135 and goodness knows what else last Spring here in the Pacific Northwest…(Not to mention whatever radionuclides we may have been/are still eating or drinking…) Sigh…
A quotation from this article:
"A new study from MIT scientists suggests that the guidelines governments use to determine when to evacuate people following a nuclear accident may be too conservative…."
Wow, what a statement! How can they say that with a straight face?
Guess we all now know just what were those "lessons learned" from Fukushima by our gvts.: They figured out the fact that it just is so darned expensive to have to relocate everyone they really should in a nuclear emergency. (And we have at least 104 potential emergencies here in the U.S.)
So naturally, these gvt. spokespersons/scientists just had to come up with newly fudged science to help keep those costs down, in case of another nuclear meltdown, or two…or four, here at home.
I saw the research article in Environmental Health Perspectives and was very unhappy. The lead author is not an MIT scientist. He was a grad student (or post grad) when he did the research there. He is no longer at MIT and cannot be located (I called MIT and asked).
The grant was funded by a DoE grant.
Science Daily is propagandizing.
In the study, the researchers looked at the DNA of mice exposed to gamma for 6 weeks. The mice were killed immediately after the 6 week period.
The mice were not exposed to fallout (alpha and beta particles) and were not monitored for delayed effects (typical of radiation's bystander effects).
Thus, the research study conclusions should not be extrapolated to other kinds of exposure beyond the immediate effects of gamma on mice exposed for 6 weeks.
The original study's extrapolations and Science Daily's inferences are in error and constitute a validity error called "ecological validity."
So it is certainly WELL ESTABLISHED that radiation exposure, low dose or otherwise, does cause damage to the DNA. The gvt. and scientists knew it going back to the beginning of the Atomic Age, thanks to pioneering research by Dr. John Gofman at Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore:
Did you know that if you have two cell phones close together and an egg in between and one cell phone calls the other one, you can fry the egg?
Did you know that a geiger counter can measure the radiation off a cell phone? The highest readings are when you initiate the call and it is searching for a tower and when an incoming call is searching for your phone and when the battery is low. Also, it is worse when you are in a car.
The microwaves are especially bad because it is a pulsed microwave, going from positive to negative and back again at least 1,600 times a second, and your brains is responding to that. Some of your brain cells are so responsive to the signal that the radiation is higher inside your brain than outside. Thyroid cancer, especially among women has risen dramatically because you are holding your cell or wireless phone right by your thyroid. And Alzheimer's is dramatically increasing because of cell phones.
Ionizing radiation, whether from nuclear power plants or cell phones or cell phone towers causes damage to cells in the body and DNA. As such, links to studies proving this are pertinent in this thread.
BTW: Since thethe subject was brought up, regarding the "chemtrail myth," I refer you to the countless amount of documentation and information found online on this topic, which proves they are not a myth, but a fact.
As an example, the EPA HERO online searchable database includes research by one scientist who studied the effects of the build up in the environment and resulting exposure in deer to barium, aluminum and silver oxides which are sprayed by the planes. His study showed that these substances were building up in the deer antlers.
Now back on topic…
P.S. You don't happen to own stock in Verizon do you?
;-D LOL (Just kidding)
……."For example, if a non-ionizing type of radiation does not heat a bulk substance up to ionization temperature, even an intense flood of particles or particle-waves will not cause ionization. In such cases, each particle or particle-wave does not carry enough individual energy to be ionizing (an example is a high-powered radio or microwave beam, which will not ionize if it does not cause high temperatures). Conversely, even very low-intensity radiation will ionize materials at low temperatures and powers, if the individual particles of radiation carry enough energy (e.g., a low-power X-ray beam). In general, particles or photons with energies above about 10 electron volts (eV) are considered ionizing, no matter what their intensity. This particle-energy occurs in electromagnetic waves in the extreme ultraviolet and beyond, to include all of X-rays and gamma rays."
New York Times food writer Paul Adams, who specializes in testing unconventional cooking methods (he's your man if you want to learn how to poach a salmon in the dishwasher), tried Ivermee's tongue-in-cheek recipe in March 2006. "I stood an egg in an egg cup between two short stacks of books," he wrote. "With my new Treo 650 I called my old Samsung cellphone, answering it when it rang. I laid the two phones on the books so their antennas pointed at the egg."
It didn't work. After 90 minutes the egg was still cold. "Clearly, people are eager to have their technophobias confirmed," Adams observed, "but a cellphone's power output is half a watt at most, less than a thousandth of what a typical microwave oven emits."
At about the same time, reportedly, the hosts of the U.K. TV show "Brainiac: Science Abuse" attempted a more dramatic version of the experiment, arraying 100 cell phones around a single egg and dialing them up all at once. The result? At the end of the "cooking" process, the egg wasn't even warm.
I have been visiting this science site for years, they have great stories on all types of science. But they only report the studies,not conduct them. Apparently I need to look at each story with some amount of skepticism. http://www.sciencedaily.com/
I am not sure it was purposely worded to propagandize the story, Media often goes for what they think will be more interesting, rather than the facts. Recently a local news station had a story about a scuffle at a protest, without a single word about what the protest was about or who had an objection to it. Just that a fight broke out, with pics of nosebleeds.
I used to read the ICRP studies and other papers and believe the conclusions they reached, mostly the assumption that damage from dose was linear. Smaller doses brought some risk, but that risk decreased as dose decreased.
I am unsure that I disagree with that assumption today, but I certainly question the validity of any assumptions from the data from the Japanese bomb studies. Even this report admits there are many unknowns and unmeasured variables. Among my questions today: How did they measure dose received when people standing a few feet apart could have greatly different initial doses (shielding)? How can you measure dose when internal radiation was unmeasured? How can you measure dose when there was no downwind modeling?
If they can not even measure dose received then all these studies are not very scientific. And of course there really is no control group either. There just is not enough information here to come to solid conclusions.
Although I really do not like to breach this subject (personal fear)there is a group of people who would be a much more solid study group. Nuclear workers. When we work in plants there is always a dose record from external exposure with film badges and dosimeters. Each time we start work or complete work at a plant we go through a whole body counter. Nuclear workers and their records go back to the Manhattan Project (although sketchy back then). But if someone really wants to know effects this is the group to study.
I agree, ChrisK9. Nuclear workers would be the ones to study. But such studies have previously typically been conducted by government or industry-funded scientists who may have been swayed to reveal findings that were not too damning of the nuclear industry…(Ask JoyB here, who was also formerly a health physicist who worked on the aftermath of Three Mile Island. She'll tell you that in her testing of nuclear workers at the plant post-partial meltdown, she was not able to reveal levels of beta radiation exposure which the workers had received, I believe. (She could tell you more, or you can Google it…)
The new studies you are proposing, which I agree should be done, need to be done by neutral scientists.
During the initial recovery operation at TMI2 the TLDs were beta-gamma sensitive, but the permanent computerized recording system was programmed to eliminate beta so only gamma was recorded. Because a majority of the doses were in fact beta (early on the intense beta from the noble gases – tens of millions of curies – was so thick it masked the iodine. Which was of course assumed to be present, and after the first week was measurable via on-site air samples and vent stack monitoring. Iodine in turn masks cesium, which isn't readily measurable until a couple of I131 half-lives go by. Strontium wasn't measured at all because it decays exclusively by beta. Alpha-emitters were identified daily in GeLi scans of swipes and vent stack particulate filters (there is no particulate filtration of releases from nukes, but they are measured at the monitoring station via filters – TMI released lots), but were at no time included in any release data. Nor were the HPs able to factor alpha exposures into their protection criteria for various jobs because the NRC removed all the alpha detectors from the facility when the HPs asked about it. If you can't measure alpha, it's not there! How [non]clever.
ICRP is a blatant shill-group of nuclear die-hard defenders, known to spout all sorts of utter garbage on demand, any time. On-the-job HPs know better and usually consider actual conditions when designing protocols for work units. Easily enough done if you simply guard against breathing.
Wow, thanks for the detailed information, JoyB. I continue to learn a lot from your posts.
If only more people knew this about the attempts to cover up the truth about TMI. It is obviously standard operating procedure in the industry and their bedfellows in the regulatory commissions…
I didn't know about the phenomena of each isotope or gas masking the detection of the other until the levels lowered. That really adds a dimension of mystery to the question of what exactly were people, both in Japan, and the West Coast and Pacific Northwest exposed to in the early days and weeks of the Fuku plumes.
So what could this mean? As the Pacific Northwest Labs detected 40,000 times background of Xenon-133 here in the PNW, were there other isotopes we were exposed to at the same time, but which they could not measure accurately due to the high levels of noble gases masking them (like I-131, as you mentioned?)
Or is that only the effect in the immediate area where the plume is first ejected?
For example, were the levels of I-131 found by the EPA and USGS actually higher in the days prior to their testing, when the Xenon-133 was being measured by the Pacific Northwest Labs? Or were they being measured at the same time? (Or was their some kind of "delay" in the rest of the isotopes getting to the U.S. coast, and only the noble gases arrived first?)
This is a question I've had for quite awhile, but never found any answers to, so if you have any insight into this, Joy, I'd appreciate it, especially because my child and friends were OUTSIDE in those plumes and rain during that time.
Xenon can mask iodine, yes. Xenon-133 (what was detected on the west coast) has a half-life of 5 days, as compared to iodine-131 with a half-life of 8 days, so by the time the plume hit the xenon would have been reduced by half, iodine should have been detectable. Was detected all across the country in fact.
It's best to just go ahead and count on iodine whenever there's a release, especially if you hear the word "xenon" attached to the standard disclaimer ("No Danger to the General Public"). If you hear about possible fuel issues count on cesium and strontium too. If it melts down, melts through, explodes and/or burns, there's big trouble in plume – lay low or bug out.
There's not much that people here could do to avoid exposure. Our erstwhile guardians of the public health & safety didn't bother to warn us or advise us on the necessity for precautions, and most people automatically trust the 'officials' when they sadly shouldn't.
Just more carcinogens in our environment chock full of carcinogens. 98% of cancer is strictly an environmental disease, and ~half of us can expect to get it sometime in our lives (the other half gets to die of something else first – take your pick). Best things we can do are to cut our cancer risks elsewhere (lifestyle, diet), keep up our antioxidants, and enjoy life as much as possible. It's always too short, even if you live to be 105.
The TMI2 coverup was just another good old Cold War extension of the vast labyrinth of secrecy thoroughly infusing the entirety of All Things Nuclear – a foregone conclusion that no one would be told truths, no state or local officials' efforts to protect the people would be tolerated (without subversion, which was accomplished when Met-Ed/NRC refused to inform the state that the Hershey Convention Center evac site was smack dab in the middle of a plume touchdown zone), an official bullshit cover story was crafted to go into the history books, and no one physically harmed would be compensated.
The Big Lie was maintained in full glory right up until the morning of March 12, 2011, when Daiichi unit 1 blew up spectacularly on international TV, and plume maps were immediately generated in diverse places on the web so people would know what's coming. Until that moment the imposed truisms were than nuke plants cannot explode, no hydrogen is generated by melting reactors, and radioactive contamination doesn't travel in plumes (unless it's from a bomb).
Now we know that nuclear plants are, each and every one of them, the Mother Of All Dirty Bombs. I guess that's progress…
Very good and professionally made piece by Goddard again.
The part at 14:00 on is oversimplified in terms of its explanation of statistical analysis though. But he is right that a p-value of .10 should be considered nonsignificant. I have read many thousands of these kinds of studies, and a p-value this large is only used when the sample size is small, say 30 to 50 subjects.
The part at 10:30 with the quadratic shaped graph at Gy<2 agrees with Busby and the ECRR and not the LNT hypothesis. The ECRR states that radiation risk is worse than linear at low doses. Almost all the recent research in this area that I have which is NOT funded by the DOE or other nuke-sociopath organizations agrees with this.
My take on the very high spike at low doses is that it reflects sickies like me and StillJill, who are much more sensitive to radionuclides than other people. Multiple chemical sensitivity is exponentially increasing due to radioactive and toxic contamination of the human genome. In 2012, that spike would be MUCH higher than in 1945.
I think the new research on point mutations is eventually going to reveal that these are increasing in frequency across the human genome and that our biological vulnerability as a species is going to increase with them…
Your identity will not be made public unless you request it
Receive Occasional Enenews Newsletters
ENENews receives no funding from anyone or anything, except 1) People who donate via the button below, and 2) Google, who pays for the two ad spots. Thanks to all who have donated or are planning on doing so, it's nice to know people appreciate your work.