Report: Fukushima Safety Levels NOT Safe (VIDEO)

Published: December 12th, 2011 at 2:38 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
56 comments


Title: Fukushima Safety Level NOT SAFE!

Uploaded by: Goddards Journal

Upload Date: Dec 11, 2011

Studies cited here.

More informative videos from Goddard’s Journal:

Published: December 12th, 2011 at 2:38 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
56 comments

Related Posts

  1. Watch: Children Play at Nuclear Theme Park in Japan — Characters sing that it’s very safe, efficient and good for you — Photographer kicked out (VIDEO) October 1, 2012
  2. “IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety June 2, 2011
  3. Japan parliament releases Fukushima report: Disaster was “clearly manmade” — Evidence quake damaged safety equipment, not tsunami July 5, 2012
  4. Radiation levels rise for 5th month straight in Fukushima city (PHOTO) December 14, 2012
  5. Radiation 1,000 times safe levels far outside no-go zone — “Very, very dangerous levels” (VIDEO) June 13, 2011

56 comments to Report: Fukushima Safety Levels NOT Safe (VIDEO)

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    InfriggingCREDIBLE REPORT! TY ENENEWS! TY YOU Goddards!!
    Posting all over the PLACE!!


    Report comment

  • lam335 lam335

    This is a really informative, interesting video. Thanks.


    Report comment

  • zaner8 zaner8

    Seesime street “count Sezium” one, one nukler reactor : two, two…
    as reporter taps on japaneese map. Was my take back in March. Who will play the Redux apocaplipse now IAEA/UN Leutinent Captain.
    To save us all?

    The F106 Delta Dart Jet had one shot, I felt proud at the time.

    Forcast 8.1 Feb 13 2012. Strange: A soda bottle of Kripton 85 with a pico currie of gas would have evacuated 1/2 of Fremont Calif
    I played computer chip leak tester. Lobsang Tuesday Rampa


    Report comment

  • NukeisShit

    Mister Al-khalili…I suggest that you should enjoy a tasty plutonium lollipop. It kills bacteria and for sure you would greatly benefit from it…


    Report comment

  • James Tekton James Tekton

    Well alright now!

    Thank God…Mighty Mouse has finally showed up.

    Now we are all saved!

    Yaaayyyyyyyyyy!

    snark-a-sourus off\

    :~)


    Report comment

  • pure water

    Facts, logic, and very good presentation! Must be seen in Japan!
    I will come back to watch it again after awhile. In fact 240 people for a day is not bad for this topic.


    Report comment

  • dpl dpl

    Al-khalili what an amazing display of artful exaggeration and bullshittery give the man an oscar or peace prize or presidential freedom medal. Fuku folks will feel safer now with less fear and stress after watching this. You just need to buy some boots for the kids.
    thank you BBC, property of the royal cunt of england, for reminding us how stupid we truly are in holding out for hope to end this madness you call the future.


    Report comment

  • Oppenheimers bitch

    Don’t normally post, and try to see the + side so prob considered a shill. But tonight very annoyed re ‘Japan’s amazing lunchboxes’:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16069217

    Dear BBC,

    Japanese children in the wake of the ongoing Fukushima radiation poisoning scandal have been snubbed for taking packed lunches to school with them. Is this your subtle way of making this fashionable, rather than addressing the issue of the fact there are four open-air nuclear reactors spewing death across the country?

    How long do you think these little ones will remain free of thyroid cancer and leukaemia, their as-yet unborn siblings remain free of Chernobyl-like deformities (which are a family shame, and to be disposed of in their culture – look, no radiation effects!), bone cancer and so on? Not to mention what
    happens to older children and adults.

    Shame on you for not reporting the real story – that evacuation levels at Chernobyl were lower than what is being experienced at some levels even in Tokyo. Whatever the UK government gag is on ‘nuclear incidents’ this is just wrong, and you are not fulfilling your duty to the public.

    Yours very sincerely,
    (not an X-Factor viewer)

    As a follow-up to my previous message…

    http://enenews.com/report-fukushima-safety-levels-safe-video

    Who is paying your reporter?

    I challenge him to go live in Fukushima precfecture with his family and in 5 years time declare how safe it still is. Really.

    Yours, even more sincerely,

    ***All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing***

    Note, UK press (cooperative) reporting restraints on

    Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
    Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapons and Equipment
    Ciphers and Secure Communications
    Sensitive Installations and Home Addresses
    United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Special Services

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14572768

    That’s all folks. I hear ‘copters above…


    Report comment

  • James2

    So the first video seems to say that cancer risk is increased at 20 millisieverts per year. Which isn’t really saying much because we know it rises with any exposure.

    However it never says how much of an increase happens at 20 millisieverts. The only data I saw on the video was at 100 millisieverts, which we know causes a significant rise in cancer rates. I suspect the rise at 20 millisieverts is relatively small.

    It would be interesting to see the rate of cancer rise at 20 millisieverts compared to the rise when someone smokes.


    Report comment

    • Oppenheimers bitch

      Not that I am proud of it, but I have smoked at least 20 a day with ‘jolly’ :-) frequent liquor intake for 20+ years and am still here to tell the tell. Many family members did more for 60 years+. Convenient to blame it all on vices, but not always the root of the problem.


      Report comment

      • James2

        I’m not blaming it on vices, but I’d like to get a comparison of the level of danger.

        We know that smoking causes a rise in cancer rates – whether you got it or not is irrelevant.

        We know that radiation exposure causes a rise in cancer rates.

        I’m just curious at what level they are approximately equal.


        Report comment

        • Here is your answer for risks for adults: For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years

          Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction. By Mark J. Eisenberg MD MPH, Jonathan Afilalo MD MSc, Patrick R. Lawler MD, Michal Abrahamowicz PhD, Hugues Richard MSc, Louise Pilote MD MPH PhD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050947/pdf/1830430.pdf

          [Excerpted] The cumulative exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures was 5.3 milli Sieverts (mSv) per patient year, of which 84% occurred during the first year after acute myocardial infarction. A total of 12 020 incident cancers were diagnosed during the follow-up period. There was a dose dependent relation between exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures and subsequent risk of cancer. For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years (hazard ratio 1.003 per milliSievert, 95% confidence interval 1.002–1.004).


          Report comment

          • • Dietrich Averbeck, a, Towards a New Paradigm for Evaluating the Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis Volume 687, Issues 1-2, 1 May 2010 pages 7-12

            Old model assumed only cells directly subject to radiation were damaged

            New model emphasizes how low-dose radiation can cause indirect damage to cells through the bystander effect and through genomic instability.

            The effects of low-dose ionizing radiation are variable and can reduce DNA repair mechanisms, operate lethally on cells or some instances activate them depending upon type of radiation, chemical environment, etc.

            “In recent years, several lines of evidence have been accumulating that low-dose effects of ionizing radiation involve formerly unexpected cellular phenomena such as non-targeted and delayed radiation effects. These effects clearly contradict the classical paradigm of radiation biology saying that all radiation effects on cells, tissues and organisms are due to the direct action of radiation on DNA…. As another low-dose non-linear radiation response can be added the phenomenon of low-dose radiation hypersensitivity (LDRH) [68] and [69] that has been observed in many cell types.

            It manifests itself by high lethality”


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Thanks majia. I moved your comment to:
            FORUM: Effects of low level radiation


            Report comment

      • StPaulScout StPaulScout

        So what. The empirical evidence only states that smokers statistically are at higher risks for developing certain types of cancers and other health related problems. I heard of someone that fell thousands of feet from a plane and lived. Are you trying to say no one should wear a parachute while sky-diving?


        Report comment

    • dpl dpl

      evidently he didn’t talk slow enough for some people
      I agree blowing smoke is a good way to hide the risk


      Report comment

      • James2

        Sorry if I fail to succumb to propaganda – either pro or con.

        I need facts.

        If the guy spends 20 minutes on a video and has no data to back his position up, then it’s worthless.

        He said “cancer rates rise at 20 Millisieverts” – OK, how much? They also rise at 20 microsieverts – just not very much at all. We know they don’t rise much at 1 millisievert. But we know they start rising rapidly at 100 millisieverts.

        I don’t like it when the nuke industry obfuscates with meaningless babble. I also don’t like it when somebody takes a study which shows one thing and says it means something else.


        Report comment

        • dpl dpl

          take some nodoze and give it another try the 20 mS chart is in there
          the facts are from NAS data ,


          Report comment

        • Bobby1

          It was a very well-made video.

          Your post, however, is propaganda.


          Report comment

        • James2 you really need to try a little harder…


          Report comment

        • James, If you take 2 mSv per year and divide by 365 and then divide by 24 and multiply by 1 thousand, you get .22 µSv. Thats double my present background radiation level of .11 µSv in Vancouver, Canada. 2 mSv per year raises Cancer rates by a statistically significant number. Japan has made it 20mSv per year legal limit even for children. Thats 2.2 µSv/hr = 20 times Vancouver background radiation. For children.

          Basically legalizing TEPCO pollution. Talk about yer pot laws, indeed.

          God Bless Everybody especially Japanese children.


          Report comment

          • James2

            Ok, you say it raises it by a statistically significant number – what’s the number?

            Any amount of radiation – no matter how much – raises it by a statistically significant number.

            .0001 is a statistically significant number – but it’s not as high a number as 20.

            I want to know what that statistic is. Will 1 more person in Japan get cancer if you raise the limit from 1 millisievert to 20, or will 1 million more people get cancer?


            Report comment

            • Yeah well now you have hit the 64 million dollar question. What is the statistic? Do you think maybe the US government did covert studies during the 50′s when nuclear bombs were being “tested”? The Russians? French? Chinese? Indian? Pakistan? Etc?

              Japanese Government is essentially saying 20 times background is cool, because Japan is a tiny country with many people and this is a expedient thing to do. Does that mean 20 times cancer rates? What do you think James 2 ?


              Report comment

          • James2

            BTW – I’ve never said Fukushima was OK, and I’m not saying that here. You are misinterpreting if you think I am.

            I just want to have an idea of what the real danger is. Is 20 ms/year greater than smoking cigarettes? or less?

            I know 100ms/year is bad – and you don’t want to get that much. I know 1 Sv/year is really really bad, and I know that 10 Sv/year and you are dead.

            I also know that 1ms/year is undesireable, but anybody that gets a CAT scan gets more than that.


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              And cat scans kill, and so do x-rays, and so do cell phones and cell phone towers. Reduce your exposure as much as possible. A full body scan at the airport concentrates the x-rays on the skin – bad news.


              Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              You can be sure that even though the news is terrible, we still aren’t getting the full truth and never will. This is what the politics about the NRC is about. The nuclear industry is covering the truth. Unfortunately, the truth won’t pass them by and they can drop dead snow as many are in Japan, the US, and around the world.


              Report comment

            • 2mSv per year is double background. Are you comfortable with that James2? Is that what you are saying?


              Report comment

              • I don’t know James, 20mSv per year is twenty times background radiation. Is it worse then smoking cigarettes? What if you smoke cigarettes and also are exposed to 20mSv per year what then? Remember smoking cigarettes will not cause immediate death.


                Report comment

                • James2

                  If 1 millisievert per year is background, then I would say that having a limit of 1 millisievert per year is pretty stupid.

                  Is 20ms/year worse than cigarettes? That’s what I’m asking, because quite a few people (not me) are willing to accept that level of risk.

                  I’m not saying Fukushima is good, or we should accept it. Anybody who has been here very long knows I hate what has happened there.

                  However it has happened. We cannot cry wolf. If 20 ms/year is a level which will cause very little effect and we say it’s devastating – then that’s just as bad as the folks who say there is nothing to worry about, when there is.

                  The accident has happened. We need to get real data and real information in order to make intelligent decisions.


                  Report comment

                  • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

                    Dear James: I need to read more primary source and excellent secondary source literature on this topic and am currently no expert; but the 1 mSv is really, if anything and unfortunately, a new or baseline of pre-311 after all the nuclear testing and FUBARS of the previous decades. I think background radiation for non-smokers and non-fliers was a lot lower before the 1950s or 1960′s. This acceptable level of risk crap when it comes to radiation is entirely BS. Biologically complex vertebrates are not supposed to get exposed to ANY extra radiation and that which we are exposed to from the sun, some water sources, basements or whatever, is very ageing at the very least. Ah, I just remembered one area that might have documentation from a vareity of perspective and that’s the Houston alpha (radon, I think) contaminated groundwater controversy. It’s unfortunate (not you at all, speaking in general) that our society is too amnesiac to, so far anyway, grasp the risks of the most toxic substances out there (nuclear radionuclide fallout bioaccumulating internally) because it can’t be seen in a short time frame, we can’t smell it in the present, and we can’t tast it (usually). Early symptoms of increasingly catching colds, reductions in immune system, headaches, psyche problems, could, the Nuke PR people, are right, be attributed to so many other things. Nonetheless, fortunately for those of us who care, emissions for absorbed dose can be measured in each and every human. Eventually, that will make a difference in getting the message out. The level of memory among the masses in the U.S. is so short these days–just a general observation–that even when I do convince friends of the danger, within a couple weeks, they’re rebrainwashed or have forgotten about it, again…

                    That being said. Of course, it’s NOT hopeless. The best things come in the times of the greatest apparently impossible to change things.


                    Report comment

                • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

                  Dear Mark: I’ve seen estimates for Tobacco use, an average of a pack a day/365 days a year that equal an additional 35 mSv (? double check here because I’m not a great math person at all) to as high as 160 mSv (milli, not micro or nono Sievert) additional per year for smokers, which is pretty high. This is the quote that I converted to Sieverts from millirems from: “Difficult to determine a whole body dose equivalent. However, the dose to a portion of the lungs is estimated to be 16,000 millirems/year.” A Rem is equal to .01 Sievert. Please verify or dispell my math if I screwed up. Thanks.


                  Report comment

            • James said, “I also know that 1ms/year is undesireable, but anybody that gets a CAT scan gets more than that.”

              No James 2, 1 mSv /year is normal background radiation for me here in BC Canada. If I get a cat scan that is more. You need to check your data mister.


              Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          Today your chances of cancer are 1 in 2, or a 50% chance. That risk is already way too high. With all the additional radiation from failing nuclear reactors and the mindless stupidity of our positions who want to put MOX fuel in 4,000 reactors around the US and many more around the glove, the risks to get cancer will rise dramatically, as well as all the other problems with brain function and circulatory problems which also cause death.

          I only had a 15% chance to live in 1989, but am still alive. You can’t just listen to statistics. Neither can you ignore all the chemicals and radiation including nuclear, microwave, and electromagnetic radiations. It is known that if someone believes they are dying, they will go ahead and die. Better not to obsess with the statistics and try to find the best environment you can and to help all the people you can.


          Report comment

  • James2

    OK so what’s the data? What’s the increase in cancer at 20 millisievert exposure?


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      In ways those statistics are meaningless. You can also get a heart attack, your heart muscle can stop working, you can have a stroke, your brain can stop working with Alzheimer’s. If it affects you, it doesn’t matter what the statistics are.


      Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      Google the report.


      Report comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

      Dear James the 20mSv safety estimates, which one can find color bar charts and graphs for risks of online is for external exposure (dosimetry) mostly and for acute (per event), not over a long period of time. It’s not for internal contamination say from bioaccumulated radionuclides. In addition, to make it more confusing, I’m sorry, the recommended exposure charts with risks shown are for a period of year–some charts show lifetime recommended max doses. I think the recommended maximum dose in the U.S. for a member of the public not working in the industry is 1 mSv (milli, not micro or nano) per year. The problem, for most including in Japan, is the internal dosimetry or internally absorbed dose from continuous exposure to absorbed ionizing radioactive substances that accumulate, aggregate and become, resident in the tissues of the body. Radionuclides mimic biological substances and most are readily absorbed by any biological organism.

      A lot of the data from Chernobyl, more accessible than data from Fukushima so far, is suppressed. So dig away we must and it’s out there increasingly, fortunately. There are data in English to be found on studies of cancer treatment (teletherapy) and other sources of ionizing radiation in terms of cancer risks due both to external events and due to internal contamination from pellets and other radionuclide embedding strategies, for example, used to treat cancer tumours, or from radio-isotopes used inside the patient’s body by doctors for different types of medical imaging. This data is also somewhat repressed as the rates of accidental or careless (malpractice problems) exposure of patients to excessive doses of ionizing radiation, from external sources or internal resident sources over a long period of time, is not rare and is a lot more accessible than nuclear power industry information, and of course far more accessible than any information on which the military and covert org nuclear (cold/hot) reconnaissance.


      Report comment

  • Statistics are important in terms of cancer rates if there is an increase. USA population say 200,000,000 times .000001 = 200 people who die of cancer if cancer rate increase from Fukushima radiation is 1/1,000,000 times. Why is this cool?


    Report comment

  • Documentary: “Surviving Japan”

    Surviving Japan is a documentary by volunteer and director Chris Noland. It is in short, a documentary of the events in Japan after the tsunami as a catalyst to inspire the world to push for renewable Energy to avoid the cataclysmic future we will face if we continue to ignore these problems.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrpIQq0c04&feature=player_embedded


    Report comment

  • James2

    I like numbers, because with them we can communicate without hysteria.

    The video seems to be saying that raising the level to 20ms/year is incredibly bad, and even 2ms/year would cause “statistically significant” increases in cancer rates.

    Well, if the background is 1 ms/year – I’m personally not all that worried about 2 ms/year, and although I do not like 20ms/year, I’m not going to go out and quit my job and blow my savings on my bucket list at that level. In other words, yes there will be a few more people who have to battle cancer – but no it’s not a devastation of the human race. If background levels went up to 20ms/year – well then I think the cancer business would be a good one – but we wouldn’t all necessarily die. It’s still a minimum of half the exposure that smokers get.

    Now as Pallas points out – all these figures are for external exposure. ingestion and inhalation are both the most dangerous form of radiation exposure – and I personally think thats where the danger lies for both Japanese people and anybody outside of japan that is affected.


    Report comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

      Dear James: it’s not the EXTERNAL sources at 20 mSv or even higher in an acute event or a series of acute (one-time events) or even how much you’ve been externally exposed to in a whole year that matters compared to the real problem of INTERNALIZED contamination. Study “bioaccumulation and radionuclides” or “bioaccumulation of ionizing radiation sources or radionuclides”. There will be plenty of numbers there–limit yourself to scholarly articles only, which is what I did at the beginning of this 311 mess. Please study the very non-hysterical video “Chernobyl Heart”. It’s about bioaccumulation and how internalized radionuclides are passed from generation to generation. It’s what we absorb through what we eat, drink and breath in mostly, or a/k/a bioaccumulates in terms of tissue resident radionuclides that is the main problem at this point, for all but the workers at FukuDai and for some in very contaminated areas nearby in Japan, who have to worry (and worry and torque is required with this issue–this will not be dealt with in comfort for the masses) about both sources of contamination and exposure. Chernobyl stopped emitting new radionuclides only one week after its nuclear explosion 25 years ago. It’s still screwing over the health of 80% of the children living within several hundred kilometers in at least three countries. Fukushima is still emitting enormous quantities of aerosolized radionuclides mixed from at least three coriums, maybe from one spent fuel pool, and probably from some on-site incinerators unscrupulously incinerating who knows what sorts of radioactive waste in who knows exactly what volumes.


      Report comment

      • James2

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we are saying the same thing.

        I agree it’s the stuff that gets inside your body and rests that causes the worst damage. That’s why – from the very instant I saw Reactor #3 blow it’s top on March 14th, I’ve been trying and trying to figure out where the plutonium is. Whether it blew plutonium dust up into the air or not – which would simply be devastating to anyone breathing it in.

        It’s why I’m so upset about Japan taking the “dilution strategy” rather than the containment strategy.


        Report comment

  • Fairewinds Introduces a Japanese Language Edition and Identifies Safety Problems in all Reactors Designed Like Fukushima
    Fairewinds JP


    Report comment