Radiation and Health Specialist: Children with over 11 Bq/kg of cesium start to see heart problems -Study (AUDIO)

Published: October 5th, 2012 at 12:34 pm ET


Full broadcast here

Title: Cindy Folkers and Kimberly Roberson on Health Effects of Fukushima
Source: WGDR Radio, Personal and Political
Author: Stephanie Fraser
Date: Oct 3, 2012

At ~4:00 in

Cindy Folkers, Radiation and Health Specialist, Beyond Nuclear: There are studies that came out of Belarus that came out after Chernobyl had exploded, there was cesium deposition there, and what they found was that anything above 11 becquerels per kilogram… in a child’s system and you start to see heart problems.

You get a little higher than that, you start to see female hormone imbalance, nerve issues, a whole host of issues that we wouldn’t have necessarily associated with radiation in the past.

Published: October 5th, 2012 at 12:34 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Former Official: Fukushima radiation is killing children… heart problems, leukemia, thyroid — Terrible things are going on — Authorities hiding truth from world — We need to admit many people are dying, but we’re not allowed to say that (VIDEO) April 21, 2014
  2. Expert: Already hearing reports of kids suffering heart attacks — Beware deadly cardiac problems in children caused by Fukushima radiation (VIDEO) September 12, 2011
  3. Study: Children’s respiratory problems at 700% previous levels, Hemorrhaging at 900% in areas contaminated by Chernobyl meltdown November 11, 2011
  4. Lawmaker warns emperor of reality facing Japan: “Children are suffering from health problems” — Another official reveals “the incidence of cancer in children has been increasing” and is heckled (VIDEO) November 2, 2013
  5. Japanese NPO: “We need to start a rotating evacuation for children as soon as possible” — “Radiation just continues to accumulate” (VIDEO) October 1, 2012

45 comments to Radiation and Health Specialist: Children with over 11 Bq/kg of cesium start to see heart problems -Study (AUDIO)

  • patb2009

    The heart disease was the most unexpected element of the Chernobyl disaster

  • hbjon hbjon

    Certain governments threw a lot of books on the bon fires. They were extremely intelligent people that walked around on the earth in the early part of the last century. The researched data was collected and kept safely in journals so future generations could inherit the wisdom that had caused so much pain and suffering. The information fell in the wrong hands. And here we are. All of humanity suffering a slow painful death into extinction. Does anybody really believe this is a new phenomenon? They used to study piles of uranium two centuries ago until everyone died horrific deaths. But curiousity is always what kills the cat.

    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

      "…The researched data was collected and kept safely in journals so future generations could inherit the wisdom that had caused so much pain and suffering…"

      Not research that would be terribly useful today, hbjon. Right up unitll WWII, they were blasting people with huge doses of ionizing radiation to cure all manner of illness – and it seemed to work for many of them. They realized a certain massive level all at once was fatal, but that was about it.

      During WWII, the scientific community started noticing possible long-term effects that wouldn't manifest themselves until decades after exposure. They didn't (or were not permitted to) conduct proper biological research. The studies that would have helped the world understand those effects were not funded, closed down or banned – all in the name of national security (with a helping hand from several academic psychopaths funded by the DOE).

      There have been two scientific camps ever since then. One says no harm from low-dose radiation until scientifically proven, the other one says to scientifically prove no low-dose harm first otherwise widespread use of nukes dangerous and immoral.

      All the nuke people have to do is prevent anyone from ever collecting a sound, scientific baseline of a population *before* exposure. That makes subsequent studies of low-dose effect inconclusive.

      I'm just saying that there's no secret journals to find – the proper research will just never be done.

      • hbjon hbjon

        This is your opinion paveway111 and it must be admitted that it is not without possibility, yet if one looks a bit closer and in more detail to historical development of technology and the illnesses that coincide with it, one is forced to accept as fact that they documented the cause and effect relationships to phenomenon such as this. Every single element was radiated, all isotopes were experimented on with electricity, and all radiation was understood and the illnesses associated with it were revealed to mankind. This was documented in detail. There was no need to find people to experiment on, they had enough subjects with teachers, scientists, blacksmiths, miners and the like to properly associate the materials with disease. They stopped animal testing when there was nothing left to know about the causes of disease. Then they made it illegal for anyone else to find out what causes disease by banning animal experimentation.

        • voltscommissar

          Please don't overlook the German KiKK study which proves a doubling of childhood leukaema for kids under 5yrs within 5km of several German NPPs. The German govt knew about those results before Fukushima, and that is why Fukushima was "the last straw" and the end of civilian nukes in Germany.

          KiKK is an acronym of "Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kerkraftwerke" or childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.

          We are not all going to die from this, it's just adding more bullets to the revolver barrel in a deadly game of Russian Roulette – atomic bullets hitting our DNA, so more of us will die of cancers, etc over time, but individually each victim will never be able to prove it was a man-made bullet or a "background" bullet

          • nedlifromvermont

            very right on stuff here, voltscommissar …

            the truth has a way of being convincing … the last word, so to speak …

            please keep it coming!!!!

            we are way behind post-war. democratic Germany, here in United States Cancer Empire … since we created, essentially, a police state of nuclear imperative, in order to defeat the police state of Adolf Hitler … our fascism of nuclear nitwits continues … led by the bumbling Toothless Toadies at the NRC, an almost comical, Keystone cops variety of agency compared to the WaffenSS … if the results weren't so deadly serious …

            and almost no one notices …

            and very few who notice … ever dare to care …

            LONG LIVE ENENEWS!!!

            peace …

        • PavewayIII PavewayIII

          "…This is your opinion paveway111…"

          My uneducated opinion. I'm more interested in why other people think the way they do.

          "…This was documented in detail…"

          There was a lot of cause and effect relationships documented in detail. It's easy for us to look back 100 years and pick out the 'truth'. But if you or I were studying radiation in 1910 and considered what was published at the time, how could we know what would ultimately prove to be the correct truth? What radiation use (or prohibition of use) would we accept as morally proper?

          I look at the Roentgen Society of London's "Archives of the Roentgen Ray and Related Phenomena" (free eBook) and have a hard time finding evil intent among the publications.


          In hindsight, radiation was overly-enthusiastically applied and resulted in harm, but I see mostly ignorance, not malice.

          WWII took research into the shadows. Psychopaths were able to get projects funded without moral checks and balances. The cold war was exploited to continue that cloak of secrecy. That's a malicious, evil environment.

          There are instances of immorality prior to WWII in individual companies, but nothing like the profound, institutionalized deception started during the war.

          Maybe I'm wrong – I'm certainly not an expert. I'm just not sure where else you're suggesting I look.

      • In 1956 the US BEAR study on radiation and human health & the environment was published.

        There was considerable conflict among the scientists who were on the committee and especially strong disagreement between geneticists on the one hand, and nuclear industry scientists on the other.

        The Atomic Energy Commission wanted biological effects to be studied purely at the phenotypic and molecular level (and in the broadest and must surface examination of effects) and the agency scientists pushed for that goal

        The geneticists knew – had known since work on fruit flies and genetics published in 1928 – that radiation causes genetic damage and they were CONCERNED about nuclear testing.


        There are today plenty of scientists who publish research documenting genetic effects of radiation, including delayed and bystander effects.

        Evolving research will probably examine radiation effects on epigenetic processes and will no doubt reveal that epigenetic changes alone can produce mutated cells.

        Here are some of my posts on these topics, documenting the history


        Here is an account of how industry-funded research today can be systematically biased to "minimize" radiation effects


        • Unfortunately, today's scientists are not outspoken advocates like J. W. Goffman, Arthur R. Tamplin, and Ernest J. Sternglass, among others.

          Nor are most health authorities today so outspoken as Alice Steward.

          We are lucky to have Helen Caldicott.

        • hbjon hbjon

          When one applies epigenetic to the effects and damage internal radiation can have on an animal, the question becomes, can the receptors recognize the radioactive particle, separate it from carbon, calcium and other usefull stuff then excrete it out of the cell and then out of the body? Or, does the cell shut down and not absorb anything? Using epigenetics, I believe that an understanding of internal exposure is possible. Great point majia.

    • Andres Arce Andres Arce

      It's not a scientists' fault, its POLITICAL, with the most stupid politicians of our beloved occident, those 'newbie' Japaneses which are applying the worst things in history: corruption & stupidity.

  • Mack Mack

    How long will it take to add up to 11 Bq/kg when cesium is everywhere?

    In the air, food, water, soil, rain…

    • Andres Arce Andres Arce

      It's pretty claustrophobic for the common people of Japan, with their ocean and (worse) their soil, all sponging the most poisonous particles in human history.

  • Mack Mack

    These are the groups doing the "hard" work.

    They're suing to stop nuclear, going to NRC meetings, writing letters, forming petitions…

    Support them. Donate. If you can't donate, Thank them. If you have time, contribute time —->

    Beyond Nuclear

    Friends of the Earth

    Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

    Coalition Against Nukes

    And Many more:

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Using this stuff must end. We have to outlaw it.

  • jec jec

    Not just HEART, but childrens/infants/fetus brains are adversly affected by low dose radiation. High dose radiation damage is a given, but now Chernobyl victims and their children are showing impacts to IQ levels..and suffering from radiation caused forms of dementia. How is TEPCO going to FIX that damage? Or the Japanese government? They have created a whole new group of innocent victims..far into the future. Once IQ is gone, and DNA impacted, its not coming back. the movie, Planet of the Apes, may look like a true story someday..

  • JustmeAlso

    Chernobyl Heart (full documentary)

    • JustmeAlso

      Has anyone of the lying greedy bastards told the people from Chernobyl nuke power is ''safe''?
      Smile? I am angry!

    • Maggie123

      JustmeAlso: Thanks for "Chernobyl Heart". I watched it very recently. It's one of a collection that need wide viewing.

      BTW, some of the deformities are similar to those of many babies born in Fallujah Iraq – DU weapons the strongest suspect. Many Fallujah babies were born so damaged that they did not survive. Others have lived – last I checked the women there are totally fearful of pregnancy, (don't know, perhaps men also fearful – radioactivity fetal damage is beyond heart-breaking.)

  • voltscommissar

    "Ridiculous, it's RIDICULOUS!!" at 9min47sec in that interview:

    "And so it becomes an issue of do you let engineers and physicists decide for you you what the health effects are or do you look at the actual data, the actual measurements of contamination, and compare that with diseases in individuals. And I come down on the side of "we need the doctors, we need the epidemiologists, we need the health practitioners in on this, and we really need to have the physicists and engineers to back off", because <b>if I want a bridge built that's not going to collapse, I don't go to a medical doctor</b>, so why would I go to a physicist or an engineer to tell me what the health outcome of a situation is gonna be — <b>that's ridiculous, it's ridiculous.</b>

    It is stretching it a little bit to bill Cindy Folkers as a "radiation and health specialist". She is not a health expert with a Masters or PhD in that area. She has a masters degree in Environmental Science, and unfortunately she did not say the exact area of study or reasearch to gain her masters. see http://www.neis.org/Citizen_Epidemiology/CE%20presenter%20bios.pdf

    These illnesses in populations are delayed for decades in adults, so we need to focus on fetuses, miscarriages, birth defects and childhood cancers, heart abnormalities and IQ. All this could be sorted out with independent, unbiased expert epidemiological studes if IAEA was not twisting the arm of WHO. Apply KiKK epidemiology to Japan for all…

  • nedlifromvermont

    how to break the stranglehold on the truth which is wielded on researchers and publishers, by nuclear-mafia-business-infused Japan and United States Cancer Empire governments and businesses??

    the thirty dollar question …

    little bullets of truth fired in thread posts at enenews …

    peace sisters and brothers …

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    It's a great puzzle but you got to like games.

  • Maggie123

    Low dose and chronic low exposure following Chernobyl – major confrontation between WHO and IAEA at 2001 Kiev conference – documented by a Swiss videographer/journalist. YouTube, "Nuclear Truth: Atomic Disaster – full documentary". (50min) link: http://youtu.be/3YmZbb8ZVmE.

    (One of you posted this a week or so ago – I bookmarked it but didn't note who posted it, so don't know whom to credit!)

    Documentary is very revealing to show attitudes and strong opposition, (even animosity), between WHO and IAEA people). Also explains UN structure that gives IAEA dominance in determining what is promoted for research and what is not. Chernobyl victims are interviewed as well as conference exchanges shown.

    • Mack Mack

      Yes, and how they refused to acknowledge/admit/study the dangers of internal radiation!

      • Maggie123

        Mack: I kept thinking: "So this is the sincerity vs skulduggery dynamic that probably goes on in all high-level decision making venues." No wonder the world is in the shape it's in!!

        I found the docu incredibly revealing as a behind the scenes look at corrupted science. IAEA people were smug, self-righteous, and condescending almost from the beginning. As WHO spokespeople revealed studies and research, IAEA people grew defensive and angry. Their earlier claim to be guided only by science still hung in the air, even as they refused to budge. One particularly arrogant IAEA scientist eventually let slip that IF internal radiation findings were accepted – it would mess up his work with the "pamphlet" he was nearly ready to publish! Complete abandonment of "scientific rigor" – no intention ever to be guided by it!

        The WHO people seemed deeply distressed. They had every reason to hope for a genuine scientifically guided response to their data, and ran into a solid wall of dishonesty and vested interests. In this event – in the interest of genuine care, on behalf of all humanity, WHO's science needed to prevail. Fukkushima govt/corp is easier to understand – absolutely distasteful.

  • Mack Mack

    Remember this story just 2 days ago:

    Primates in Fukushima were found with between 10,000 and 25,000 becquerels per kilogram of Cesium-137 in June 2011.

    If the primates had that much, I wonder how much people accumulated?

    Certainly more than 11 Bq/kg.


  • dharmasyd dharmasyd

    Thanks for this fabulous thread. I hope we have time.

  • FOCUS ON FACTS: Radioactive drinking water is India's green revolution story.
    What a priceless collection of truth this section of enenews is:
    Now read my fertiliser application story clip on India from about 1950 to date at:
    And gasp at the more than seven times level of "permitted" uranium in Indian drinking water in the states mentioned and about five times at the all India level. And uranium is a sequential decay chain causing mutation via the Second Event and cancer and there is the train called Cancer Express which runs full from Punjab to Bikaner to carry the cancer stricken to the Cancer Treatment Hospital in Bikaner in the state of Rajasthan.
    And how the facts are being suppressed!

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      TY, RK. This is absolutely horrible. There have been stories here in the US about nuclear waste being added to fertilizer to get rid of it and how it completely destroys farming land. All the incinerated nuclear waste in Japan and elsewhere is also blowing around the whole world.

      • @anne
        October 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm
        Yes, but my explanation of the second event effect is really SPE, secondary photoelectron effect of the high atomic number 92 of U238(See ECRR 2010: 6.11 Secondary Photoelectron Effect:p59ff). The second event after Busby would kill the cell for U238,an alpha emitter.

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      Radioactive & Toxic
      Chemicals Now Farm Fertilizer!
      “SEATTLE (AP) – Toxic heavy metals, chemicals and radioactive wastes are being recycled as fertilizer and spread over farmers' fields nationwide – and there is no federal law requiring that they be listed as ingredients, The Seattle Times reported.

      “The issue came to light in the central Washington town of Quincy, population 4,000, when Mayor Patty Martin led an investigation by local farmers concerned about poor yields and sickly cattle. …”

      • PavewayIII PavewayIII

        Go to your local home and garden store and check out the all-natural biosolids *fertilizer*, anne. Much of it is made from municipal sewage sludge (recycling is GOOD, right?).

        You do have two choices though: Class A Biosolids (less fecal coliform) or Class B Biosolids (more, I guess).

        Farmers use tons and tons of Class B Biosolids because its cheaper. There is no ingredient list for sewage sludge, but farmers know perfectly well where it comes from. They're just not going to tell the grocery store buying their produce.

        Why would they ever use nasty 'biosolids'? It's mostly so they can label their produce, meat or dairy as 'organic' and get a better price for it.


  • @anne, Oct 6, 2012 at 149 pm
    How horrible!
    Now there are scientists putting in effort to leach out uranium from rock phosphate:
    Uranium Solubilization from Rock Phosphate in Carbonate
    Leaching Media
    National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), Faisalabad–577 †Department of Chemistry,
    University of Agriculture, Faisalabad–38040, Pakistan
    The main objective of present studies was to leach uranium from rock phosphate in sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate solutions. The
    rock phosphate sample was sedimentary-type origin and was found to contain an average uranium content of 0.012% U3O8. Uranium was
    solubilized from the rock sample in both carbonate and bicarbonate leaching systems. U solubilization was observed higher in leaching
    system containing Na2CO3 solution (leaching solution) as compared with NaHCO3 solution. Uranium solubilization was apparently
    associated with the concentrations of Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 in the leaching solutions. A rise in temperature of the leaching solution increased
    the rate of uranium solubization from the rock sample.