Professor: Clear that low-level contamination is probably more dangerous than single dose — Grasshoppers with deformed wings, gray eyes not red — Birds with abnormal sperm, strange large tumors (VIDEO)

Published: March 17th, 2012 at 10:55 am ET


Title: Fukushima After the Meltdown
Source: PBS
Author: Miles O’Brien
Date: March 15, 2012

Revisiting Chernobyl: A Nuclear Disaster Site of Epic Proportions

The nuclear crisis in Japan has renewed interest in the 1986 nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine. Science correspondent Miles O’Brien traveled to the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, shortly before its 25th anniversary.

MILES O’BRIEN: Milinevsky’s colleague, Tim Mousseau, believes animals are the key to settling the debate over the long-term health effects of Chernobyl. He and his team have spent more than a decade studying birds in the Chernobyl region and beyond.

TIMOTHY MOUSSEAU, University of South Carolina: But it’s clear that this low-level contamination is — is probably more dangerous in the long run than — than having a single hot spot.

MILES O’BRIEN: In contaminated areas, there are half as many species and one-third number of birds you would expect. Their brains are smaller. Forty percent of male barn swallows have abnormal sperm. One in five have strange colored plumage that makes it hard to attract mates.

There are unusual beak deformities and large tumors that scientists have never seen before. What, if anything, can we extrapolate between that bird population, that population of barn swallows, and humans?

TIMOTHY MOUSSEAU: I would argue that, you know, we’re all — we’re all animals, and birds are actually more similar to us than dissimilar to us. […]

MILES O’BRIEN: Mousseau’s colleagues are also looking at Chernobyl’s grasshoppers. They frequently have asymmetrical wings, and fruit flies, which are easily impacted by radiation. Those found around Chernobyl have gray eyes, instead of red, and deformed wings.

Watch Revisiting Chernobyl: A Nuclear Disaster Site of Epic Proportions on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Published: March 17th, 2012 at 10:55 am ET


Related Posts

  1. Fairewinds Video: ‘Anomalies’ in plants and animals documented by Fukushima residents, some severely deformed — Scientists: Genetic mutations observed in Fukushima include trees with peculiar distortions, insect abnormalities, tumors in birds, more (PHOTO) April 13, 2014
  2. US Gov’t Film: We must be very careful using radiation — Flies with white eyes, no wings, extra wings — Albino corn, distorted corn, stunted plants (VIDEO) January 10, 2013
  3. Die-off of birds all over Alaska beaches, floating in Pacific — “They seem to be starving” — Record-breaking spike in rescues, “such a dramatic increase” — Deformed and abnormal animals reported (PHOTOS & AUDIO) August 8, 2015
  4. New Scientist: Sperm damage in birds near Chernobyl — UK professor claims not from meltdown because it wasn’t enough to explain amount of harm observed April 12, 2012
  5. Expert: “There’s just very few of the birds left” in the high contamination from Fukushima plant, “things are not looking good” — Spider webs looked ‘strange’ (PHOTO) — Animals response to radiation over twice as bad as in Chernobyl — “Implies effects are stronger in Fukushima” (VIDEO) May 7, 2014

30 comments to Professor: Clear that low-level contamination is probably more dangerous than single dose — Grasshoppers with deformed wings, gray eyes not red — Birds with abnormal sperm, strange large tumors (VIDEO)

  • Evidence for the havoc low dose radiation causes is overwhelming. I have a dream Public Bull Sh*t 'journalists' do their own research gathering. Until then,152.0.html

    • Mack Mack

      I stumbled upon something troubling.

      In reading the on-line book "Cover-Up," it mentions that the average radiation exposure LIMIT was .17/rem a year which is 170/mrem a year.

      But TODAY:

      "…the average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 millirem (6.2 millisieverts)."

      So we've gone from 170/mrem to 620/mrem. That's obviously over 3.5 times HIGHER.

      The reason why this is very important is because the radiation being 3.5 times more means that CANCERS will occur at 3.5 times more a year for every year.

      So say for example that cancers were occurring at 100,000 a year. They'll now be occurring at 350,000 a year EVERY year.

      If you're not reading this book, you should be:


      • Mack Mack

        We also need to be concerned about how much low-level radiation humans are getting exposed to.

        Something else strange…

        On the EPA's site there's a pie chart of the radiation exposure we're getting.

        On the pie chart there's a slice for something called "Internal Background" radiation.

        Does anyone know what "Internal Background" radiation is?

        The pie chart shows that 5% of our radiation exposure is from internal background.

        • hbjon hbjon

          It seems logical that it would be the average number of disintegrating (decaying) atoms within your body in a certain duration of time. But since people argue with my logic all the time, I am sure this will be up for another lengthy debate. There must be a way of analizing ones urine or blood to get a rough estimate. However, I'm sure a doctor will chime in telling us he wants to biopsy our hearts or brains.

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      Thanks Chemfood…I found your reality check link to U Pitt studies on radiation helpful for a battle I'm currently fighting. Our management is remodelling our apartments and insisting on installing granite countertops. Chap 5 of the U Pitt study showing the excess of radon exposure over background is very helpful.

      Two of us are trying to make a legit case for refusing radon, and opposing the tenant who is on the committee, worked with (and loves) Edward Teller and completely respects all things nuclear.

  • jec jec
    Still births, birth defects, illness, tumors. How can anyone say radiation is safe? Now for medical xrays (CTs and such) concern over cancer increase in patients.

    • Whoopie Whoopie

      Wow! “I feel that at least several hundred scientists trained in the biomedical aspect of atomic energy – myself included – are candidates for Nuremberg-type trials for crimes against humanity for our gross negligence and irresponsibility. Now that we know the hazard of low-dose radiation, the crime is not experimentation – it’s murder.” Dr. John Gofman, former head of the biomedical division of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and one of those who helped develop the atomic bomb.

      • Nice quote Whoopie.

        "They know not what they do."
        — long-haired radical from Galilee

        • StillJill StillJill

          Nice quote Pu239! :-)– ""They know not what they do."
          – long-haired radical from Galilee"

          Just for a little more context,…"Forgive THEM Father, (those who were killing Him),…for they know not what they do." -long-haired radical from Galilee.


          As Heart said earlier,….'We' are at the place where FAITH needs to come in,….for sanity's sake. Especially when it comes to the other point Heart makes,…"How many ways can our hearts break?"

          • Whoopie Whoopie

            Faith in what? Our leaders, our futures? what a joke!
            Just sayin…nothing you dont know already.

            • Whoopie Whoopie

              RT @Enformable The industry tail may be wagging the regulatory dog.

              • Whoopie Whoopie

                As if the industry hasn’t been wagging NRC’s tucked tail ever since the NRC was created. It’s almost like this ‘regulatory’ agency was created for the sole purpose of painting rainbows and unicorns over the many ways the industry manages to mess up – and cover up – on a regular basis. But I do have to say this latest scam is a particularly clever way to ensure that utilities don’t have to ever DO the things they might be required to do (at some point in the misty future) about their most obvious vulnerabilities. When and if the NRC ever does come up with real regulations, the industry will insist that it’s already taken care of all those silly concerns, and ignore them. And the NRC, as usual, will shrug.

      • dharmasyd dharmasyd

        John Gofman is (was, he died about 5 years ago) great. He truly understood the hazards of radiation, especially the attempt to make "acceptable" low level radiation. People have mentioned his work on this forum previously. He's worth checking out.

        In addition to his big tome, read the short chapter on him in "Nuclear Witnesses. You can read that chapter here:

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          OOPs John Gofman link does not work. I'll keep trying and post later to general discussion, Or google him &/or title.

  • arclight arclight

    Health uncertainties torment residents in Fukushima

    The government spokesman keeps saying there are no IMMEDIATE health effects," the 48-year-old nursery school worker says. "He's not talking about 10 years or 20 years later. He must think the people of Fukushima are fools.

    "It's not really OK to live here," she says. "But we live here."

    and this

    "What's clear is Fukushima will serve as a test case that the world is watching for long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.

    More than 280,000 people live in Fukushima city alone, though some have left, and many more live in surrounding towns, including many of the 100,000 who have been evacuated from the no-go zone.

    "People are scared to death," says Wolfgang Weiss, chairman of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which is studying Fukushima. "They are thinking, 'Tell me. Is it good or bad?' We can't tell them. Life is risky."

    It hasn't helped that the government has given only the most optimistic scenarios of the risks to avoid mass panic.

    Public skepticism of government assurances grew when the man appointed as health adviser for Fukushima Prefecture, Shunichi Yamashita, repeatedly said exposure to 100 millisieverts of radiation a year was safe.

    Studies have found that cancer risks rise at an annual exposure of 100 millsieverts or above but aren't statistically detectable at lower levels. Below 100, experts can't say for sure whether it's safe, just that a link to cancer can't be proven."

    and this link to information on research funding scams concerning oncology buisnessthey think its a virus causing leukemia?? read down the comments from the busby video link for the dirt..

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    New Fukushima caesium-137 Threat
    Kurt Nimmo
    March 16, 2012

  • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

    I will post this to let new people know that the research Already exists proving that Low Dose Radiation causes cancer.

    Studies cited in order presented:

    National Academy of Sciences Low-Dose Radiation Report
    Data tables used, 12D-1 and 12D-2:
    How to scale that data to unique exposure scenarios, Annex 12D, Example 1:

    15-country study of nuclear-worker cancer risk
    Table 5 shown is from Part II of the study

    Jacob et al. (2009) meta-analysis of nuclear-worker studies
    Editorial on Jacob et al. quoted

    Chromosomal translocations are associated with cancer

    Boffetta et al. (2007) more chromoHarm entails more cancer

    Bhatti et al. (2010) meta-analysis of chromosomal damage

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      Thanks Maiden H…I've added this to my files as I'm battling our apartment management about requiring remodelling and installing Granite (radon) counter tops.

      But at the rate I'm going, My pc will probably run out of memeory before I get around to reading all my notes.

      But a big, big thanks.

    • ruth

      Thank you! Extremely useful information.

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Heart of Rose,

    So true!
    "I don't think the average Japanese citizen has any idea how bad this is…and when they find don't think that there will much thought about the rest of the world…because..yes ..they are too close to the danger."

    Sadly Japan has been living inside a police state for many years and yes I am afraid this Island nation is now in very serious trouble. I predict the entire Island will be dead and empty within 25 years.

    Anyone that remains will become very sick and so will their offspring. This is a shame but this will be the consequence of using Nuclear Power for their main power source and energy supply.

    Other Nuclear power plants "will" blow up in other parts of the world and increased Nuclear Radiation Contamination "dead zones" will spread worldwide as will the increased biological deformities along with increased cancer rates and other related disease rates for all life being affected.

    This was understood by our scientists from the very beginning of this Nuclear age. They wrote about it and put this information down inside their books for all of us to read and it is now true.

    The problem was that nobody taught the truth during the last 60 years concerning Nuclear Technology and we now live inside a "Nuclear Nightmare Lie" driven by money and greed as James has recently stated.

    This Nuclear Technology has not been progress for mankind and this energy direction has been a huge mistake identified many years ago by our brightest scientists. One of those was Einstein who realized that the Nuclear genie and atom could not be controlled by man.

    He was right and we all out here that have been living this compounding Nuclear Technology Lie on Planet Earth for the past 60 years were all wrong.

    It is what it is and Japan's future is now over and I feel so sad for such a proud people and all the others downwind that will live a life of misery from such a horrific Nuclear Radiation Contamination event…

  • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

    Nearly the entirety of this MSM "news" piece was spent spreading disinformation. What crap!

  • Myme

    In the PBS web video the admin linked above, David Brenner, Columbia University, says Fukushima is equivalent to TMI!#?

    Excuse me, I'm not a physicist, but one house had a stove top fire that was stopped and did not burn down the house. Another house had a fire that kept growing hotter in the oven that melted the oven, blew up the kitchen and the exterior walls and roof of the house, ejecting and atomized the molten core.

    Against this much clear public facts, to present to the public that the second house fire caused only as limited damage as the first house fire is a public fraud and academic dishonesty. For the PBS anchor not being able to catch this illogic is a proof of her limitation and she should disqualify herself as an anchor.

    Video here