Senior Scientist: Cancer increase expected on West Coast from Fukushima exposures; Radioactive particles can bio-accumulate and form hotspots while crossing Pacific — KCRW: Concern California wildlife to be impacted; Sea life can biomagnify nuclear waste, leading to higher levels of radiation (AUDIO)

Published: April 14th, 2014 at 11:55 am ET
By

86 comments


NPR affiliate KQED, Mar. 10, 2014 (at 41:00 in):

  • Question: There’s really no evidence that any of this radiation is going to cause additional sickness, cancers, etc. […] Do we really expect any additional cancers in California?
  • Michael Krasny, host: It’s a question we don’t necessarily have an answer to.
  • Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists’ senior scientist: Well, we do have an answer. The connection between ionizing radiation exposure and increased cancer risk is very well established. We do know that because the accident deposited radioactivity into the environment that wasn’t there before, that it’s going to cause additional radiation doses to people, that will be associated with additional disease. Now the question is, whether that will be a strong enough signal that an epidemiological study will be able to detect and prove causation. That’s a different issue, sometimes people tend to confuse the two. They think if it can’t be detected it’s not there. But simply extrapolating from first principles — there’s radiation in the environment that wasn’t there before, people are exposed, that will cause additional disease. […] This is a problem, because of the heterogeneous nature of the way these isotopes travel and are bio-accumulated, there are potential hotspots.
  • Full broadcast available here

KCRW 89.9 FM Los Angeles, Mar. 10, 2014 (at 25:00 in):

  • Warren Olney, host: How concerned are they that there’s going to be health effects?
  • Benjamin Gottlieb, producer: There’s a consensus among scientists and health professionals that the radiation from Fukushima really won’t pose a health risk […] There is concern this might impact our wildlife. I asked Prof. Steven Manley what he thought […]
  • Manley: The anticipated amounts […] are not considered to be human health risks. But, I think it’s important to know actually what is in our environment, how much is there — first of all, to verify that there’s not harmful amounts there — but also so that we know that things that happen thousands of miles away can end up on our doorstep […] the fact that its entered into the ecosystem should be cause for concern. […]
  • Gottlieb: There’s a process called biological magnification and that’s a process in which dissolved substance in something like kelp is passed up the food chain. As you know, sea urchins eat the kelp — and our lovely sea otters, they eat the sea urchins. So there’s a concern that by this process, there could be a higher level of radiation in the sea life.
  • Full broadcast available here
Published: April 14th, 2014 at 11:55 am ET
By

86 comments

Related Posts

  1. BBC: Scientist surprised at how much higher radiation levels are in some parts of ocean from Fukushima, it’s a ‘mystery’ — KPBS: Fukushima radiation is just going to become ‘a way of life’ for us” — California Professor: It’s certainly going to be in the environment, it just doesn’t go away (AUDIO) February 10, 2014
  2. Official detects radiation spike on California beach, now at 500% normal levels — ‘Befuddled’ as to why it’s so high, claims there’s no ‘immediate’ health concern — Public’s interest in Fukushima nuclear waste rising (VIDEO) January 4, 2014
  3. Nuclear Engineer: Radiation levels “much higher” in areas of Fukushima plume headed to west coast than models show — Radio: Concern “other isotopes” besides cesium to cross Pacific (AUDIO) April 11, 2014
  4. Vancouver Sun: Scientists concerned dolphin species on west coast to be negatively impacted by Fukushima nuclear waste — Radiation levels to be increasing for years to come along coast — Canadian gov’t sampling for Iodine-129 in Pacific April 15, 2014
  5. Twice as much Fukushima radiation near California coast than originally reported; Highest levels found anywhere in Eastern Pacific — Scientist: Very little we can do… It’s unprecedented… God forbid anything else happens — Gundersen: Multiple plumes now along west coast… Will be coming “for century or more” (AUDIO) November 20, 2014

86 comments to Senior Scientist: Cancer increase expected on West Coast from Fukushima exposures; Radioactive particles can bio-accumulate and form hotspots while crossing Pacific — KCRW: Concern California wildlife to be impacted; Sea life can biomagnify nuclear waste, leading to higher levels of radiation (AUDIO)

  • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

    and the "…things that happen thousands of miles away can end up on our doorstep." will also end up in our grocery bags…

  • I sure hope the inner contradiction of "affects wildlife but doesn't affect humans" will be noticed by larger parts of even the dumbed-down masses… !

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      that one earned a double-take, Fukugeddon. I was also surprised by the contradiction in logic. But then, most have trouble applying principles of truth to their way of thinking…

      • Hm, you think so ? By now, I was sure that my reasoning
        "Cannot be both true at the same time
        -> only one part is true
        -> doesn't affect humans must be true
        -> affects wildlife must be wrong
        -> actually neither affects wildlife nor humans"
        was the only valid logical outcome. But your comment makes me feel a little nervous now. Actually, I was already wondering why they would lie about such a wonderfully positive fact… !?

    • NondiPloom

      . . . especially after the evidence at Chernobyl showing just the opposite: Wildlife un-affected, humans affected.

    • sayonara kitty sayonara kitty

      i have such a hard time thinking people are that stupid….i hope their not that stupid.

    • rogerthat

      "affects wildlife but doesn't affect humans"

      – that's because we're immune, don't you know. Radiation is good for us, and they have ''scientists'' they can roll out at the drop of a hat to prove it beyond a doubt. For an even bigger laugh, watch the movie Mars Attack to find out how the cute green men do it – they inhale and get high on nuclear weapons lol.

  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    More like being stirred into our global environment like cream in coffee. How can you have hotspots in an environment of perpetual motion? It is ever on the move, recycling, degrading, irradiating everything in it's path. There is no safe island of black coffee in my coffee mug and I like alot of cream.

    • pinksailmatt pinksailmatt

      The radiation Stream (Air & Water) is traveling more like "an oil slick in the ocean" rather than "Cream in the coffee". It doesn't like to be pulled away from it's radioactive neighbors. It doesn't just disperse. It travels in long clingy strands. Thus "Hotspots" do indeed exist, and will continue to exist and magnify for the life of humanity.

  • sworldpeas

    "There’s a consensus among scientists and health professionals that the radiation from Fukushima really won’t pose a health risk […] There is concern this might impact our wildlife."

    HA! I call BS on this consensus! I don't understand where this attitude comes from that we are special and different than the environment that we are made from. This ego driven, maniacal disconnect is astounding to me.

    "what we do to nature we do to ourselves" is my mantra.

  • Jebus Jebus

    This is one of the most important meetings of the 21st century in the context of Cancer and Internal Low Level Radiation exposure…

    Pr. Chris Busby, ECRR, versus Dr. Jack Valentin , ICRP, 1(2)

    http://vimeo.com/15382750

    Pr. Chris Busby, ECRR, versus Dr. Jack Valentin , ICRP, 2(2)

    http://vimeo.com/15398081

    • Socrates

      The pro-nukes have to admit that their models are wrong; in case of a meltdown, their models may be off by two orders of magnitude!

      I can remember when scientists gave pregnant women pelvic xrays, cigarettes did not cause cancer, and asbestos was harmless.

      If a terrorist released the Fukushima radiation, there would be another war launched. Fukushima is equivalent to 176,000 Hiroshima doses.

      Fukushima radiation has already killed more that Pearl Harbor and destroyed more ships.

      But this is "good" radiation. Japan is our ally in fighting communism.

      • Fighting communism?

        Since when?

        The US has exported it's manufacturing base to Communist China, and it is a US most favored nation trading partner.

        Communist China owns a large share of US debt, making China the banker and 'owner' of the USA.

        Communist China has won the war on the US Capitalism, by absorbing it, and most people don't even realize it.

        1% Capitalist global corporatists have sold out to Communism and adopted the Chinese tactics of win at all costs, short term profits, and who cares if the planet is destroyed mindset.

    • Radio Radio

      Thx for the share Jebus!

  • Shaker1

    “It is a fraud to imply that a dose equivalent to just a few chest x-rays to a million people would be safe. If you give low dose radiation to a lot of people, whether from nuclear power plants or x-rays or Mother Nature, you will kill just as many people as if you gave high dose radiation to just a few people.”

    “Provided the number of person rems is the same, it is not hard to understand if you remember that six times two equals 12, but two times six also equals 12.”

  • GQR2

    12 – 14 mins in and Madigan says The consensus among them is to change the levels of what is called safe and the level of radiation expected in the background to "allow" it to be labeled safe.
    So there you have it.
    And he did mention he does not involve himself in the humanitarian aspects of his precious. He is an apologist who hides behind the cloak of giving half facts without the implications. He is an utter disgrace to education and ethics. All of these clowns are drinking way too much Kool-Aide. And they are asking what amount matters?!
    Kelp Watch with Kenny Kelp Boy that's what we're on to see quote "If and when the radiation effects the coast" – this guy is despicable and he problem thinks himself so smart. Fuck them and we don't want to say this or that in case of blahdy blah. All to sooth the all so smart It WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FISH A THOUSAND YEARS AGO ! What a dunce !

  • Maybe cancer is spreading because sea stars are no longer there controlling its population ?

    [Note to myself: take lessons in both biology and humor !]

  • GQR2

    No real difference between background and additional radiation – Lyman is a name that suits him and he does it with such ease. i shall refrain from profanity

    • Radio Radio

      GQR2, i'm confused, i thought Lyman worked for Beyond Nuclear and is the guy saying that cancer and other illnesses WILL result from Fukushima al along the West coast of the US and Canada.

  • 21stCentury 21stCentury

    ~~~Build a Bigger Breakwater NOW Please~~~

    http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk209/DistantThunderbolt/Japan%20Reconstruction/Fshima7000circle1a_zpsf6b66b14.jpg

    Cost of building this bigger breakwater = $1billion

    Cost of treating longterm related health issues caused by not building this bigger breakwater = over $1quadrillion or more.

    • pinksailmatt pinksailmatt

      21stCentury…The trouble with that scenario is that we don't know where the cores are. They just might be outside the circle. Then what?

      • 21stCentury 21stCentury

        I'll bet you a less then 2-becquerel bushel basket of organic strawberries that I know pretty darned close where the cores are, close enough to engineer around them.. Fshima meltdown is fairly easy to predict within a few feet.. yes, some of the mass of the original cores has already washed out to sea. Consider Fshima to be a wetter version of what Hanford looks like underground, cross that with 4x-Chernobyl, and roll the clock over a 4year period…. yes, it's pretty clear to me where and in what condition those cores are in.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    DOESN'T STOP AT WEST COAST . . .

    Carried by jet stream, nuclear radiation goes across U.S. and beyond.

    And why radiation from Fukushima was in rain water in Virginia, and most everywhere else.

  • Ontological Ontological

    The UCLA head and neck cancer center was WAY too busy 2 years ago, they must be SLAMMED by now!

  • Nuclear is based on lies out of the gate.

    Here are 74 one liner lies of the nuke cartel.

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/02/classic-one-liner-lies-of-nuke.html

  • I wonder how many TEPCO execs have prayed for another tsunami to wash all their mess away?

    You know they think like that.

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      that tsunami, stock, would only answer a fraction of their prayers. Like an iceberg, their greatest problem churns restlessly beneath their feet…

    • name999 name999

      stock, a big concern is if such an event can be deliberately triggered.

      • I kind of doubt it, but just wait for a tug of war eclipse….like tonight

        • 4Warnd 4Warnd

          from Earthsky.org

          only two hours until the eclipse here.

          Eclipse times in Universal Time

          Partial umbral eclipse begins: 5:58 Universal Time (UT)
          Total eclipse begins: 7:07 UT
          Greatest eclipse: 7:46 UT
          Total eclipse ends: 8:25 UT
          Partial umbral eclipse ends: 9:33 UT

          Central Daylight Time (April 15, 2014)
          Partial umbral eclipse begins: 12:58 a.m. CDT on April 15
          Total eclipse begins: 2:07 a.m. CDT
          Greatest eclipse: 2:46 a.m. CDT
          Total eclipse ends: 3:25 a.m. CDT
          Partial eclipse ends: 4:33 a.m. CDT

          Mountain Daylight Time (April 14-15, 2014)
          Partial umbral eclipse begins: 11:58 p.m. MDT on April 14
          Total eclipse begins: 1:07 a.m. MDT on April 15
          Greatest eclipse: 1:46 a.m. EDT
          Total eclipse ends: 2:25 a.m. EDT
          Partial eclipse ends: 3:33 a.m. EDT

          Pacific Daylight Time (April 14-15, 2014)
          Partial umbral eclipse begins: 10:58 p.m. PDT on April 14
          Total eclipse begins: 12:07 a.m. PDT on April 15
          Greatest eclipse: 12:46 a.m. PDT
          Total eclipse ends: 1:25 a.m. PDT
          Partial eclipse ends: 2:33 a.m. PDT

  • 4Warnd 4Warnd

    Please do not jump me for this post.

    As much as I can, I do understand the tragic situation in FD and beyond, beyond Japan and toward us all. I understand it emotionally to the point at times of an un-quelled sadness and also anger. Technically as well, having trained as an organic chemist.

    I do have a question. And the basis is what really is the dilution factor. This was all dismissed years ago and rightly so. That is total rationalized bull crap.

    Some, as in this audio archive from Mr. Lieman, do not say it but it is upon the hook that their conclusion do hang.

    ___________

    Garrison, Tom S. Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science. Thompson Brooks/Cole, 2005: 4. "The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"

    1 km3 = 1,000,000,000,000 liters [that is a trillion, of course]

    reported [??]: 19 quadrillion q/liter…. per day? per what, I don't recall.

    My question is this: What is the estimate for dispersal over time, to date, of this 'stuff' released to the ocean?

    [not withstanding the crap shot up and airborne as nano radiactive nuclear turds, and sans, hotspots in migration, etc, etc.]

    Stock: care to report the calculation?

    • For the airborne stuff, say up to 100 tons was effectively aerosolized and detected by EPA far and wide over the Pacific and West Coast.

      Here are those calcs

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html

      I do have the ability to calculate the overall inventory and estimates of amounts already dispersed, and vertical distribution in the water column, and thus future radiation density in ocean. I will conjure up those calculations in a week or so.

      • 4Warnd 4Warnd

        Will look forward to that analysis…thank you.

        It is important to have certainty, grounded in knowledge and facts when going up against the "all's well crowd…"

        Normally, I would say that persuasion of the ignorant who choose that prostrated stance is a task for the ages. Now, time is short. We do not, as yet, have ages guaranteed to the Earth.

  • m a x l i

    Gottlieb: There’s a process called biological magnification and that’s a process in which dissolved substance in something like kelp is passed up the food chain. As you know, sea urchins eat the kelp — and our lovely sea otters, they eat the sea urchins.

    m a x l i: [sigh of relief] Luckily humans don't eat sea urchins or sea otters. That means we are safe.

    • 4Warnd 4Warnd

      Thank god, if there is one, or many. I was momentarily worried.

    • PaciFistic PaciFistic

      maxli…..people do eat sea urchins, though you and I not. It's true, speaking from experience, actually seeing people I knew just really go for the stuff…close friends, they were, which got me to wondering how it tasted. Didn't look appealing at all! Sea urchins are food for a lot of humans. Please check this for yourself.

      I love kelp, and other sea weed. It's all going to take a lot of reflection; part of what is obviously about undesired change in life on the planet.

      What do we do about the stupidity of so-called intelligent beings who build 55 nuclear plants in the most seismically active archipelago in the world, and about the similar stupidity of similarly intelligent types who promoted the technology to the government there? And the stupidity of all those so intelligently concerned who proceeded with said technology while knowing there wasn't a truly adequate nuclear waste disposal method available?

      Well, it's not just about stupidity. Rather, it's about moral decrepitude! And about human ignorance! The wasting of planetary life which was so paradisaical in so many places throughout aeons of history. Ultimately, it's about the criminality of humans…genocide of its own kind, and destruction of their own environment.

      There is an answer to this predicament. And that is: Transcendence of it all. There are ways to reach that level of resolution. Too bad the culpable will be left hanging. We'll pray for their souls.

  • We Not They Finally

    Thanks, Edward Lyman, for making a mockery of your esteemed organization and an idiot of yourself. You never even realized that the cancer epidemics starting in the 80's were the result of bomb testing in the 50's and 60's? That was just a big "duh"?

    Is there someone in your organization who can be a better, more forceful spokesperson than you? You've become an embarrassment.

  • Lunar eclipse tonight, check it out, watch for earthquakes.

  • tsfw tsfw

    And this is why China banned the import of shellfish from the west coast. The Chinese govt won't let their citizens consume the fish, but Canada/US tell us there's nothing to worry about. Not ok.

  • HenryR HenryR

    Would you go for a daily swim in the Pacific Ocean from the shore of any country on the west coast of the Americas,for lets say the next 30 days??

    • Can anyone explain the difference between photons from the sun; giving health and photons from gamma rays/xrays causing death?

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar VanneV

        What is the difference between a gamma ray and a photon?
        “• A photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy, and can be infrared light, • visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays, depending • on its energy. A gamma ray is a photon with 100 thousand times more energy than • light (so about a million electron-volts), a frequency that's 100 thousand times • higher than light (about a billion trillion vibrations per second), and with a • wavelength that's 100 thousand times shorter than light (size of an atom, equal • to a picometer, or one-hundredth of an angstrom). Gamma rays are super energetic • photons (compared to light photons), so that you'll get cancer much faster from • exposure to gamma rays compared to same exposure to just sunlight, but you'll • only get exposed to gamma rays if you're around radioactive material or an • astronaut in space.
        What is the difference between a microwave photon and a gamma ray photon?…”
        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_gamma_ray_and_a_photon?#slide=1

  • Socrates

    " the heterogeneous way these isotopes travel…. there's bound to be hot spots…" -Lyman

    He admits that people will sicken and die.

    Children and fetuses already were exposed with 131I. Many inhaled hot particles. Then we will have the ocean plume hitting and accumulating. Biomagnification problems and bioconcentration.

    Hot spots are pretty random. Then there is bioaccumulation. How do you avoid those dangers? Looks rather grim to me.

    • Radio Radio

      @Socrates, of course he is, he's a senior scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists and they have consistently been speaking out about Fukushima from the beginning, at least, that's what their newsletter in my email each week contains. I thought it was Beyond Nuclear, but, he's the one here saying we need to be concerned. So, i'm not sure why he's the target today instead of the pronuclear guests.

      But, i do think that all the organizations and the researchers here are using stats from 3 years ago and only the officially released ones. Which they are required to adhere to unless they have their own tests they an refer to. That is the point, of course, for TEPCo to release misleading data. That misleading data, once released, is the line over which no one is professionally allowed to cross without proof of their own. A very effective ploy.

      • GQR2

        Nobody is "targeting" anybody but just listen to what the man says,its a load of minimizing and obfuscating with a few its bad and its dangerous thrown in for credibility. Besides if we cannot critique the experts and what they say then really what is the point. These people collude to lie and count on nobody interrupting them and calling them out. Its like its not allowed in public,on forums. Our experts these days are a bunch of smooshers and opportunists. with very few exceptions in fact NONE in the public main stream. zero out there really hollering out the truth of Fukushima. Today i am particularly tired of it.

        • Radio Radio

          GQR2, i hear you. I guess i'm looking at the half full glass this moment. Finally, a senor scientist,, this one at an organization of scientists that have been calling attention to Fukushima from day one, went on record against everyone else in the dialogue saying that cancer deaths and other illness will result because radiation does not disperse, it accumulates. This goes counter to ALL widely held misconceptions. So for me, that's a breakthrough, not obsfucation.

          excerpt from top of page – Question: There’s really no evidence that any of this radiation is going to cause additional sickness, cancers, etc. […] Do we really expect any additional cancers in California?
          Michael Krasny, host: It’s a question we don’t necessarily have an answer to.
          Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists’ senior scientist: Well, we do have an answer. The connection between ionizing radiation exposure and increased cancer risk is very well established. We do know that because the accident deposited radioactivity into the environment that wasn’t there before, that it’s going to cause additional radiation doses to people, that will be associated with additional disease. Now the question is, whether that will be a strong enough signal that an epidemiological study will be able to detect and prove causation. That’s a different issue, sometimes people tend to confuse the two. They think if it can’t be detected it’s not there. But simply extrapolating from first principles — there’s…

          • Radio Radio

            Edwin Lyman's point that scientists too often confuse dose exposure rates, detectable radiation, and disease rates is actually mind boggling radical. He's saying that detection based upon dispersion models, flawed in his opinion, cannot tell you that all is well. He is saying hotspots form and all is not well at all and that in fact, there is going to be death and suffering. I am not hearing the monolithic conversation ascribed here. I'm hearing a voice that's going counter to consensus science. He may or may not adhere to low dose threshold exposures, but, he is saying that the detection methods are giving a very false impression that all is well.

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Dismal.. 🙁

    How do you/can you destroy a planet in 70 years..Nuclear 101!

  • Radio Radio

    Just wanna share my evening facebook post linking this article.

    Post: Well, NPR actually interviewed a scientist from Beyond Nuclear. A good chunk of funding, in some cases, the sole funding, comes from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear on NPR, The News Hour, Science Friday, etc., so we tend to not see much coverage of scientific research that doesn't cast these industries in high regard. But, perhaps the high level of citizen monitoring and interest has encouraged them to have to think outside the box more. I must confess, i am hoping that the answer in th following excerpt gets some technical folks asking – "what other research? I didn't know there was other research. Who knew?" What Edmond Lyman is stating soooo well, so clearly i could almost weep, is that people, that'd be science people and doctors and leaders, often confuse detectable amounts with rates of illness because they still believe an erroneous assumption made from Hiroshima and Nagasaki – that all radiation, when it leaks, disperses evenly and remains dispersed, thus diluting it and making it safe. It is completely true that when a nuclear bomb explodes, radiation is dispersed fairly evenly for a very brief period of time over a certain area. That is due to the nature of explosions, not the natural of nuclear radiation. Anything will do, even donuts or bananas with enough pressure exerted in a confined area. But, eventually, they clumped back together, because that is the nature of may of the…

    • Radio Radio

      con't…because that is the nature of may of the radioactive particles, which then leaves a lot of clear, clean, barely irradiated space between clumps – aha! those oft cited undetectable trace amounts! And, also, unfortunately leaving highly potent clumps scattered about only undetected because they are not tested for. When scientists test the air and fine low levels they say – see, just as we expected. Not a problem. They don't go looking for clumps because they haven't educated themselves about them yet. When they do find a clump, they scratch their heads and say it was an anomaly, a one in a million chance kind of thing, and then they walk away and go looking for better pastures to test. Those anomalies, sad to say, do not always make it into the reports, since they should be ignored because they are anomalous. But, some scientists see repeated and frequent occurrences of anomalies s a pattern, a detectable one, and bother to learn, and test again, and go look to see if they can find any more.

      • Radio Radio

        con't…find any more. Those scientists often earn less in their fields since so much of science funding is from the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries. Despite that, they find the clumps and put it into a paper and that paper does not get published, or read, or presented, or invited. It is shelved since it is filled with a bunch of anomalies and nothing worth seeing. Or, they get passed around fb and soon the public knows more about the effects of radiation than the nuclear scientists.

        Ed is also saying that since the detectable amounts collected – (and i will add, collected at places that tend to not be magnet areas – not drains, and gutters, and and against walls, but, in large open areas where the winds stay aloft, it doesn't rain much to bring radiation particles down, open ocean instead of harbors, that kind of testing where radiation is the least likely to accumulate

        • Most if not all studies casting nuclear anything in a bad light purposely never get published.

          It is set up that way.

          Even if you get away with doing the research somehow, it will never see the light of day.

          And if it is published, you get fired within weeks of that, or you lose your funding for your lab, etc.

          that is the way they keep everyone in line..

          Publish only pro nuke stuff and you get to keep your job, funding, retirement, etc.

  • Radio Radio

    con't…, because, remember, they think that all radiation will accumulate everywhere evenly, so if they don't find it in one spot, then it isn't in another) – sorry long aside, okay, back to Ed who is saying that most nuclear scientists are making this claim – that if their tests show low levels and people start getting more cancer, then it cannot be linked to radiation. It will be that doctors are getting better at diagnosing cancer or that people are seeing doctors more often, or that people are living longer, or that it's just a quirk. An anomaly. And, that, folks, is how it's done 😉

    Sorry for the length, but, this, for me, is the heart of the issue of ignorance about the effects of nuclear energy.

    • bo bo

      So grateful for this explanation thank you Radio.
      When will you have your own website ? You need one !

      • Radio Radio

        thx, bo. Within a couple more days. I have the site, but, am adding the content and lay out now. I'll look for you and let you know. I appreciate it.

        My hope is to get my neighbors to take in a tenth of what we know here. Take in a tenth more than they are willing to take in now. Then another tenth. And, another. That is how change occurs. Insight and the crashing of the walls of denial just does not happen unless someone is having either an epiphany or a psychotic break 😉 The mind is simply not structured to take in too much bad news or counter information very quickly. You and i have already done 100 steps that made Fukushima self evident to us from the beginning. My neighbors need to do 75 more of those 100 steps before they can even think about Fukushima. So, we've got a lot of work to do.

        • bo bo

          My brain is like fukushima colander-reactor, leaks like crazy… pour in one new info about atomic half lifves and out goes information I took in a week ago about Tritium. 🙁 But I'm trying… the good science writers contributing on this site helps, I'm always in disbelief the quality of people here ( not just in terms of knowledge, but kindness and generosity)

          The post you just made up there about how radioactive particles clump unevenly – that seems really important for laymen to be aware of.
          Great padding against trolls. Thank you.

  • Now add hot particles to the mix.

    Now add heavy metals that pretend to be like normal minerals..

    Now add super duper genetic DNA breaking, disease causing, big C causing, catastrophic alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation.

    Gee, wonder why the cancer/diabetes/thyroid problems/add/Adhd/autism, etc etc rates are increasing?

  • ftlt

    FUFU is just a major symptom of what is wrong.

    Soon there will be much worse ones.

  • Homolumina Homolumina

    May I ask if anybody here knows of Eduard Albert Meyer or Billy Meyer ? I recently discovered him, he lives in Switzerland. If anybody resonates and makes the time to watch this video below you might make a discovery too… Meyer has made statements into the future that all proved to be true – to the date. That caught my attention – of course his statements are directly related to what is happening around nuclear, that is why I post it here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPJ-C_dMkpg

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar VanneV

      What do UFOs to do with Fukushima?

    • We Not They Finally

      Not from personal contact, but man named James Gilliland, who has his own {he says] ET-visited community in Washington State, hates Billy Meter and considers him a fraud. Look up Gilliland — I think you can find an e-mail address.

      It's probably OT, but you asked, so that's one way you might check.

You must be logged in to post a comment.