Spike in animal deformities on West Coast soon after Fukushima — Hundreds of baby cows with distorted legs or other malformations — Expert: “We know there’s more than that out there”… Problem may be more widespread than reported

Published: October 6th, 2015 at 10:35 pm ET
By

528 comments


Capital Press, Apr 5, 2012 (emphasis added): Crooked calf rise studied; Cattle experts offer suggestions for dealing with issueMore crooked calf syndrome appears to be affecting Western cattle this year, a USDA researcher says. Kip Panter, research manager with the USDA Agricultural Research Service Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory in Logan, Utah, said he’s hearing of more instances of the disease in Washington, Oregon and Idaho this spring, receiving eight calls compared to the usual one or two. Panter estimated 400 to 500 calves are affected, based on the calls he’s received. “They’re not all severe enough that they have to be put down, but they’re obvious enough that the rancher has identified them as something wrong,” Panter said. “We know there’s more than that out there.” Tom Platt, area extension educator for Washington State University Extension in Lincoln and Adams counties, recently sent a survey to 40 Washington ranchers in the central part of the state… Platt wants to know if the problem is more widespread. Crooked calf… limbs become distorted or the palate doesn’t close, Platt said… Younger mother cows seem to have more problems, Panter said… Some second- and third-calf heifers are also showing a higher rate of incidence… The research center has a research project in the Benge, Wash., area… Platt said monitoring the test plots will go for another year or two… Kip Panter said the research center recommends ranchers not be too hasty in putting down an afflicted calf. If the calf can stand and nurse, it will survive, he said. If the calves can’t lock a knee joint in the front legs, they will likely break down more and not work in a feedlot situation. “We tell the ranchers that if the calves can lock that joint, even briefly for a few minutes, the chances of that calf growing out of it and being functional is pretty good,” Panter said.

Washington St. Univ., Mar 2012: Tom Platt, WSU Extension Regional Livestock Agent in the Lincoln/Adams/Spokane area has been receiving reports of crooked calf disorder around the state. Tom would like to speak to ranchers experiencing problems with crooked calf disorder… “Crooked Calf Syndrome” is a disorder of calves marked by skeletal birth defects and cleft palate that occur when cows in early pregnancy ingest lupines that contain teratogenic alkaloids. Calves with severe deformities cannot stand and must be euthanized. Calves with cleft palate often develop pneumonia and die shortly after birth.

See also: Birth defect deaths in Washington State hit record levels during 2011 — Spiked 60% statewide — Gov’t document lists ‘Fukushima release along west coast of US’ as possible factor in birth defect cluster

And: Interviews near US nuclear sites: “Piles of dead lambs, with 2 heads, or no legs… just piles of dead baby lambs” — “Lambs born without eyes or mouths… legs grotesquely grown together, others had no legs” (VIDEOS)

Published: October 6th, 2015 at 10:35 pm ET
By

528 comments

Related Posts

  1. Interviews near US nuclear sites: “Piles of dead lambs, with 2 heads, or no legs… just piles of dead baby lambs” — “Lambs born without eyes or mouths… legs grotesquely grown together, others had no legs” — “Farmers couldn’t understand why all the animals were dying… all the dogs and cats too” (VIDEOS) September 30, 2015
  2. PHOTOS: Mutations found in sea life along US West Coast — Deformed spines, brains, hearts, eyes reported by officials — Malformations include extra brain lobes, hunchbacks, parts of face missing, unusual limbs September 22, 2015
  3. NBC Nightly News: ‘Has Radiation Entered Our Food Supply Chain?’ — USA Today: News getting worse at Fukushima, widespread suspicion leaks into ocean ‘underreported’ — Expert: “I’m not trying to be alarmist… but how will we know it’s safe” for West Coast? (VIDEO) March 9, 2014
  4. NPR: West Coast sea stars melt into mush, “just vaporized… it’s the change of my lifetime” — “Ripping themselves apart… innards spilled out” — “Like the Matrix” — “That many species, that widespread… just scary” — “Makes me wonder, what’s next?” — ‘Possible’ Fukushima fallout is involved (VIDEO) January 30, 2014
  5. “Horrific environmental mystery… Everyone’s freaked out”: 1,500% normal death rate in whales off West Coast — Gov’t declares unprecedented Unusual Mortality Event — Scientists alarmed, ‘no idea’ what’s happening — Expert: “It’s all going to cascade up to us” — Other die-offs being reported (VIDEOS) August 24, 2015

528 comments to Spike in animal deformities on West Coast soon after Fukushima — Hundreds of baby cows with distorted legs or other malformations — Expert: “We know there’s more than that out there”… Problem may be more widespread than reported

  • SanityQuest SanityQuest

    Find it interesting how this forum consistently slows way down mid evening west coast time… like everyone's gone to bed.

  • amberlight amberlight

    Here we go again with the "lupine poisoning" theory! Suddenly incidents of cattle ingesting lupines has spiked. It's just coincidental that the spike has occurred since the Fukushima meltdown along with leaking radioactive waste from Hanford. Yep, just a coincidence. Interesting, too, that only certain species of lupines cause "crooked calf" disease within a certain period of gestation, while poisoning from other lupine species affects the animal immediately:

    "Common symptoms of lupine poisoning include salivation, agitation, dizziness, convulsions, heavy, and labored breathing, and vomiting."

    http://ext100.wsu.edu/whitman/2013/11/13/lupine/

    Have the ranchers been reporting an increase in the above symptoms as well, or has only the teratogenic variety of lupines been flourishing? Has an eradication program been implemented, as has been done in the past when animals got into "loco weed"… or is there really not that much lupine to be found in the pastures, in which case maybe perhaps possibly perchance they might want to look into other causes?

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Amberlight, the timing is very suspicious & one would think radiation is the most likely culprit — based on the incidence if crooked calf disease (or syndrome) after the Hsnford Green Runs, and the above-ground weapons testing in Nevada.

      If I were a scientist analyzing thus problem, I'd look at the historical data & the ties to radioactive releases.

      That being daid, has the drought caused an oncrease in the blooming & numbers of lupime types lnown to be toxic to cattle, calves?

      The Native American women used lupine as a form of birth cpntrol. It was known to be toxic in high doses, and to cause nirth defects and miscarriages.

      I'd guess the USDA and WSU scientists are thinking along the lines of lupine toxicity.

      But the timing of the incidence of crppked calf disease, and the symptoms of lupine poisoning described DO make one wonder if the radiation issue isn't being blatantly ignored.

      Hope the spellong is OK. Working from my Stupid Phone.

  • Radioactive Contaminated Wild Boars/Pigs Deer Still Unfit To Eat In Japan, Russia, Europe, Norway, UK and More; via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/radioactive-boars-and-deer-unfit-to-eat.html

  • Fukushima Radiation Found In Alaska Lichen, Arctic Snow, Plus Sea Animals Like Salmon, Clams, Seals, Walruses, Polar Bears
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/07/fukushima-radiation-found-in-alaska.html

  • But don't worry..

    Despite being found in critters like caribou, the Fuku radiation won't affect you as long as you keep smiling…

    sarc

  • High strontium doses can cause crooked calf syndrome, High dietary intake of strontium (strontium content in food or drinking water >4 g/l) may disturb bone mineralization. The mechanism by which strontium exerts a deleterious effect on bone calcification is not yet known. Several potential mechanisms have been put forward. From a chemical point of view, one may reasonably accept that because of the larger size of the strontium ion as compared with that of calcium, hydroxyapatite crystals will preferentially bind calcium as compared with strontium. At high strontium concentrations, however, the element may replace calcium in bone by heteroionic exchange. This takes place via a pure physicochemical process independent of the osteoblast and will ultimately result in a decreased bone calcium content. In addition, incorporation of the greater sized strontium ions in bone will induce a mild distortion of the crystal lattice, impair crystal growth, and increase the dissolution of mineralized bone. As a consequence, lower bone mineral density (BMD) is likely to be expected in strontium overload.

  • jsn999

    Ok first sentence says > 4 g/L. But thats not a dose. Thats just a concentration. I dont think 4 g/L Sr90 is what was intended since that would imply more Sr90 concentrated in a very small volume versus the concentration of the original fuel, which is about 11 g/L in oxide form for UO2, and considering Sr90 is a small fraction of the fission product inventory, 4 g/L would be unrealistic from binary fission products.The fission product yield of Sr90 for any fission is about 4%, so at most, it would be about 1/25th of 11 g/L assuming all the UO2 in fuel dispersed in the atmosphere.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield

    Do you know off hand, the dose in Sv? Thats the real measure of risk. Thank you.

    • Hmm…..

      Lying arse Tammy at WIPP said "dose is dose" and methinks that is one of the lies….

      dose is not known by ICRP standards, just a crappy estimate.

      One of the lies of the nukists…..dose is dose, dose is the real measure….

      Not buying it…agreed there could be an "average population dose" but never a "individual affected" dose from chemically active radio-isotopes.

      • jsn999

        Without a measure of dose, there is no measure of risk. So you have to start from somewhere. There is an average population dose to measure a collective risk, however to ascertain an "individual affected dose" one would need the exact source term to that target. One could also do a whole body scan before and after, however the before is problematic since one can not measure what one does not receive a priori.

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          jsn999 the conceptual flaw in radiation dose at low levels is illustrated by the sievert. As you well know, one becquerel of radiation from one source is not equal in toxicity to an equal amount of radiation from another source. But the ICRP isotope danger factor of 30…quite a considerable range… has been proven inadequate. It appears to be closer to a factor of 20,000. But since toxicity of innate radioactivity is unknown, the difference in toxicity of radiation from different sources may approach infinity. An apt corollary is EM radiation below UV. One wavelength and circumstance can kill, another with the same energy can be life supporting. Committed effective dose equivalent,deep-dose equivalent etc are steps in the right direction but rely on mathematical extrapolation from high doses of different radiation sources. Scientists and physicians are aware of the flawed system and some are suggesting new radiation dose metrics. Radiation energy deposition is flawed thinking

          • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

            He has not taken the red pill and is now very controlled and very confused by others shoving crap/bullshit into his brain.. 🙁

            He seriously needs to take the red pill! Enjoy! Take the red pill my friend..
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

            Wake up and unhook from the created by others bullshit!

          • jsn999

            "Radiation energy deposition is flawed thinking" yet it is the correct model since energy deposition is what knocks cells around. Case in point, if you didnt think fire were deadly to humans you would not need any sort of fire protection. Fire is a deposition of energy. Deposition of energy is responsible for the vibration of atoms at the molecular level, and the displacement of DNA at the cellular level. Radiation by its very nature, is a quanta of energy deposited over a specific time interval. We see this in the photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, and pair production, three very important physical effects of gamma radiation.

            Without energy deposition, E= mc^2 is meaningless.

            E after all is energy.

              • jsn999

                You may believe that, but it doesnt change the fact that on scientific grounds, you havent really addressed my link. If all you have is name calling, then you are not going to win the argument. You can link to your site as well, but that wont win either. You have to take it up a notch, and keep the name calling out of it. So until then, you really don't have any moves. You may think you do, but you really are just fooling yourself.

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              jsn, A whole-body acute exposure to 5 gray of radiation usually leads to death within two weeks. This dosage represents 375 joules- equivalent to the chemical energy in 20 mg of sugar. Less than 100 calories.

              I dont need your lecture about energy and vibrations of atoms. On the other hand you are in need of one about information transfer, bystander and hypersensitivity effects and hot particles if you fail to see that the metric of energy deposition is flawed thinking. You get more energy deposition from one beer than you do a fatal dose of radiation.

              Time to change/update your thinking and expand your knowledge base!

              • The asshat is attempting to invoke Einstein, some type of new false argument I shall call "closeness to greatness"

                That said, Einstein allowed himself to be a tool, just like Oppy. As if mankind's leaders could ever be trusted.

                • Maybe this is a 'lab', where new nuclear greenwashing is tried out?

                • jsn999

                  You still are deflecting and name calling. Its not a winning strategy. Even 50, 60 years after their deaths, society still invokes Einstein and Oppenheimer as great minds. Einstein had a saying "Great spirits always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds".

                  Your opposition has been name calling and no less violent. So I would put you in the latter just from your responses.

                  • Greenwashing is a FACT of life, not name calling.

                    Reality is very hard to accept among those who are blind to the truth.

                    Greenwashing; Fake 'Green' Products, Services And Industries; Misleading Half Truths And Public Manipulations
                    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/07/greenwashing-fake-green-products.html

                    • jsn999

                      When you cite your own website, it doesnt prove anything. In fact you said I lumped everyone here into a Jim Jones cult. When you feed them a steady diet of propaganda, and they respond, then what would you call that? I didnt say specifically that there was a cult here. I am saying that the behavior is similar. So lets get it straight. What is the purpose of your posting your site here? To get people to follow you. Its your only motive. Since the information you put out has been discredited by proper application of science. I can only surmise you would like this forum to be a homogenous echo chamber, a war room to muster the troops to a unified single voice. Yet it can not be that way unless by design. So you will get me banned for the only reason that I called you out. I think what you really want to do is disinform at the expense of something else. Did big oil or gas front you for your time? Its the logical conclusion of why you would spend a lot of your time twisting facts regarding the science and tech. Personally I dont care how you spend your time, as long as you are not sending people to do something they would not want to do. Then you become like Jim Jones. For now, your constituency is fragmented, and really only those that are in your camp seem to agree. I would think you can put out better more solid information without the hyperbole to inflame passions. That is what you want, to capture their hearts because their minds are made up already.

                    • or-well

                      When you cite your own industry propaganda, it doesn't prove anything. What is the purpose of your posting here? To get people to believe nuke industry bullshit. The information you put out has been discredited by honest application of science. What you really want to do is disinform at the expense of something else. Did big nuke front you for your time? Its the logical conclusion of why you would spend a lot of your time twisting facts regarding the science and tech. For now, your industry is collapsing, and really only those that are in your camp seem to agree with you.

              • jsn999

                The LD 50/60 is 5 Sv per the HPS. I dispute your 5 Gray in 2 weeks when the 60 is 60 days and the 50 is 50% of the population. For pure gamma, a Gy = Sv.

                By your own admission, Hawaii would have been decimated.

                http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fukushima-radiation-scare-hoaxes

          • jsn999

            The Sievert is just the SI unit for rem. The rem is the weighted average of the rad multiplied by organ-dependent radiation weighting factors. People have spent decades in scientific pursuits to quantify the rws. The amount of vetting that has gone into moving the theory into standards that can be of a practical application for radiation protection is enormous. It takes about 10-20 years from a scientific study to run the gauntlet of consensus. This is probably why ECRR never made it out of the gate – it was found to be lacking in technical merit from the get go. We can go round and round on this subject but it just wont change the fact that ECRR is alligned to the political left, and politics and science, and public health and protection just don't mix.

            If the ECRR models were valid, they would be used widespread without predjudice. As it stands, I just have to ask you why you think the ECRR models should displace the ICRP consensus body? What independent vetting process did the ECRR models go through?

            The scientific community can not accept the alternative hypothesis that the ECRR model is preferred since the null hypothesis (not abandoning ICRP) has stuck around all these years for a good reason.

            You might claim the game is rigged, some conspiracy theory, or other factors that keep ECRR from being a player.

            I just think its their message – they do it to themselves.

            If they presented sound science without partisanship, maybe people would listen.

            • More baloney on that sandwich?

              Radiation Exposure Risks; Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) Theory Compared To ECRR Theory And Weighting Risk Factors
              http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/11/total-effective-dose-equivalent-tede.html

              • jsn999

                The TEDE is outdated. The TED is the correct term. You really have to update your knowledge. The ECRR is just not in the same caliber as the ICRP. If it were then the worlds leading scientific bodies would be beating a path to their doorstep. They are not for a reason – the ECRR approach has been disproven. So why do you want to advance a method that has been disproven? Is it because of partisanship or science?

                Who is going to call Busby first? You or stock?

                • Want some more baloney on that blarney sandwich? TEDE is not a teddy bear and neither is TED. Nonsense is nonsensical.

                • or-well

                  Not disproven nukist liar, simply rejected by pronukers as is ALL science debunking compromised pronuke pseudoscience.

                  Pronukers would have everyone believe ALL scientists and ALL science that is NOT pronuke is no good. LOL! Cultists.

                  The evidence has been in for a long time that nuclear power was built on lies from the very beginning.

                  • jsn999

                    If nuclear power was built on lies, why do the lights come on for millions when the breaker is closed in the control room?

                    • As nuclear industry is built on lies, why don't the lights come on within the 'experts', when they are exposed to the radiation of truth?

                      Hmmmmm?

                      TEPCO; Fukushima Lies Movie, Mass Media Lies To Public, TEPCO Lies To Government, Nuclear Industry Lies To Everyone, Executives To Be Indicted, Yakuza In Control Of Nuclear Plants
                      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/fukushima-lies-movie-part-i-and-ii.html

                    • or-well

                      Always trying to conflate, deflect, distort.
                      The lights come on, as you well know, for the same reason they come on using coal, oil, gas, solar, wind, geothermal,tide and wave power – electricity is being generated, which does not negate lies, pseudo-science, denial, propaganda, subsidization, character assassination, political influence, weaponization and waste.
                      You demonstrated you're a lying pronuke propagandist troll within very few posts.

        • Internal Radiation Danger Explained Via A Drop of Red Wine Story And Sniper In Football Stadium Story, Correlations Is Not Causation Debunked
          http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/internal-radiation-danger-explained-via.html

        • Personally i think the entire dose model framework is infused with problematic assumptions:

          Models predict effects based on each individual radionuclide.

          Models do not incorporate synergistic effects nor account for bodily burdens acquired after years of exposure (which is what we have now).

          Models do not adequately distinguish between internal and external exposure because the absorbed dose construct averages impacts across organs, rather than addressing targeted effects

          Models do not adequately incorporate variation in susceptibility across life span.

          Models do not adequately incorporate differences in effects from alpha, beta, and gamma emitters, neutron radiation, and other exotic particle effects

          I could go on.

          The idea that one cannot possibly say anything about effects in the absence of precise dose information is propaganda, in my opinion, aimed at hiding the cumulative exposure effects of radiation contamination.

          • For example,

            In this article, we see how lack of specific dose information is being used to shutdown discussion of radiation effects:

            New report links thyroid cancer rise to Fukushima nuclear crisis Kyodo Oct 7, 2015 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/07/national/science-health/new-report-links-thyroid-cancer-rise-fukushima-nuclear-crisis/#.VhU3aCtBmFt

            [excerpt] "But their conclusion is refuted by other epidemiology experts, including Shoichiro Tsugane of the National Cancer Center, who said the results are premature.

            “Unless radiation exposure data are checked, any specific relationship between a cancer incidence and radiation cannot be identified,” said Tsugane, director of the Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening. He said there is a global trend of over-diagnosis of thyroid cancer. [end excerpt]

            Majia here: The thing is that information about exposure was deliberately ERASED

            “Nuclear Commission Erases Children's Exposure Data,” NHK (2011, August 11): http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/11_14.html

          • jsn999

            The dose model works. Its the main basis for radiation protection practiced world wide. As a sociologist, I would not expect you to understand the underlying physics and science behind the dose model which has basically established a level of risk that people who work with radiation (e.g. cardiologists, technicians) can accept.

            • The ICRP dose-model is full of flaws and is not predictive for internal exposure and cumulative and synergistic "low-dose" effects. It also fails entirely on transgenerational effects, which UNSCEAR recognizes but has not studied extensively for obvious reasons.

              Moreover, it does not fully incorporate the chemical toxicity of elements such as uranium, which has been documented in recent research published in Environmental Health Perspectives on Navajo uranium exposure.

            • By the way, how do you know I'm a sociologist? You must not be new and you must be familiar with my profile.

    • Well firstly the report is for stable Sr89… And I DID say it was an example…

      • jsn999

        ok fair enough. Just needed to understand the basis for making the specific concentration noted equivalent to dose without the right conversions.

      • jsn999

        Stable Sr89 is not a radiation hazard since it is not radioactive.

        • I guess your not with the program. My statement was about bone growth anomalies, and strontium NOT Sr radiation.
          END!

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          Sr89 isnt stable. They use this hoping to reduce pain in bone cancer patients, but its not a healthy substance. It appears the ICRP underestimates its danger

          ICRP: 2.6 nSv/Bq

          ECRR: 26 nSv/Bq

          • TY Code correct:

            Strontium-89 is an isotope of strontium. Strontium-89 is a beta particle emitter with a half-life of 50 days.

            My main point of example, was it has the same uptake via calcium to cause bone development defects such as crooked calf syndrome. Reiterating any strontium in too much bio accumulation of large Sr ion layering on bones, in a developing skeleton; can lead to deformation. Note this is not a genetic mutation, it is a bio accumulated condition.

          • jsn999

            If the ECRR model is 10x the ICRP model, then which one is right? On the one hand one is more conservative, yet on the other hand, overly conservative could be used to sway nonuse for medical purposes and cause people to actually not seek the treatments they need. Isnt this the purpose of the NRC exercise? To get people to think that not all radiation levels are deadly? Its ok to speak in generalities but at some time, you are going to have to stick by a number that you feel comfortable. Who is going to make that choice for you? ECRR or ICRP? For that matter, why hasnt ECRR models made any practical inroads across the board? Why are they not teaching ECRR models in medical school or radiation protection curriculums? Im pretty much over the ICRP vs ECRR debate since its really about political posturing and not about science anymore. Still I think ICRP is closer to the real science than ECRR from what I have read. At least there is verification and validation.

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              The ICRP model is to a large extent an extrapolation from high doses, still relying on the flawed Hiroshima bomb survivor data. Their in vitro cell culture tests dont conform to reality as shown by the relatively new and growing understanding of bystander effects. So they dont "know", they simply guess and assume they are correct. You will find this admission throughout ICRP literature. The reason you are 'pretty much over the ICRP vs ECRR debate' is because you never engaged in it or are not a comprehensive thinker. Several sources have shown the inherent flaws in the ICRP model. Everyone knows there is a conflict of interest and the ICRP who hold the World Health Organization captive, both at the behest of the nuclear industry.

              Why do you think ICRP is closer to real science? Real world results have repeatedly shown that the ICRP model is NOT validated or verified. Either you are unaware of this or you are just arguing for the industry

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                short version; the ECRR model is more correct. If you were ACTUALLY interested, you could find out why by watching this video of Busby

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTk2bJ9-RBE

                • jsn999

                  Im not interested in anything by Busby. Sorry to disappoint you.

                  • or-well

                    No anti-nuke truth for little culty j thanks.

                  • Anyone who does not agree and think like you do, is a cultist or fearmonger, right?

                    Science is all about debating and looking at other points of view. Yet, here you are, saying that you will not look at any opposing or dissenting viewpoints.

                    Hmmm, that sounds a mite unscientific, don't you think?

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    not just Busby
                    quite a few professors, a lot of scientific work. It would be great fun to see you in a room confronting 15 serious professors who have had boots on the ground with no financial ties to the nuke cartel

                    Heres just one of their reasons for rejecting the ICRP model;

                    the ICRP risk model was developed before the discovery of the DNA structure and the discovery that certain radionuclides have chemical affinities for DNA, so that the concept of absorbed dose as used by ICRP cannot account for the effects of exposure to these radionuclides,

                    Professor Yuri Bandazhevski (Belarus)
                    Professor Carmel Mothershill (Canada)
                    Dr Christos Matsoukas (Greece)
                    Professor Chris Busby (UK)
                    Professor Rosa Goncharova (Belarus)
                    Professor Alexey Yablokov (Russia)
                    Professor Mikhail Malko (Belarus)
                    Professor Shoji Sawada (Japan)
                    Professor Daniil Gluzman (Ukraine)
                    Professor Angelina Nyagu (Ukraine)
                    Dr Hagen Scherb (Germany)
                    Professor Alexey Nesterenko (Belarus)
                    Professor Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake (Germany)
                    Dr Sebastian Pflugbeil (Germany)
                    Professor Michel Fernex (France)
                    Dr Alfred Koerblein (Germany)
                    Dr Marvin Resnikoff (United States)

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                sorry I should have said the IAEA holds the WHO captive by some legal agreement. Theres an ongoing public demonstration many years running in front of the WHO to expose this fact. The IAEA takes its safety standards from the ICRP

                http://www.icrp.org/docs/Renate%20Czarwinski%20Revision%20of%20the%20International%20BSS.pdf

                • jsn999

                  The IAEA takes its standards from the best available resources. If the ECRR is better than the ICRP then why is it that ECRR can not get traction? It isnt because ICRP and WHO and IAEA are in cahoots. Its because ECRR is not up to the same scientific standards and their work has been vetted and dismissed. Plain and simple. If ECRR models were accurate, then thats what would be taught in medical schools and universitites. Its one thing to cry foul, but to replace established scientific methods with heresy is not the right thing to do.

                  I have learned in my life that if you are driven to do the right thing, no one will question your motives or intentions, unless they are driven by the wrong thing to do.

                  Its ok to dissent against nuclear power. But dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

                  • IAEA is nothing but a MARKETING ARM of the nuclear industry that coopted WHO. Bet you did not know that…

                    Would you trust your life to a PR firm?

                    Would you trust them to tell the truth?

                    (WHO) World Health Organization Censored, Secretly Controlled By IAEA With Pro Nuclear Industry Control Agreement
                    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/who-is-iaea-what-does-iaea-do-who-funds.html

                  • or-well

                    Holding up IAEA as an exemplar! HAHAHAHA!
                    I've learned there's little difference between the words of a propagandist and a cultist.
                    As for the excusatory bullshit about motives and intentions it's the same "If you question us you're automatically wrong" theme so beloved of the nuke cultists.

                    • jsn999

                      Its ironic that you mention cult. If there is a group of people that are insular and hostile to outsider thinking, then I would call that a cult. So what then would you call the environment where someone with a different view comes and gets welcomed with profanity and name calling?

                      I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you are unscientific in your approach to science based topics. If you link with a non-scientific report to prove your point, you made my case.

                      Im trying to get you to improve your message so that real dialog can take place. Im not here to bash anyone and say they are wrong. Maybe I am here to get people to understand that the world doesnt want to hear what people here have been feeding others.

                      There are real problems in the world and Fukushima is probably the least of them. Why put your chips in the middle and go all in on a losing position? You know that nuclear is not going away. You know that countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and even ISIS are wanting special nuclear material. Your efforts to weaken strong countries who have the resources to keep these materials from nefarious hands only sets mankind back.

                      I only presented scientific facts regarding radiation. The fact of the matter is that our very existance on this planet is due to natural radiation and radioactive processes does not sit well with this constituency. Couple that with the fact that any man-made technologies that produced isotopes pale in comparison.

                    • JSN, you are already linked this site and everyone on it to a JIM JONES cult, and made it clear you don't listen to anyone other than your own closed circle of friends.

                      How is that not cultish? How is that not closed minded?

                      The Art of Political And Media Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons, Fake Media Journalism and Fraudulent Science; via A @AGreenRoad
                      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/primer-in-art-of-deception-cult-of.html

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    the ECRR 2010 recommendations of the European committee on radiation risk is here

                    http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

                    You can read up on it just in case you should find yourself in a room of 15 professors who have actually studied the latest findings of radiation risk.

                    If you find something you disagree with, you could share it here for a run through to hone your argument

                    • jsn999

                      Ive actually read the document and reviewed it against the best practices and known science of our time. I only have to get through the masthead to know it really wasnt crafted by authoritative experts.

                  • Ya the nukist has $1.4B per year to spend to push their precious "science" of death on us all.

              • jsn999

                The reason I am over the ICRP vs ECRR debate is like anyone who has a sound scientific background, the ECRR model is not validated by any means. Its merely a theoretical approach which does not include the holistic effects of radiation. It primarily states that any single form of radiation without specifying the strength of that radiation, can lead to a cancer, which has not been proven. It has really no comprehensive medical physics basis as well. A lot of their reasoning is pure conjecture.

                So you would hang your hat on a flawed model, that is only advanced by those outside the mainstream. That to me, says that you too are outside the circles and feel some need to allign your thinking to the disenfranchised scientists who refuse to take part in the scientific process of vetting for fear they will be exposed as charlatans. I get it. You dont want to be outed as someone who doesnt have the goods. So you play the "independent" card, primarliy because you dont have the goods. Else you would be in there with the rest of the accepted community.

        • Dr. Rolf Sholz – Cesium And Strontium Negative Health Effects On Children And Adults, Yttrium As Cause Of Diabetes And Cancer
          http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/german-how-cesium-and-strontium-90.html

          • jsn999

            There are many causes of diabetes and cancer. If radioactive materials were the only cause, the solution would be simple. So why then are millions of dollars spent on diabetes and cancer research when you claim the cause is right in front of us to deal with? No one is saying stick your face in a tailpipe that spits out radioactive isotopes in massive quantities. However on the other hand, only a select few such as yourself maintain that 1 atom in maybe the 2.5e27 atoms in our bodies can make a difference. That is like you having a single dollar bill and saying it will affect a trillion dollar economy – squared.

            Maybe there is a Butterfly Effect, but it hasnt been proven for the single stray bullet in a stadium as you put it. We all have our own bullet aimed at us. For some its natural causes, for others its not. Everyone dies from something. You can't change that by ridding the world of nuclear technology. You might even excacerbate it. Look at the climate.

            • And we can assume that you believe nuclear energy is the answer to global warming, correct?

              Nuclear Energy As A Direct Cause Of Global Warming, Acid Rain, Acid Oceans, Extreme Weather, And Super Storms
              http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/nuclear-energy-as-direct-cause-of.html

              Keep repeating; nuclear is green, clean, safe, and too cheap to meter..

              sarc..

              • jsn999

                Why do you believe nuclear thinks its too cheap to meter? No one ever said that as a point of a sales pitch. The person that really said that wasnt aware of the tremendous bureaucracy that would ensue to drive risk down to zero.

                Nuclear is a lot of good things, but there are downsides, as with anything.

                There is no panacea. Yet from my vantage point, the best way to get the world climate back in the right direction is through nuclear.

                Why do you think China, which has the dirtiest air on the planet (thanks in part to the US reliance on their manufacturing base), is building 25 nuclear plants, and has Bill Gates, and the MSR folks becking?

                Its interesting because as a "repressive government" we do not see anyone complaining that the Chinese standard of living is increasing and they too, are a world leader in nuclear.

                So there you have it, our great democracy, great nation amongst nations would rather have China develop new nuclear technology than ourselves. The problem I see is that the US will fall behind and the world moves on. Many many small countries are looking to implement the technology. Why is that?

                Why are your AGRP links not resounding with the rest of the world? You only seem to target the US antinuclear community, which is faltering.

                Japan reactors restarting really put the breaks on your movement. New reactors are being designed and built all over the world. Here we also see climate change and standard of living issues addressed.

            • $1.4B per year in nuclear propaganda money protecting a $400B a year "industry".

    • Tim42

      Err..Math time..

      Nuclear fuel(U20) has ~11x the density of water(11Kg/l).
      4% fission == 387 grams of fissioned U products per litter.

      SR-90 5.8% fission yield of that 387g(fissioned U/l) *5.8% /2 == ~11.2g/l in spent fuel.

      • Tim42

        Error .. that should be UO2 is 11x the density of water..

      • jsn999

        You have to multiply by the weight fraction of U to UO2. Plus not all the U is fissioned. Only about 5% of U in UO2 is U235. So its going to be a very low number, not 4 g/L. This also assumes all of the U is fissioned which depending on the core cycle could be up to 33%. So once again, its a very small number.

        • E energy deposition = Moron * <asshat>^2

          • Johnny Blade Johnny Blade

            Hello everyone, I only get a short window of opportunity to catch up on 311 status & issues and see how everyone's doing. So it is crystal clear to me when I see posts that came from moe foe and/or it's brethren showing up here again. The malicious entity always shows up starting out polite and seemingly intelligent & unbiased but touting tainted "ICRP" data & figures while challenging the existence of disturbing phenomena such as the buckeyball radiation transport mode,etc. before being called out by our stock & others that inevitably exposes him,her or it as the same NWO(NukedWorldOdor)mouthpiece,our own embedded(&banned!)NukePuke cheerleader/Goebbels-style propagandist whom I expect to quickly resort to the same sociopathic troll comments & tactics we've seen show up whenever there's something here the pukes feel needs to distract the casual 'newsers & especially newbies to the site away from dire news & findings related to nuke industry poisoning for profit! Whenever the troll shows up regardless of how or "who"it poses as(?),it's a sure sign that something bad happened or something got worse! 🙁
            How could "it's" re-emergence here be seen as anything else? On the other hand, it serves to prove ENEnews is still a threat to MoeFoes parent corporation/handlers & therefor 'newsers are doing a good job keeping it real! 🙂
            Hopefully admin will see whose back touting ICRP crap to a hostile audience too smart to accept the mo fo's BS!
            Luv u guys & hope ur…

            • jsn999

              Buckyball radiation transport is not been proven on scientific grounds. Why make all the inuendo? Isnt life too short to bash people on ideological grounds? ENEnews is not a threat to anyone. I show up here to engage in discourse and get spat upon with names. Now who is being uncivil? Thanks.

              • Maybe this is why people here are so upset and calling you names, when you try to defend sacrificing children to the nuclear industry cabal.

                Sacrifice Zones, Nuclear Power and the Sacrificial Victims System Is Spreading Globally As Part Of Predatory Capitalism
                http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/sacrifice-zones-nuclear-power-and.html

                • jsn999

                  There is no proof that the nuclear industry kills children. On the other hand, Sandy Hook is proof that the firearms industry in America is out of control.

                  Having raised children to adulthood, I can say with all confidence that anyone that thinks as you do is just exploiting children for their own gain. Shame.

                  Now lets talk about real needs of children. They need food, water, clothing, medicine, shelter, electricity, security, and a chance to grow into adulthood. Im working for that end. What are you doing besides publishing doom and gloom?

                  The world is a very very difficult place for children. The bathtub curve of infant mortalilty is shaped that way for a reason.

                  I would suggest you not try and justify why people are upset and calling me names. Just be civil and we can move the discussion to address the real needs of children.

                  When people here throw out Google links to Chernobyl and mutations and birth defects, it only reminds me that they really do not have the childrens interest at heart. In fact, there really is not real evidence for their claim.

                  Birth defects, infant mortality and other things have and will always be with mankind.

                  The fact that A-bomb children lived 70 years afterwards should be a testament to the resilence of humanity.

                  You had to overcome great odds to be born, and live on this planet. Why sully it with what you think is your view of why things are bad?

                  Things are bad and things are good. Glass is half full vs empty.

                  • Sandy Hook! Wow, everyone with a working brain knows that Sandy Hook was a drill, that they then decided to roll out as a "real story" so Obama can grab out guns and thus the final push to the "elite" fucking bastards never having to worry about revolt again. yes it really is that simple

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    “…• According to figures given by the Russian authorities, more than 90% of the liquidators have become invalids; i.e. at least 740,000 severely ill liquidators. They are aging prematurely, and a higher than average number have developed various forms of cancer, leukaemia, somatic and neurological psychiatric illnesses. A very large number have cataracts. Due to long latency periods, a significant increase in cancers is to be expected in the coming years…”
                    http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    “…At the screening, he pleaded for the abolition of atomic weapons.[7]
                    “Yamaguchi became a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament.[10] He told an interviewer "The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings."[10] Speaking through his daughter during a telephone interview, he said, "I can't understand why the world cannot understand the agony of the nuclear bombs. How can they keep developing these weapons?"[7]…
                    “Late in his life, he began to suffer from radiation-related ailments, including cataracts and acute leukemia.[13]
                    “His wife also suffered radiation poisoning from black rain after the Nagasaki explosion and died in 2010 (age 93) of kidney and liver cancer after a lifetime of illness. All three of their children reported suffering from health problems likely connected with their parents' exposures.[7]
                    “Death
                    “In 2009, Yamaguchi learned that he was dying of stomach cancer.[7] He died on January 4, 2010 in Nagasaki at the age of 93.[5][14][15][16][17]…”
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

              • melting mermaid melting mermaid

                The last troll I conversed with never heard of the Wigner effect. And he was a safety inspector. Much less Petkau. It's nuclear industry myopia. It's not your fault. Your brainwashed and brain damaged. We'll pray Jesus has mercy on you and the rest of your omnicidal buddies.

                • Like sociopaths, they are damaged goods, I am not sure mercy or salvation are deserved.

                  Oppy got his fate, and he knew it.

                • jsn999

                  The Wigner effect was limited to Chernobyl. The Petkau effect has never been proven. Your just spitballing there melting because you are angry you feel the system failed you. When was the last time you had a man? Its important. Not meant to be prying but if you got some on a regular basis you wouldnt be so ascerbic.

                  • or-well

                    nukie j pulls down his pants – so to speak – and the revelation is just as pathetic as it always is.

                  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

                    Atomic discomposition only happened in Chernobyl??? You're an idiot. Can you name 3 things made out of atoms? Probably not. I'll go have some sex and see if that helps some of those children in Japan with their thyroid cancer, Nuketards…we asked for a kinder smarter troll, and this is all yall got…it's back to the batcave for you.

          • jsn999

            Im sure Einstein was thinking that very same thing when he went up to collect his second Nobel Prize.

    • jsn999 are you bot?

      Dr. Mangano – High and Rising Levels of Radioactive Strontium-90 in Nearly 5,000 Baby Teeth; The Tooth Fairy Project – Dr. Janette Sherman MD
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/11/high-and-rising-levels-of-radioactive.html

      • jsn999

        The work of "Dr" Mangano has not been substantiated in the accepted community. Thus any reference to it as legitimate scientific work is specious at best. You can use it as opinion, as you have shown. But you can't use it as a basis of scientific fact. Since its conclusions are not based on scientific reasoning. Same goes for Anne or stock, or anyone who attempts to use pseudoscience and their links for a scientific argument. I haven't seen anything from the bloggers here that would convince anyone other than those in their same camp of those effects. All of the links that people post are from either here, or from sources that have not been vetted in the established scientific community. At best any link that you, or Anne or stock or anyone posts is best served as opinion.

        • or-well

          nuketroll – "science community" = pronuke community. Always.
          All science but pronuke science is denied.

          Same tired bullshit propaganda.

          • Did you know that closed minds are like a parachute that is never worn or opened when jumping out of airplane?

          • jsn999

            Its not propaganda. Its just what it is. I use science links, they use news, opinion, partisan biased links. So on those grounds I think you understand. When you say "pronuke science" I dont get what you mean. Science is science. Right now the science doesnt support your case. I dont really think it ever has, and that is why people who share your opinion lash out at people like me, who have used science for the betterment of mankind. The world has all sorts of challenges and nuclear technology is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. So you have decided to attack a relatively benign form of energy that holds much promise to address situations like Third World poverty, famine and disease, as well as global warming. You do this under the pretext that somehow you believe the earth and human kind is being harmed by manmade technologies that keep a vast majority (99.999999%) of its inventory contained from public health concerns. Still you would rather believe in your world view than what is offered by the facts.

            The fact of the matter is that Fukushima was bad, but so was Ciba, and other industrial mishaps caused by the tsunami. The USS Reagan sailors were not exposed to deadly radiation. Maybe they were exposed to chemicals and other things, but at the end of the day, it wasn't radiation that made them sick. Still I think they should be compensated for their stress induced illnesses. This is the downside of radiation. The fear is more dangerous than the radiation.

            • We know all about

              Radiophobia – IAEA Blames Victims For All Cumulative Radiation Damage And Negative Health Effects, Claims All Man Made Radiation Heals People Via Hormesis
              http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/radiophobia-iaea-blames-victims-for-all.html

              … and how the IAEA marketing agency for the nuclear industry blames the victims for their invisible heavy metal and radioactive poisoning scheme.

              • jsn999

                Radiophobia exists because people would rather fear what they dont understand than take the time to really understand it. People here fancy themselves as radiation experts however from my outsider viewpoint, I see many people going down the road of perdition. Its paved with good intention sure, but it doesnt make their efforts change the science. Take PT, who scurries about the internet looking for that elusive link that proves her case. It doesnt change the reality of the science.

                The IAEA was formed to promote nuclear technology. Why is that a bad thing? Look at any IAEA technical (TECDOC) document. Look at the second page. Do you see all those countries? The IAEA is a world body. That means that countries of the world have banded together and have formed what is without a doubt the greatest collection of minds on the subject matter. The IAEA is multi-cultural with people from all countries employed at the various locations of its missions.

                When you say invisible, there are many things in life that are invisibe. Electricity, air, amongst those. Can you see electricity? Can you see air? No.

                So the whole notion of something being bad because its invisible is really unfounded.

                • J "the whole notion of something being bad because its invisible is really unfounded."

                  Really? Wow, that is REAL science now..

                  Just because a man made heavy metal radioactive poison is INVISIBLE, does not make it BAD!

                  Now how did we miss that one?

                  Gee, we better come over to your house and learn hormesis theory, correct?

            • or-well

              Really now, could you be more disingenuous, saying "science is science"?
              That you're no babe-in-the-woods yet promote such a myth is telling.
              Your post is full of lies and opposite-speak, full-on nuclear industry talking-point propaganda and THAT does NOT better Mankind.

        • Slylandro Slylandro

          jsn999 – At least Mangano got out there and did something. And he followed similar cancer study research protocols.

          Where's the NRC's study? Why didn't they finish it? It was only a measly 8 mil. What the hell is that? Why with-hold data? Why obfuscate? Why denigrate, demean and belittle those honestly concerned that they're getting the run around? I'll tell you why they didn't finish it. Because things are so bad, and there's enough people out there with the ability to see through the lies and corruption, that there'd be no way they could bury the results without obvious signs of manipulation. Even the idiot savants on Atomicinsights were mature enough to admit "it looks bad".

          So I'll ask you – where's their data? Hell, Mangano and all others like him have more data than the NRC will *EVER* have.

          Are you one of these people? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150818-what-is-it-like-to-have-never-felt-an-emotion

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Crooked Calf burgers on a menu near you soon! More bad news from that landfill fire in St. Louis: http://news.yahoo.com/disaster-plan-developed-case-fire-reaches-nuclear-waste-191256557.html
    Disaster plan in place…does this mean they plan on dealing with a "disaster"???

    • flannelman flannelman

      It's getting harder to keep quiet. The radioactive tree report was a real problem. Now it leaks a disaster plan was done up a year back and just found out about this week.

      But in St Louis. This is still pretty much on the down low. In media reports lopsided coverage brought to you from Republic's perspective mostly.

  • S.C. has 4 NPPs and 2 under construction. What is their status with all this flooding?
    http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=SC
    Do the construction sites hold radioactive material?

  • Nick

    Slow down folks.

    anagyrine

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18038992

    “Our goal is to demonstrate what these perennial grasses can do and how they’ll keep medusahead and cheatgrass from reinvading the range,” Panter said. “Ultimately, we hope it will provide a better forage source so the cattle will not graze lupine late in the summer.”
    Cattle typically begin to graze lupine around July 1 because there aren’t many perennial grasses left and cheatgrass dries up, Panter said. Perennial grasses and forage kochia are more nutritious, he said.

    http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestock/20150515/field-day-helps-ranchers-remove-toxic-plants

    Lupine populations wax and wane.

    Crooked calf syndrome is caused by anagyrine.

    Granted Fukushima is a problem, but don't ignore basic facts.

  • Nick

    Meanwhile, look at this back in Japan..

    “Unless radiation exposure data are checked, any specific relationship between a cancer incidence and radiation cannot be identified,” said Tsugane, director of the Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening. He said there is a global trend of over-diagnosis of thyroid cancer.

    As of late August, the Fukushima Prefecture Government identified 104 thyroid cancer cases in the prefecture.

    But the prefectural government and many experts have doubted whether these cases are related to the nuclear disaster, as the amount of radioactive iodine released during the crisis was smaller than that following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident."

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/07/national/science-health/new-report-links-thyroid-cancer-rise-fukushima-nuclear-crisis/#.VhUTnSgViko

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      Very convenient as 1 in 3 deaths are directly from cancer in Japan, which means 32,000,000 Japanese citizens will die from cancer in the next 80 years. 🙁

      "cannot be identified~cannot be identified~cannot be identified~cannot be identified"

      • jsn999

        I think that 1/3 number is a world wide general number per the CDC. So Japan's activity is right in line with the world average.

        • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

          Oh boy sure hope we can get that death by cancers number/percent up to 50% or 75% real soon..

          Nuclear is working on it! 🙁

          • DUDe DisasterInterpretationDissorder

            Just be passive when you pollute and make sure to control the population enough to keep them in a state of "selflearned helplessness and dumbfounded" about it..
            It will cumulate on its own and everybody can enjoy cancer rises to 100%..just deny you do this on purpose..and make sure you have stock in both warmachines and medicine and everything will be peachy for you..untill its your time at least..

          • jsn999

            Death by all sources is 100%. What are you saying there obe? That without nuclear we would live forever? I think people were dying of cancer long before the atomic age. We were burning fossil fuel which has thorium and uranium in it long before. I think its ok to try and pin all cancers on one thing, then try to irradicate that one thing. But we know better, that it isn't just one thing. In fact, it might be an infinite number of causes. I'm reminded that some people think drinking coffee causes cancer, and some think drinking it prevents cancer. So which is it? Radiation in very large amounts does cause cancer, but Im also reminded that it also kills cancer cells as well. So where is the line?

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              jsn999 one of your most inane troll potboilers to date. Youre the same old troll, its no secret.

              Death by all sources adds up to way over 100% because we have to keep killing the same pro nuke troll rumors time and time again. Thats because truth means nothing to your kind.

              Cancer was rare. In free ranging animals in natural uncontaminated habitat, cancer is nearly non existent. Thats a fact. Industrial pollution, including nuclear waste has increased mans death and illness by cancer to 50%. Thats an alarming statistic considering weve waged an all out "war against cancer" for many years now. When people like you attempt to downplay the corrupt and criminal causes of their loved ones deaths, you will be held in high contempt. Guessing you get a charge out of that. Nuclear is an unprecedented catastrophe. But dont take my word for it. Here it is from one of your own;

              Olli Heinonen, former IAEA deputy director general
              "this is certainly a national catastrophe for Japan — but actually this a catastrophe for every citizen of the world"

              IAEA deputy director general….why dont you go try to argue your nonsense with him?

              • jsn999

                Death by all sources adds up to 100% because no one to this date, except 1, has escaped death. But he had to die first. There was no real numbers on cancer before cancer. Just as in the Dark Ages, medical people applied leeches and other things to "heal" people. Industrial pollution has contributed to all sorts of maladays, however here is one little known fact- some 40 years after TMI 2 melted down, TMI 1 workers have been there side by side and as a collection, the cancer rate amongst those workers 4 decades later are no where near any spike in the national average. I can't explain that nor can anyone else. It remains a fact that epidemiologists can pretty much skew results the way their sponsors see fit. Everyone serves a master. Yet that does not make epidemiology the end all of end alls. In the end, the fact that people live 50, 60, even 70 years after a significant exposure is a tell tale sign.

                I am reminded that the A-bomb victims who were children and teenagers then, and now in their 80s and 90s after receiving a relatively large acute dose, is probably a testament that the long term effects of radiation exposure are not well understood. So models are drawn up and people use those models to extrapolate "millions of deaths" from low level exposures when there really isnt any evidence to the such.

                • great gobbldigook… means nothing. Says nothing, and might be believed by the mass media and public. It does not work here, sorry.

                  Nuclear Power Plant Studies Show Child Leukemia, Breast, Thyroid Cancer Rates Increase RADICALLY Closer To Plants
                  http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/child-leukemia-breast-thyroid-cancer.html

                  • jsn999

                    What doesnt work here Dr G? Reason and the scientific method?

                    I just read your link with a critical eye and it misses the mark on scientific grounds. It makes for great opinion, but the science is lacking.

                  • jsn999

                    You really didnt read what I wrote with a careful eye Dr. G. Everything I said points to the fact that nuclear power has not been proven deadly, even with major accidents. You may think otherwise with your references to biased studies. Why do you think the NRC withdrew its NAS study? Conspiracy theorists love that one. The number one reason is that there is no proof that any of it would show an increase in risk.

                    All your studies and references to the contrary are from book cooking and partisan sources. Try science for a change. Real vetted science.

                    Dont hide behind "peer review" when the peers are no better than those doing the work. Get the work vetted by independent non biased sources.

                    That was the process that exposed the ECRR methodology. It wasnt the ICRP that said their work was flawed. It was the overall established scientific community which basically covers everything else. The ICRP is the authority however even they revise their thinking. This is shown with ICRP 103 (2007) when TEDE was replaced by TED. If you are referencing TEDE, you are behind the times.

                    • There were lots of scientists and TONS of science in that article; it must be that you missed all of those by skimming it, or ignoring the many scientific parts.

                      Maybe your definition of science is that it is not science if it does not agree with your opinion.

                      Are you God?

                      Are you the decider?

                      You and you alone get to decide what is science and what is not here, correct?

                    • or-well

                      Remember Doc – the only "real" science is pronuclear science (as per cultists and propagandists)! NO other counts!

                  • jsn999

                    I cant trust AGRP for accurate scientific information. So why bother?

                    • or-well

                      I can't trust nukist propagandists for accurate scientific information. So why bother?

                    • jsn999

                      Dr G you really dont get it, or-well, Code Shutdown, stock, all of you. You really are just blowing alot of smoke. Its all rhetoric. I for one am going to out to the local brewery then hitting the jazz bar. This blog really isnt up to snuff.

                    • or-well

                      No, nukie j, we get it that you are a lying piece of shit cult-think propagandist for a corrupt and dying industry.

                    • SadieDog

                      or-well
                      October 8, 2015 at 5:17 pm
                      No, nukie j, we get it that you are a lying piece of shit cult-think propagandist for a corrupt and dying industry.

                      That's really all that needs to be said. 😉

                  • jsn999

                    You wrote:

                    "There were lots of scientists and TONS of science in that article; it must be that you missed all of those by skimming it, or ignoring the many scientific parts."

                    No. I weighed it against what is currently accepted and taught in major universities and published vetted journal articles where the context is fair game. There are no major universities where the physics professor gets up and says "nuclear physics is wrong". Show me one that does.

                    "Maybe your definition of science is that it is not science if it does not agree with your opinion." – Have you taken what you said and applied it to AGRP? You will be amazed at what you find out.

                    Hmm I am formally trained in this field. Many of your "scientists" really have not even worked on practical solutions. ALot of them are internet learned, or third hand theorists. They pontificate from ivory towers like Kaku.

                    Are you God? No

                    Are you the decider? No

                    "You and you alone get to decide what is science and what is not here, correct?"

                    I get to comment on its content, and my comment is that its rubbish. So either like it or lump it. I get to comment on it because you put it out there. Im sure if I put something out there, it too can be scruitinized.

                    You think you can write something without accountability and oversight?

                    I get to comment on it because I have a right and a duty to call you out when you are wrong. And Dr, you are very wrong on many accounts. Chernobyl = Windscale?

                • GOM GOM

                  jsn999
                  "Hibakusha" is a myth. A state of being of which folk songs are made. Your reminiscense of glowing octogenarians is most likely fueled by internet lore.

                  Logic dictates one cannot survive a ground zero nuclear explosion. One cannot survive for long if one is in a certain circumference of it either, to what distance that is anyone's guess. Even beyond a 'safe' zone, it is risky due to ecological factors. Radiation illness would be assured.

                  One would presume your take on nuclear power is dangerously delusional.

                  • jsn999

                    Nuclear power is not a ground zero nuclear explosion. If you think that, then maybe the delusional is not who you think.

                    • Sam Sam

                      FUKUSHIMA UNIT THREE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION

                      YOU ARE WRONG! WHO IS THE DELUSIONAL ONE?

                      NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME AT GROUND ZERO A
                      NUCLEAR EXPLOSION!

                      When the people wake up and see each nuclear generating plant as a potential nuclear explosion then there will be a force to shut them down for good.

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  No one has ever escaped death..ever.

          • jsn999

            What makes you think that 50-75% is a viable number given that the CDC pretty much taps us at 33% independent of any specific cause. And there are literally tens of thousands of causes.

            I am wondering, and this is just me, that if nuclear were the cause of all cancer, wouldnt we have figured it out by now? And all moneys going into a cancer cure would be monies wasted if we really knew it was all nuclear's fault?

            The logic of your argument doesnt make any sense Obe.

            On the one hand you say "all cancers are caused by nuclear" yet on the other hand, there are countless moneys being spent on finding a cure. If there were truely a 100% correlation between the cause and the effect, and the cause were known, then why are cancers increasing when the use of nuclear is decreasing? Furthermore, people who were irradiated from the A bomb years are living well into their 80s, 90s, even 100s.

            If the Japanese were irradiated with atomic fallout in the 40s then 1) why are many still alive today, when they were irradiated as children? and 2) why is the cancer rate amongst elderly Japanese amongst the lowest in the world across all other demographic groups?

            Something to ponder about Obe the next time you mish mash a Google search with a meaningless hodge podge of disjointed words.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Plant Could Release 14,000 Times As Much Radiation As Atomic Bomb
              Aug. 15, 2013
              http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-radiation-hiroshima-atom-bomb-2013-8

              This article is just about the spent fuel in Unit #4.

              There were 7 spent fuel pools at Fukushima.

              • jsn999

                PT, if the world ran on "could" then there would be no need for science, technology, or progress. We can just imagine transporting ourselves from point A to point B just because we "could" imagine it.

                I read the link you provided and it really doesnt answer the science. The spent fuel pools at Fukushima represent "potential" hazard, yet as we have seen the past 4 years, the potential and the reality are two different and diametrically opposing views.

                • melting mermaid melting mermaid

                  http://www.enformable.com/post/130750241516/nuclear-waste-site-could-close-before-vermont
                  Nukies and psychopaths have no ability to think ahead. Fatal flaw for us all.

                  • jsn999

                    Actually they are thinking 50, 60, 200, 10,000 years ahead. Do you think that if someone said "here is something that is so deadly you have to isolate it for tens of thousands of years" that there is no forward thinking on geology, ground water, earthquakes etc? No one can predict the future however we can work on a geologic time scale knowing the geology the past several million years. Oklo showed this.

                    Now if someone came to you and said "I can take all your nuclear waste and rid it from the planet forever while giving you a positive (electricity) from doing so, then you would be for it. No one wants to see the stuff buried, only to be dug up later. It is prudent to just put nuclear waste in a special reactor that burns actinides. That reactor was the IFR, but shortsighted environmentalists captured Clinton.

                    So if you really want to call anyone short sighted, look to those that oppose ridding the world of nuclear material forever, instead of burying it.

                    I think even you can appreciate the work to rid nuclear waste and derive an energy content from it. Its like gold. Why would you bury gold? Its a commodity more precious than gold. It can power countries out of poverty.

                    • Even if you could prove that, which you can't, Nature wins in the end.

                      Super Solar Storm To Hit Earth – 'Carrington Effect'; 400 Nuke Plants Will Melt Down/Explode After Grid Goes Down, Lawsuits, Activism Needed
                      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-solar-storm-predicted-to-hit-2013.html

                    • melting mermaid melting mermaid

                      I don't think we should get rid of the science or the scientists, indeed we never needed them more, but I think they should invest themselves in undoing all the military and privateering snafus they've unleashed on mankind. Which may, I'm sure your quite invested in denying this eventuality, be irredeemable. I hope and pray we're all crazy and you're right and all this radiation is just hunky dory, but the evidence doesn't support that. And even if Fukushima is of negligible significance, what about those crazy superpowers clashing right now over yonder in Syria, why would you arm them thusly. It is MAD. MADness. Even a small nuclear exchange would be an ele. How much forthought went into that? None whatsoever. What about my small children? Can you not see what you have taken from them? And you talk down to us sneeringly and wonder why we don't welcome you with open arms and friendly words. Help us. Help us save ourselves. Save you, your children. Our children. Fix this. And we will help. There are tens of thousands of us who would die to stop this. It Is that important. But yall just pretend there's nothing wrong and go on… business as usual. How could you and why??? Why why why!!

                  • jsn999

                    enformable isnt reputable or informable. So go back to your drawing board mermaid. Lucas is a dip sh*t when it comes to nuclear issues.

              • jsn999

                PT you wrote:

                "Why haven't you read all the 5,000 peer reviewed studies made by the Soviets after Chernobyl? Their studies have proven ass the horrible effects of radiation from Chernobyl. And Fukushima is 1000s of times worse than Chernobyl. We are bombarded by all the nuclear radiation from every nuclear accident, every nuclear bomb test, all the radiation released from nuclear power plants, and all the DU weapons, and all the plutonium pits produced for nuclear bombs."

                Many of those Russian scientists like Yablokov put out literature without any facutal basis.

                You cite 5000 sources for your claim yet I dont see those sources making inroads to policy decisions on the basis of their merit.

                Even NYAS wont endorse Yablokov. I think thats what burns you up the most. That even though its "peer reviewed" then you think its legitimate. It has to be vetted, which is the step beyond peer review.

                Peer review from non-independent or likeminded people doesnt do it a service.

                Now here I am, an independent from your established 5000 sources, reviewing a great deal of it, and finding out, peeling back the layers, that its mostly fabrication based on presumed outcomes.

                Thats not science. Thats card forcing as magicians would do.

                So you have to do better than come after me with 5000 Russian references that are too out there and obscure to really mean anything. Russia is going great guns with their nuclear efforts. Why is that?

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Chernobyl = 400 Hiroshima Bombs & Fukushima = 500,000 Hiroshima Bombs
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBvZWN10Tdc

              • jsn999

                I dont follow your line of reasoning here PT. Are you saying on a radiological source term point of view? Because Chernobyl was an old Soviet style production reactor, and no one in the West would have approved such a use or operation. Still RBMKs are being operated today. Now with regard to the fissile inventory, a nuclear weapon does not burn all of its fuel. Neither does a nuclear reactor. Also, a reactor can not explode as a bomb. This is proven from the physics. You might opine that Unit 3 had a criticality, however this too has been disproven despite what stock may believe.

                I think you were sold a bill of goods here that just doesnt stack up on scientific or physical grounds.

                If nuclear power plants were like nuclear weapons, they would never have been built in the first place. For that matter, why would the USA tell Iran its ok to have commercial reactors and not weapons if you insist they are the same?

                Your argument doesn't make logical or scientific sense. It doesnt pass the eye test.

                • The UK Winscale disaster was a graphite reactor just like Chernobyl and it melted down too. You don't know your history J.

                  Over 60 nuclear reactors have melted down or exploded.. despite your claim to the opposite. It is hard to accept reality, especially inside the nuclear industry..

                  Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
                  http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-accidents-around-world.html

                  • jsn999

                    The Windscale reactor was a small graphite reactor yes, but it was no RBMK and thus not like Chernobyl, so on those grounds you are incorrect. I do know my history, it happened April 25, 1986 (I recalled that from the top of my head without going to Google). I also know why it happended and how it could not happen in a western reactor.

                    When you say "over 60 reactors have melted down" you are inaccurate. There was fuel melt in many test reactors. This is what they were made for – to test the limits of fuel. When you cry Santa Susanna and SL-1 you are looking at the same technology and age that brought about rocket disasters. This is the engineering process. We learn from mishaps. Its why we have seatbelts, airbags, and flight simulators etc.

                    You may claim nuclear is some ominous threat to humanity, but it really isnt. You might even have a whole web site devoted to it, but that is your niche area, with limited impact on real policy and real technology.

                    Websites like AGRP only serve to confuse, and not educate so on those grounds you are doing mankind a disservice. Stock too. I reviewed both of your sites and have found many many glaring technical and scientific errors and false conclusions.

                    However to your constituency, the sites are like flames for moths. Eventually people get burned from the information they consume.

                    Im just saying that if you are going to link your own site to prove your case on scientific grounds, then you will lose being…

                    • Cannot happen again??????

                      Haaaa haaaa haaaa. ROFLMAO

                      What was Fukushima, if it cannot happen again?

                      Multiple reactors and spent fuel pools dried out, melted down and out, despite all of these redundant back up systems that your industry promised would never allow another Chernobyl.

                      DOH!

                      For an expert, you are sure smart..

                      Maybe we can come to your house for classes?

                      Want to list your name and address?

                      What is the best time to come over?

                      How about this weekend?

                      Let's be friends.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Report: Repeated Low Doses of Radiation Can Cause More Damage than High Doses
              Posted on May 2, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
              http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/report-low-doses-of-radiation-can-cause-more-damage-than-high-doses.html

              • jsn999

                The link is not scientifically based. You might claim bystander effect, etc. but once again, unscientific and thus only a hypothesis.

                • Let's test it J..

                  How about breathing in couple thousand plutonium hot particles and them to stick to your lungs? Maybe super glue them in there.

                  Let's get the best medical experts to study what impact that has on your health.

                  Do you think that a few thousand hot microscopic radioactive Plutonium particles will increase your health, or reduce it long term?

                  Then after a few years, you can pontificate about bystanders, and lots of scientific stuff…

                  • jsn999

                    Where are you going to get a flux of a couple thousand plutonium hot particles descending on your lungs? Probably in a glovebox at a plutonium nuclear facility. Best to wear a respirator then. YOur contention that people out in the world breathe in thousands of hot particles is specious at best.

                    The best medical experts have studied these effects. In fact I know one very prominent expert that devotes his medical practice to the management of radiation mishaps. He is called upon when people are overdosed from medical and industrial incidents like Tokai Mura 99. These are industrial not societal issues.

                    I think we know that because the A bomb children have lived into their 80s and 90s that your assertions are pretty much unfounded on scientific principles.

                  • jsn999

                    Fukushima was not an RBMK or a graphite reactor Dr. G. Fukushima was in the path of the world's largest tsunami that killed over 20,000 people. Its quite disingenous of you to claim Fukushima was some world wide disaster when it really wasnt. The real disaster happened afterward, with radiophobia. Why do you think radiophobia exists? Its because of sites like AGRP that misinform. Ill bet more people that read your pages come away with more fear than more understanding. On that note, you are doing them a disservice. No where in any of your pages do you explain what radiation is, what kinds of radiation, where the most exposure is likely to occur, and why radiation is essential to life on this planet.

                    No where do I read in any of your pages where radiation has cured disease, purified water and food, and enabled Third World nations to move into a sustainable future.

                    No where in your pages do I read where the atomic age was anything but a black mark on mankind, when it actually ushered in the greatest technological boom man has seen. Without the atomic age, there would be no computer age, and without the computer age, no internet, no web, no ENE, no AGRP.

                    So in a way, because you can write AGRP, you should be thanking the Atomic Age for making it all possible.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              ‘It truly was a vision of Hell’ – a Hiroshima survivor speaks out
              From the archives: This is the first of a four-part series published in 2005 on the lingering mental health effects of the atomic bomb.
              “…On August 6, 1945, Hada was living with her parents and her four older sisters in a house that was barely a half-mile from where the bomb hit. She was 7….
              "’Still, to this day, my sisters' voices haunt me," Hada says. I can hear them saying 'Please call for help!' That's the most painful thing — that I ran away from my sisters. I've felt guilty about this since that day. I'll feel guilty as long as I live. I will never be happy.’
              “Sueko Hada never saw her sisters again. She herself was in a daze, utterly unable to comprehend this new world inhabited by strangers….
              "’I didn't recognize anyone,’ she says. ‘All I could do was follow the others. I saw terrible things. There were people with eyeballs hanging out of their sockets. There were others whose cheeks had been ripped open from the corners of their mouths to their ears. I saw a young mother running with a headless baby on her back. I saw someone else with his belly ripped open and intestines spilling out. Most of these people looked like ghosts. It truly was a vision of Hell.’ But pretty soon, she got used to seeing these things. ‘Everyone did.’…"
              http://wgbhnews.org/post/it-truly-was-vision-hell-hiroshima-survivor-speaks-out

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              “…Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims….
              “Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth….”
              http://k1project.org/explore-health/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects

              • jsn999

                Yet here we stand, 70 years later, the children then, are very elderly today.

                When you say "radiation" that is a generality. You need to back it up with the numerical values for doses, else its not a scientific basis.

                You can research it until the cows come home, it doesnt make your point if its not a vetted scientific basis. The k1project.org is not a very reputable site from a scientific point of view. Its a policy site. You need to understand the difference.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              “…Of the handful of studies of high-level external exposure used to derive the risks from low levels of internal exposure, the most important is the Life Span Study of the survivors of the bombings in Japan during WWII. This is incomprehensible, because this study is deeply flawed. (A full
              discussion of this topic can be found in the PDF version of Chapter Six, available at http://www.du-deceptions.com or http://www.nonuclear.se/zimmerman200908deception …"

              http://nonuclear.se/files/Zimmerman2011_experts_Betrayal_of_Mankind.pdf

              • jsn999

                When you say the study is deeply flawed you do not make that assertion on scientific grounds. The fact that you use nonuclear.se is proof enough that your argument is not made. You have to use real vetted scientific sources from places like ScienceDirect and Elsevier. These are excellent sources of technical information, and is where I get my scientific links to counter any opinion link you may uncover. You cant win the argument by linking to non-scientific, biased sites.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              “…Phenomena ignored by current radiation protection science:

              1. Genomic Instability
              2. The Bystander Effect
              3. Varying sensitivity of cells to radiation during their lifetime
              4. The Second Event Theory
              5. The biphasic dose response demonstrated in low –
              dose/slow-dose rate exposure
              6. Genetic variation between people in sensitivity to radiation damage
              7. Differences in immune response to radiation damage
              8. Different radioisotopes have different chemical affinity to different molecular structures and their subsequent radioactive decay can produce an elevated hazard. Examples : uranyl ions bind strongly to DNA and strontium has an affinity for the phosphate backbone of DNA…”
              http://nonuclear.se/files/Zimmerman2011_experts_Betrayal_of_Mankind.pdf
              .

              • jsn999

                1. Genomic instability – at what radiation level?
                2. Bystander effect – at what radiation level?
                3. same thing – what level do you see an effect?
                4. same thing
                5. same thing
                6. same thing
                7. same thing
                8. same thing

                All what you posted are just generalities without any scientific proof or evidence of the specific levels that replicate these effects. Most of what you state are theories and hypothesis that do not translate into scientific fact that real protection policy can be derived.

                The fact that you use nonuclear.se as your source just shows that your approach is unscientific and your methololgy slanted to biased partisan sources.

                A real scientist uses unbiased reasoning and the scientific method to prove a hypothesis.

                Lets move from that frame of reference. I just do not see anything you put forth as being defendable.

                • or-well

                  nukie j says "A real scientist is always pronuclear and if not that's proof of, uh, heck I lost my page…"

                  • jsn999

                    I never said a real scientist is always pronuclear. I did say that those that were not stating radiation and nuclear science and technology correctly were unscientific in their methods.

                    So you can decide what you are. If you are a real scientist, you will use the scientific method to test hypotheses.

                    If not, go on and read AGRP, nuke pro, and other sites that do not put the science in its proper light. These sites spin and embellish and when someone like me calls them on the carpet, they get hostile and nasty and start throwing foul language around. End of story.

                    • or-well

                      Can it j. In this and all your other iterations here you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're
                      either a cultist, a paid agent or an amateur propagandist for nuclear.
                      In any case you accept no science that is anti-nuclear.

                    • J: "like me calls them on the carpet, they get hostile and nasty and start throwing foul language around. End of story."

                      Really, so we are not debating anymore?

                      When did we start using foul language?

                      Maybe my memory is fading, can you point me at the foul language?

                      Maybe we were talking about ducks, or cooking?

                      Is that foul?

                      Or maybe you meant foul as in the game of soccer, where a penalty kick is called for.

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  at the tiniest level for those most vulnerable, like the fetus.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              “…Numerous scientific studies are discussed in detail in this section demonstrating low-dose health effects and the inadequacies of the current risk factors which are relied upon to predict health outcomes from population exposure to internal emitters. They can be broadly summarized as follows:
              1. Infant leukemia after the Chernobyl accident
              2. Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of the Sellafield reprocessing facility in the UK
              3. Childhood leukemia in proximity to a number of nuclear Installations throughout Europe
              4. In utero effects produced by Chernobyl
              5. Elevated rates of mini satellite DNA mutations among groups exposed to Chernobyl fallout
              6. An epidemic of excess cancers after Chernobyl
              7. Excess rates of cancer produced from the fallout of nuclear weapon testing
              8. Elevated cancer rates among nuclear workers
              9. Elevated rates of childhood cancer downwind of nuclear power plants in the U.S.
              10. Elevated rates of breast cancer downwind of nuclear power plants in the U.S….”
              http://nonuclear.se/files/Zimmerman2011_experts_Betrayal_of_Mankind.pdf

              • jsn999

                The fact that you link nonuclear.se disproves any of your assertions. The scientific studies you state are partisan biased studies that do not use scientific methodologies. They have their answer, then work backwards. Thats not science. Thats cooking the books.

                • SPeaking of cooking, would you like some neutron radiation with that irradiated hamburger?

                  Fukushima Fast Neutron/Neutrino AntiNeutron Emissions, Gamma Rays Emitted From Nuclear Power Plant, Mines, Recycling Facilities, Neutron Radiation Effect On Human Health And Climate
                  http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/excessive-neutronneutrino-emissions.html

                  Free cooking people from the inside out, don't you know…

                  And who doesn't like cooking? Maybe we can start a new kind of cooking show…

                  sarc

                  • jsn999

                    The AGRP link is really bogus science. Fast neutrons are not spewing out of Fukushima. You really need a dose of nuclear physics 101 there Dr. G. You, PT (Anne), stock, code, the whole cabal of you.

                    I see no growth in your positions over the past 4 years. You would have thought this echo chamber would have meant something.

                    Its the same old tire song and dance by you Dr. G. And PT doesnt cite any real links. Just mumbo jumbo.

                    Let me go take a dump and think about how your just spin your wheels.

                    • Interesting that you have followed AGRP for 4 years.. thanks for that.

                      Obviously you have been here before and have experience with the whole A team crew.

                      Just curious, did you get in here by using a VPN network?

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  jsn, I cited the internet reprinting of just chapter 6 of A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science – August 1, 2009
                  by Paul Zimmerman (Author)
                  778 pages
                  http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Art-Deception-Paul-Zimmerman/dp/061523416X

                  This book is 778 pages of many, many scientific studies. No one is occking the books but the proNuke cult of the nuclearists. Anyone can go to the website I cited, or buy the book and presto, you are completely shown to be completely a person who can't be relied on for anything.

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    TYPO: cooking the books

                  • jsn999

                    That primer, that title is all I need to know that you are not playing with a full deck PT. Somehow you are living in a fantasy world. The book is not scientific at all. Paul Zimmerman doesnt know nuclear technology. He probably has never been in a commercial reactor control room nor understands the goings on at the plant from day to day. He just looks out from his perch, with darkened glasses. Same as Weaselman and Caldicott.

                    At the end of the day, you have nothing. And its the end of the day, so Im going to bed.

                  • or-well

                    Nukie j must like revealing he's a pathetic and absurd little man with his blanket rejection of all who expose nuclear dangers and lies.
                    He's certainly shown that often enough with all the identities he's used.

                    • what's that f-tard doing here? He has all of the MSM sites who will post his drivel – unlike reality based comments from any of us!

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              No person faces just one cause of cancer. Talking about just one cause doesn't describe what a person today faces in the environment. All the many toxins act synergistically to create a whole which is much greater than the sum of the parts. Nuclear radiation added to just one of these toxins creates 20 times as many cancers. Nuclear radiation added to all the other many carcinogenic toxins creates an environment in which life cannot continue on the earth.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              For all the flaws in the A bomb survivor studies see pp. 155-168 of Zimmerman's book:
              http://www.nonuclear.se/files/Zimmerman201102ch5-6Betrayal_of_Mankind.pdf

            • Another lie of nuke "There are tens of thousands of causes of cancer, so don't blame nuclear, don't even stop nuclear even though it is known to cause cancer, very expensive, and we have much better options. Nuke is science, are you against science?"

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          It is already 1 in 2 in the US, even without Fukushima. Check in in 5 years. It will be even higher.

        • Fukushima Children, Spiking Thyroid Cancer Rate Due To Fukushima 3/11 Mega Nuclear Disaster; Kids In US Exposed And Negatively Affected As Well
          http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/09/43-of-fukushima-children-have-thyroid.html

        • Japan's 'activity'?

          Hmmm, have never heard of anyone describing Big C as an 'activity'.

  • or-well

    Prefab Nuclear Plants Prove Just as Expensive
    Modular method has run into costly delays and concerns about who will bear the brunt of the expense

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/pre-fab-nuclear-plants-prove-just-as-expensive-1438040802

    • jsn999

      I think we can agree that nuclear has higher up front costs. The thing about modular reactors that might tip the scales is that over the long run, the costs of operating and maintaining them might be lower than the custom behemoths of Gen 2 and 3. The fuel costs are lower than those larger reactors but it remains to be seen at what power level does the optimum cost-benefit happen? There are some economic models out there.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197014000122

      • SMR – Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Meltdown And Explosion SL-1 – Idaho, United States; Is There A Future For Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
        http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/06/1961-nuclear-reactor-meltdown-sl-1.html

        • jsn999

          You know the difference between the responses – I provided a scientific, non-biased, refereed journal article (a little more pedigree than a simple "peer review" – if you published in a reputable scientific journal – one with an Elsevier or ScienceDirect backing then you know what I mean) where as you provide an opinion piece without any substantiation. I think you are mistaken about SL-1 being an SMR. SL-1 was an Army research and test reactor, not an SMR by any stretch of the imagination. Now I will continue to present links with a sound scientific basis, and am not a "science bot" as you claim. I am a human being who went out tonight, so I wasnt responding to your beck and call in a timely manner. Get over it. If you want to use your own site's opinion pieces thats your perogative, but it doesn't make your case from a scientific perspective. I think I have you and stock covered on this one. I dont see either of you matching my link with a real scientific rebuttal.

          • melting mermaid melting mermaid

            You nukies like to leave out the high after costs like decommissioning and spent fuel storage. Those don't count, I know, because the public has to swallow that cost along with all the other nasties forced onto us by myopic fools like yourself. When you've finished insulting all the concerned citizens here, do you think you can use all your scientific knowitallness to clean up your damn dirty mess. I'm not sure but I think there's a little oopsie daisy over there in Fukushima that needs more attention than us poor, inferior misguided souls.

      • It remains to be seen how quickly we can shut this shite down, you and your ilk are murderers hiding behind "you can't prove it"

    • DUDe DisasterInterpretationDissorder

      quote from the article "..According to the site, it died soon after birth, and “is Believed to Bring Good Luck to the family and the village.”.."

      Humans.. 🙁

  • There's a show I love watching, in hulu, the Incredible Dr Pol. The guy is a vet up in MI. This season, they've shown a lot of animal weirdness. Here's one of the episodes:
    http://www.hulu.com/watch/843748#i0,p0,d0

    A calf born without an anus? In another, a calf was born (dead) with most of its face missing. Very weird, but given what Rad-Chick has shown of plant mutations in that state, not at all surprising. (No drought there, as far as I know.)

  • or-well

    Another reactor restart – –

    "The assembly of Ikata in Ehime Prefecture unanimously approved plans to request the restart of the No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co’s Ikata plant."

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/town-assembly-oks-plan-to-restart-another-nuclear-plant-in-japan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikata_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    "It is the only nuclear plant on the island of Shikoku."
    #3 reactor is the newest of three reactors there.

    • The space under this bridge is occupied.

      No room for trolls.

      • jsn999

        No troll here. Just someone who wants to make sure you have the physics right.

        • or-well

          Bullshit. Nukist troll. Mofo.

          • B.S.<sup>10</sup>

            No you don't give a flying cr*p about truth, troll … just yr P.R. points from yr boss.
            Go roll your radioactive hoop on the MSM sites that love you so. Piece of puke troll.

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          jsn999 if you were an expert in physics, you would be dead against nuclear power. Therefor we conclude you arent an expert. In fact the biophysics of nuclear radiation is not a mature science, so its impossible for you to be an expert. The same goes for the people you are addressing, and the ones you might reference and rely upon to make your conclusions. Because they are still struggling with the science, the best way to understand nuclear is from epidemiology.

          In 2000, after thousands of scientific studies conducted in the affected regions around Chernobyl the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announce that radiation dispersed from Chernobyl had caused chronic illness in 7 million more people, and the premature deaths of 3 million children.

          "Sixty million people have died or will die from cancer due to exposures to radioactivity released from nuclear weapons production and testing activities since 1945. This is the figure arrived at by the European Commission on Radiation Risk model"

          Bartell states

          "weapons testing has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects and 587 million teratogenic effects to give a total of approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another million victims, of which as many one-fifth will have been premature cancer deaths. Although not officially accounted for, about 500 million foetuses would have also been lost as stillbirths during…

          • Happy End O De World day again folks…

            http://www.christiantoday.com/article/world.will.end.with.fire.on.wednesday.october.7.2015.christian.group.predicts/66818.htm
            Animation of the end day, note the object shown damaging the solar system would have to be travelling at superluminal velocities:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7zHBq8O9mI

            Observe the planets tonight smashed to smithereens: <sarc>
            http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/visible-planets-tonight-mars-jupiter-venus-saturn-mercury#jupiter

            If there is anything other than pure nature out there, then so be it; but nature will indeed take vengeance someday as nothing lasts forever, or does it?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

          • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

            jsn999, did you read the above from code..do they have the physics right?

          • jsn999

            Code, you wrote "jsn999 if you were an expert in physics, you would be dead against nuclear power". On what basis do you make that assumption?

            Epidemiology is pretty much whatever you want it to be. Its hardly the bellweather of truth. Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in America, would disagree with your assessment.

            http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/radiation/Si2002/Chapter_1.html

            The UN model from UNSCEAR was conservative and used LNT as the only placeholder. Its far from accurate.

            "Sixty million people have died or will die from cancer due to exposures to radioactivity released from nuclear weapons production and testing activities since 1945. This is the figure arrived at by the European Commission on Radiation Risk model"

            The ECRR model is flawed, thus the 60 million number is without merit.

            If it were a good model, it would be the one used in textbooks to teach the next generation. Its an outlier or "fringe" approach that has been vetted and dismissed by the consensus scientific community. It really doesnt matter what Busby says or believes. At the end of the day, it lacks legitimacy and scientific credibility in the established community.

            Until the established communit

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              jsn the ECRR wins law suits. The amount of scientific research they used was large. Like it or not, field research trumps theoretical extrapolation from flawed source data. I grant you that radiation dose estimation is getting better. One can see the advanced phantoms they are working on

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_human_phantom

              but radiation dose is not equivalent to danger. It seems nobody can overcome this subconscious belief. The truth of this is shown in the history of dosimetry. Why didnt we stop with the röntgen? So we have a mean dose for an organ (an error right there because particles cant be averaged over an organ) multiplied by radiation type (radiation effect varies 3000% depending on type!) multiplied by weighting factor for organ. And it doesnt stop there.

              The simple illustration of the fallacy of dose is that 50 bq/kg of K-40 is healthy and 50 bq/kg of C137 gives irreversible heart destruction.

              Yes, they can figure out how much radiation you get, averaged over an organ, but it doesnt tell the danger. And thats where you stand, somehow thinking this allows you to proclaim that deadly poisons are harmless. Could anything be more preposterous? Ludicrous? Contemptible? Foolheaded? Irresponsible? Bat shit crazy?

              • Could anything be more preposterous? Ludicrous? Contemptible? Foolheaded? Irresponsible? Bat shit crazy?

                Yes, building more nuclear reactors, and spending 1 TRILLION on rebuilding nuclear weapons.

                Now that is BAT Sh*(# crazy..

        • Sam Sam

          Have we seen you here before?
          You sound familiar. Arose
          from the land of the living
          dead? are you related to
          Socref?

          • danger kitty danger kitty

            Yep, Sam, you're right, jsn999 is socref. Official danger kitty seal of disapproval. And he's going into full wallpaper mode now.
            Running scared…

            • jsn999

              Lol you think you know me. You have no idea. I kicked your ass all over Disqus. Now I can kick it in front of your faithful. You are a nobody stock. A wannabe nuke pro that thinks he knows more than the real pros. You never have bested me. And you keep coming back for more.

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                jsn I havent seen you "kick his ass" yet (stock). You appear to be a pompous ass, knowledgeable about some things but unable or unwilling to climb out of the pit of ignorance or lying denial. But my mind is open, surprise me

              • or-well

                Sick little lickspittle combines ignorance and conscious lies with being an obedient dogsbody cultie.
                Nukie j can't understand he defeats himself every time he shows up.

                • J "you think you know me. You have no idea. I kicked your ass all over Disqus. Now I can kick it in front of your faithful"

                  Maybe J thinks this is church and Stock is a pastor?

                  What religion does J think this is?

                  Hey J, what religion are you?

                  Have you been converted to the kick your ass all over Discus religion?

                  Do you worship Discuses?

                  Is that a Greek thing?

                  Is it an S and M thing?

                  Do share…

                  And if you are so bright, why not share your intelligence; like what kind of degrees you have, from where, what special knowledge and experience you possess.

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    jsn999 knows some nuclear, but that doesnt mean hes not a shill, troll or just plain idiotic. Knowledgeable idiots do exist. When he says he worked in the industry I think this is very possible

          • GOM GOM

            Sam
            I think he may be an old poster called 'haize999' or something to that effect. He does not fit the intelligence of Socref. Reason I remember is that it was quite nasty to me. [Don't really care about that]
            Just my 2 cents..

  • Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities, Uranium Mines Vulnerable To Flooding And Tsunamis; via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/nuclear-power-plants-nuclear-waste.html

  • I called that troll in his first 2 comments, lol

  • Getting a ton of website hits from this link, referencing my Geiger Counter interpretation simplified

    http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/Ronnie_Raymond

  • Also some very good ENE links and Nukepro on the same article, getting a ton of hits.

    http://allnewspipeline.com/Fuku_Pacific_Mystery_Parasites_NETC_America.php

  • Hmm, strange how the site completely gets taken down right after a troll shows up.

    Fulfilling the 'news' and predictions that this would happen.. now it has.

    Interesting.

    Probably just a coincidence, right?

  • We Not They Finally

    Why don't they ever just keep it simple. Like "What's the first word that comes to your mind. DEFORMITY:" Answer: _________.

  • Jebus Jebus

    Marco Kaltofen tweeted this earlier…

    Press Conference: Toshihide Tsuda, Professor of Okayama Univeristy

    A large-scale thyroid ultrasound screening examination is underway in Fukushima Prefecture, covering about 370,000 children who were 18 or younger at the time of the accident.

    Despite evidence of much higher rates of juvenile thyroid cancer in the prefecture compared with the pre-accident incidence rate, local medical authorities and the central government claim that the Fukushima disaster is not the cause.

    They point to the evacuation of tens of thousands of people in the immediate aftermath, and the ban on the sale of locally produced milk and other produce. The authorities, backed by prominent international experts, claim the increased rate of thyroid cancer is due to the highly sensitive ultrasound equipment being used to test Fukushima children.

    But in a significant challenge to that thesis, Toshihide Tsuda, professor of environmental epidemiology at Okayama University, believes the excess occurrence of juvenile thyroid cancer is not due merely to the screening effect, but is the consequence of exposure to radiation.

    http://www.fccj.or.jp/events-calendar/press-events/icalrepeat.detail/2015/10/08/3459/30/press-conference-toshihide-tsuda-professor-of-okayama-univeristy.html?filter_reset=1

    • What 'ban'?

      They are selling milk from Fukushima at a HUGE rate.. Five farmers are joining together to sell milk in a coop, with government help.

      It is being exported.

      • jsn999

        You have to ask yourself, after all that has happended at Fukushima, why are farmers allowed to sell milk? There could only be one answer – its good enough for human consumption.

        • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

          Or could it possibly be that farmers have a lot of political clout and could care less if you die of cancer? Drink up! I won't consume milk from Wisconsin let alone Fukushima! Jeez!

          • jsn999

            No. The real reason is that its been shown harmless. Deal with it.

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              fallout is harmless now?
              1 gram of plutonium can overdose ten million civilians
              http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Counting the Dead
              “Chaotic conditions made accurate accounts most difficult. Some victims were vaporized instantly, many survivors were horribly disfigured, and death from radiation was uncertain—it might not claim its victims for days, weeks, months, or even years.
              “The initial death count in Hiroshima, set at 42,000–93,000, was based solely on the disposal of bodies, and was thus much too low. Later surveys covered body counts, missing persons, and neighborhood surveys during the first months after the bombing, yielding a more reliable estimate of 130,000 dead as of November 1945. A similar survey by officials in Nagasaki set its death toll at 60,000–70,000. (Its plutonium bomb was more powerful, but its destructive range was limited by surrounding hills and mountains).
              “Additional counts indicated high levels of short-term mortality in both cities:
              —Over 90% of persons within 500 meters (1,600 ft.) of ground zero in both cities died.
              —At 1.5 km (almost one mile), over 2/3 were casualties, and 1/3 died.
              —Of those at a distance of 2 km (1.2 mi.), half were casualties, 10% of whom died.
              —Casualties dropped to 10% at distances over 4 km (2.4 mi.).
              “Most persons close to ground zero who received high radiation dosages died immediately or during the first day. One-third of all fatalities occurred by the 4th day; two-thirds by the 10th day; and 90% by the end of three weeks.
              “While casualty rates exceeded death rates, they both were highest near ground zero and…

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                cont.
                declined at similar rates by increasing distance from ground zero. But the cumulative death rates (%) in both cities rose dramatically during the first two weeks, then leveled off in subsequent weeks. …”
                http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  “…Injury Phases
                  1. First two weeks: mainly burns from rays and flames, and wounds (trauma) from blast and falling structures.
                  2. 3rd week through 8th week: symptoms of damages by radioactive rays, e.g., loss of hair, anemia, loss of white cells, bleeding, diarrhea. Approximately 10% of cases in this group were fatal.
                  3. 3rd and 4th months: “some improvement” in burn, trauma, and even radiation
                  injuries. But then came “secondary injuries” of disfiguration, severe scar formations (keloids), blood abnormalities, sterility (both sexes), and psychosomatic disorders.
                  4. Even now, after over half a century later, many aftereffects remain: leukemia,
                  A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars….”
                  http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml

        • unincredulous unincredulous

          Yeah, anything that will make a shit is "good enough" for human consumption!

          I don't know why Japanese farmers feel guilty for selling Fukushima produce, and not eating it themselves.

          Hell, it makes a shit don't it?

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Hey Jsn does your name have any upside down kind of hidden meaning? Just wondering!

  • The new troll is amazing…..because everyone dies….we don't have to talk about how they died…..sheesh

    Kind of sick of Admin here allowing this tripe.

    stock out

  • Fukushima Cancer Up 3000% in Children! From a Peer Reviewed Epidermilogical Study
    My prior estimate was 550% increase.

    I am amazed that I was low by a factor of 6. It's 3000%

    Here is the abstract to the study. You know the Chernobyl Necklace doesn't sound that great, I wonder how the Japanese media marketing will spin or adorn the Fukushima Necklace. Probably lots of Furoshiki wear to cover up the scars. The Fukushima Furoshiki. Coined it, I have.

    Here is the Fukushima Furoshiki, Cover up that pesky thyroid removal scars.
    – See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/10/fukushima-cancer-up-3000-in-children.html#sthash.vBv8dmCV.dpuf

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Burnt Nuclear Toast.. says he! 🙁

  • Nick

    Lupine.

    Alkaloids.

    Back 2 thread topic.

    Since it will become illegal to link websites, I will practice serving up my tripe without anyone knowing how or why I may know something.

    (from library.illinois.edu NOTE Not a link from Vet Med)

    "More than a dozen quinolizidine alkaloids, but some piperidine alkaloids and other types of alkaloids have also been isolated from species of Lupinus. These alkaloids are largely nicotinic in effect. The nitrogen oxides of some of these bases have also been detected in some lupines. The alkaloids are present in the foliage but the greatest concentration is in the seeds."

    Question: Do lupine alkaloids remain present in beef and milk? Is it possible that wild beef is sometimes toxic?

    Answer: Yup. Nobody can control a pure food system for livestock, plant toxins are many.

  • Nick

    Radiation levels may drop off to "safe" levels but it is the energy
    from the decaying atoms that lurks despite the half-life dissipate formula which is a not so suble means for nuclearats to con….vince
    the rest of us mere mortals into believing that all is well, just give it time and the stuff will vanish.

    So we ramp up the background acceptable levels incrementally,becoming frogs in our own hot tubs, clueless as to why
    our world sickens and mutates into a militarymedicalindustrial waste land.

    Toxins come in many forms.

    But it is the toxins of war and hatred that waste us all.

    The seeds of peace only germinate in fruitful minds, not (sic ) ones.

    Plant alkaloids are everything, we think of food as just nutritous substances usually (our food labels reflect that)yet it is the
    pharmaceutical qualities of everything we consume that drives our metabolisms; cooking alters/destroys some harmful alkaloids and enhances others.

    Radiation becomes embedded in these chemicals, we then consume them.

    Particles in the air are another thing entirely.

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Highly doubt the not being able linking of website thing will happen..

    That would end the internet..

    • Nick

      "The latest draft of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter (which again, we only have access to thanks to Wikileaks) shows the Obama administration’s United States Trade Representative (USTR) is pushing for extremist copyright and internet policy provisions that would incentivize internet service providers to monitor more of their users’ activities, threatening online privacy. The TPP would also undermine “fair use” limitations intended to protect freedom of speech from overzealous copyright enforcement, harshen criminal prosecution for whistleblowers and journalists, and open the door for global internet censorship by setting up a system to remove allegedly “infringing” content from the web without a court order."

      http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/may/08/trans-pacific-partnership-obama-irony

      • Nick

        "On the future of digital copyright: “I had a Supreme Court justice tell me to my face it’s over for me. Said, ‘Matt, it’s over for you. They’ve got the votes now to enforce copyright law. You’re out of there. They’re gonna make it so headlines–you can’t even use headlines.'”

        “You thought Obamacare was shocking… wait until these copyright laws work their way up, and the Supreme Court decides you cannot have a website with news headlines linking across the board. Then that will end for me. Fine, I’ve had a hell of a run. It’s 20 years next year or 20 years about now. Hell of a run. I couldn’t have gone any farther. I feel completely–I have gone as far out of the galaxy as I can on this. I still wanna stay out here. But I have gone pretty damn far for what one individual can do in this culture. But I’m talking about the future. So I don’t know why they’ve been successful in pushing everybody into these little ghettos of these these Facebooks and these Tweets and these Instagrams–these Instas. This is ghetto. This is corporate. They’re taking your energy. They’re taking your energy and you’re getting nothing in return. Nothing… Ultimately, it’s boring, and the kids are always off to something new. Except for the something new is owned by the same freaking company or financed by the same banking system.”

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/07/matt-drudge-blisters-corporate-media-hillary-clinton-and-sick-americans-in-rare-interview/

      • TPP Clampdown On Copyrights, Press Freedom Results In Swarm Activism Model; Pirate Party Advocates For Reforming Patent And Copyright Laws To Open Source Commons Model
        http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/12/swarm-activism-model-pirate-party.html

    • Just wait… if TPP passes this will happen.

      The 1 percent don't like all of this freedom and investigative reporting.

  • To lessen the spike of our human deformities…

    Sofia Smallstorm's SpeedOfLight / Iodine, Magnesium and Natural Salt
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTR0x6YwFeQ

    If you're here, Get the Rad Word Out, People!

    Fukushima Business Cards 4 U! And everyone else, too!
    http://tinyurl.com/fukushimabusinesscard4u

    Nifty cards Easy to print, pass out and leave about.
    Or leave randomly, where ever you please. Post to all social media. Distribute liberally. (48,691 downloads since 6/2015…
    it's trendy!)

  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    http://www.vice.com/read/how-worried-should-we-be-about-the-islamic-state-getting-nuclear-weapons-1007?utm_source=vicetwitterus
    Why has the cia been buying nuclear materials for decades? Troll, do you know? You're probably part of the alphabet soup. Right?

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Researcher: Children's cancer linked to Fukushima radiation
    Oct 8 2015

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/10/08/researcher-children-cancer-linked-to-fukushima-radiation/

    "Most of the 370,000 children in Fukushima prefecture (state) have been given ultrasound checkups since the March 2011 meltdowns at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. The most recent statistics, released in August, show that thyroid cancer is suspected or confirmed in 137 of those children, a number that rose by 25 from a year earlier. Elsewhere, the disease occurs in only about one or two of every million children per year by some estimates.

    "This is more than expected and emerging faster than expected," lead author Toshihide Tsuda told The Associated Press during a visit to Tokyo. "This is 20 times to 50 times what would be normally expected."

  • Nick

    Be a TATAL teller:

    "NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The company that gets rid of highly toxic wastes by selling them as a "product" to municipal water departments across the country as cheap fluoridation chemicals has been fined $2 billion for gross violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, is one of the largest sellers of a toxic fluoride chemical, "fluorosilicic acid", that cities add to public drinking water. Fluorosilicic acid is described by EPA in the Consent Decrees as a "hazardous waste" produced at Mosaic's fertilizer plants. More than 200 million Americans drink these wastes every day."

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fluoridation-chemical-company-fined-2-billion-300155874.html?$G1Ref

    Un F'ing believable.

    Flouride is also a nuclear industrial waste (UF6) that idiots add to public drinking water.

    We are a nation of fools.

    • Wonder what J thinks of flouride?

      Wonder if he believes like Galen and others do, that nuclear waste is safe to sprinkle over cities, eat, drink and sleep with and that we all need more of these heavy metal radioactive poisons?

      Hey J, what do you think of the hormesis theory?

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        the flaws of hormesis studies are to be found in time windows, assumptions of the benefits of stress induced up-regulation of repair mechanisms and the specific isotopes and radiation frequencies and delivery mechanisms. It doesnt help to throw out the studies or dismiss the findings on emotional grounds.

        The ways that some radiation sources have been incorporated into the healthy system are not yet fully known. Better to be open minded. Someday the studies on hormesis may converge with the studies of radiation risk to reveal why man made fallout is so antithetical to life

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          Code is still supporting claims of radiation hormesis. Where are you scientific links?

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            If PT wanted to find them, there are scores of studies demonstrating hormesis. That doesnt mean hormesis is a good thing. Actually the way its often described 'adaptive response' tells us its nothing but the body trying harder to deal with radioactive insults. Adaptive response is too limited a term to describe all the ways that biology incorporates and reacts to radiation.

            Ive made this point before; studies on hormesis use low levels of radiation which are added to the amount you already have. Thus the zero reference point is not zero, its closer to 70 bq/kg. The natural, shall we even say god given biology of your ape body contains radiation, theres no way to successfully deny it PT. Better to acknowledge it and move forward to understand the difference in radiation types. The science is not complete

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Ah, the dose scam. Go inhale your 69Bq/kg of plutonium, curium, americium, etc. Sayonara.

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                the 70 bq/kg naturally in your body doesnt come from plutonium curium americium etc. Time to update/change your thinking! You lost your battle too many times to count

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  And for the tiny babies, 70 Bq/kg is too high a dose of even primordial K40. And what about nuclear created K 40 and what about enriched K-40? Where is your science?

                  You are the arbiter as to whether I lost an argument or not. And why do you just speak in generalities and not in terms of scientific studies with links?

                  There is not one study that supports that K-40 is healthful. Rather in food the tiny amounts of K-40 are not separate from potassium.

                  And why doesn't K-40 protect someone from cesium 137 and 134 and strontium 90 in a child? Why doesn't it protect from I-131? Why are children so vulnerable to leukemia after radiation exposure? of all the nuclear created radioisotopes?

                  Potassium does protect, but there is no medical use of K-40 as a separate isotope. Why do all the doctors and biology researchers know more than you? Where is your medical license or any other license?

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    Potassium is radioprotective if a person is healthy and comes from organically grown food.

                    TYPO: You are not the arbiter… It is the scientific studies by the experts which count. Ad hominem attacks against me are meaningless. Why don't you attack Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Chris Busby, Dr. Alice Stewart?

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    I couldn't find a single scientific peer reviewed study that shows that medically prescribed potassium pills contain any k-40 at all.

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      medically prescribed potassium contains k-40, you can count on it. Time to upgrade your thinking/knowledge base!

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    70 bq/kg is a ratio PT. A child or fetus will die without that same ratio. Potassium contains k-40, I think you should realize that now. Time to update your thinking/knowledge base!

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    I dont see evidence there is nuclear plant created k-40 or enriched k-40. Even if there is, it doesnt change the fact that your largest source of internal radiation is from this natural source. Time to get with the program and embrace the simple truth of the matter. It will improve your anti nuclear blogging skills

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Specific Activity (Ci/g)
              Pu-246 49,000
              Bk-250 3.9 million
              Am-246 20 million
              Ci = curie, g = gram, and MeV = million electron volts
              http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/curium.pdf

  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    http://www.thebulletin.org/watts-bar-unit-2-last-old-reactor-20th-century-cautionary-tale8783
    It's hard not to get angry at the pure self-destructive lunacy of it all.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    "The event is being brought on by a combination of global warming, a very strong El Nino event, and the so-called warm “blob” in the Pacific Ocean, say the researchers, part of a consortium including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well as XL Catlin Seaview Survey, The University of Queensland in Australia, and Reef Check."

    Scientists say a dramatic worldwide coral bleaching event is now underway
    Oct 8 2015

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-say-a-dramatic-worldwide-coral-bleaching-event-is-now-underway/ar-AAfdNj5?ocid=ansmsnnews11

    At least they have admitted El Nino and the Blob are separate yet symbiotic situations.
    BECAUSE THEY ARE.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Amplified loss of habitat.
    Sigh..

  • Trolls are out which means there is news that must be managed!

You must be logged in to post a comment.