Watch: Live stream of Fukushima Symposium in NYC

Published: March 11th, 2013 at 11:17 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
46 comments


The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident; March 11, 2013, 9:00am to 6:15pm EST

LIVE STREAM HERE: http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf

Introductions
Moderator: Donald Louria, MD, Chairman Emeritus, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey

[COMPLETED] Session One: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT
Former Prime Minister of Japan, Naoto Kan (videotape)
Opening Address

Hiroaki Koide, Master of Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute (KURRI), Specialist of Radiation Safety and Control.

Arnie Gundersen, Nuclear Engineer, Fairewinds Associates
What Did They Know and When Did They Know it?

David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
Another Unsurprising Surprise

[Starts at 11:15a ET] Session One: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT continued
Hisako Sakiyama, Member of Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission
Risk Assessment of Low Dose Radiation in Japan: What Became Clear in the Diet Fukushima Investigation Committee

Akio Matsumura, Founder of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders
What Did the World Learn from the Fukushima Accident?

Session Two: THE MEDICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Steven Starr, Clinical Laboratory Science Program, University of Missouri
The Implications of Massive Radiation Contamination of Japan with Radioactive Cesium

Timothy Mousseau, Department of Biological Sciences, University South Carolina
Chernobyl, Fukushima and Other Hot Places: Biological Implications

Ken Buesseler, Marine Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
Fukushima Ocean Impacts

Session Two: THE MEDICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES continued
Marek Niedziela, Department of Pediatrics, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland (videotape)
Thyroid Pathology in Children with Particular Reference to Chernobyl and Fukushima

David Brenner, Center for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons. Columbia University,
Living with Uncertainty About Low Dose Radiation Risks

Questions and Answers

Watch the live stream here

Published: March 11th, 2013 at 11:17 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
46 comments

Related Posts

  1. Gundersen: “I repeat, significant new material will be presented” at Fukushima symposium — Live stream starts Monday 9a ET March 9, 2013
  2. Dr. Helen Caldicott ends weekly radio program — Working on Fukushima symposium (AUDIO) January 6, 2013
  3. Gundersen: The containment vessel exploded at Fukushima Reactor 2 — “There’s definitely a large crack” (AUDIO) March 11, 2013
  4. *Started 20 minutes ago* Live Stream: 100 women from Fukushima taking action outside gov’t offices in Tokyo (VIDEO) October 26, 2011
  5. New Study: “Depopulation with Rapid Aging” after Fukushima Daiichi disaster December 14, 2012

46 comments to Watch: Live stream of Fukushima Symposium in NYC

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    oops, need to put on my glasses, meant to post these comments here initially not on BBC thread, sorry!

    Arnie shared that we almost lost 14 nuclear reactors to meltdown that day!!!

    March 11, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    14 in danger of meltdown! GET RID OF THIS IGNORANCE!!! POST IGNORANCE IS NOW!!!

    March 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm ·
    "We are having difficulty winning NO BRAINER'S with the Federal Government!" "Deck is stacked against the American public" David Lochbaum,Union of Concerned Scientist


    Report comment

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    From Arnie, they had a plan to save the ground water, from contamination, they designed a large trench containing zeolite(soaks up cesium) and pulling water down first, Japanese government said, "TEPCO can't afford it" thousands of tons of water are contaminated everyday…


    Report comment

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    Sailors giving press conference. Higher ups, and Pilots got iodine pills, regular enlisted did not. Ordered to sign waivers.. worse, is they had no idea they were in a "hot" zone, how is that possible..


    Report comment

  • weeman

    I am impressed so far with presentation but nothing new to blow this wide open, anybody know how many mainstream papers have sent reporters or is the gage order still in place. I bet algazeer is there?


    Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      presentation's well structured and an excellent overview of what's happened and will continue happening. I don't expect anyone whose done their best to ignore this nightmare, to suddenly find a conscious. The MSM will continue doing what they do best: putting people to sleep. But unlike Chernobyl, you can gather from the topics being covered so far, they'll be no long-term dismissal of this nightmare. And that question as to who would be trusted to conduct the health studies was spot-on…


      Report comment

  • weeman

    How can you continue to deny effects of low dose radiation, the data is relevant and just because you do not want to know does not spare you from computability and liability.
    Personnel thanks to all involved in conference, shoot them down in flames.


    Report comment

  • weeman

    Helen you are on a mission, I can tell you don't like fools and aren't you impatient.


    Report comment

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Who is this David Brenner guy, who dares to supply us with mainstream nuke info on dose-response? He has denied that huge epidemiological studies on low dose exposure exist, when we have over the last two years seen the German Kikk study, and the French Geocap study, (look on google), both of which cover hundreds of thousands of children living near nuclear power plants. Leukemias increase the closer you get to the plants. Brenner never mentions these studies, not does he mention Osaka's (2012) very important study of Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors, which indicates a slightly suprelinear curve in the dose-effect relationship. How lazy for a Columbia professor to not even refrence the latest LSS. In addition, he consistently evaded the question of internal vs external emitters, and how the dose calculation might change for chronic internal exposure; finally, he never even disclosed what his dose calculations were, much less the basis of his conclusion that "500" extra Japanese cancers will result from Fuku …. What numbers are you using Dr Brenner, and how have you calculated "lifetime" dose??? No answers from that vague scientist, none at all. By the way, Dr Brenner, the most important aspect of your talk, individual vs population risk, is a difference most of us are already familiar with from reading Dr Gofman. You did little to enlighten your audience with any new data or way of approaching it.


    Report comment

  • What I would like to see are the projected estimates that also figure in a continued release of radioactive material into the atmosphere and sea over the next 5, 10 and/or 20 years.

    Just like we have happening now.

    Daily, continuous, accumulating and spreading.

    Maybe they are afraid to talk about it?
    Maybe it's just to difficult to contemplate?


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    It was reported on by the AFP
    Not one MSM channel has picked it up…

    Activists fault WHO report on Fukushima radiation

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jf8lGEn8o5yIxnqBNgyafYXXeCOg?docId=CNG.5c91690b1a678beaa8d07563d6976a93.6c1


    Report comment

  • lam335 lam335

    I am unable to get the live stream for the Fuku conference to play this afternoon. It was working fine this morning, but now the live video won't load. Is anyone else having this problem? I had really wanted to watch the discussion of food monitoring, so it's frustrating that it is not working now.


    Report comment

  • HH

    Some of the Fukushima Symposium on youtube in case you missed it. Dr. Kanter, Dr. Yablokov, Dr. Wertelecki, Dr. Fairlie, Dr. Wing

    Credit to dubbelschnubbel

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAMF-lSmGmxNtKnOuFj4aiZFMChkfEjnO


    Report comment

    • Sickputer

      Dr. Yablokov is getting a little feeble, but he gave his critics quite a good showing.

      Dr. Wertelecki was a frigging rock star for the anti-nuke folks. His presentation was the top one I saw. He stuck it to the critics who deny the 800,000 fatality statistics. Steadily and methodically he destroyed all of the pro-nuke asinine lowball projections for mortalities and birth defects.


      Report comment

      • HH

        Points from Dr. Yablokov, apologies if I misheard anything:

        * 60 to 70 nuclides released in beginning of Chernoby; not just cesium
        * impossible to get a real dose calculation because some percentage goes to lung, some goes to another organ…all data for dose is based on a "uniform phantom" who doesn't exist
        * total secrecy/falsification of medical statistics of Chernobyl for first 3 1/2 years after catastrophe
        * there are one million less girls because of Chernobyl (genetics)
        * he discounts "radiation phobia" and asks do frogs have radiation phobia
        * infant mortality jumped in Germany, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland
        * 4% increased mortality from 1990 to 2004 in Belarus, Ukraine, European Russia
        * 60% of Chernobyl radionuclides were deposited outside USSR
        * no one has ever shown Dr. Yablokov any mistakes in his calculations
        * wildlife, plants had mutations
        * nuclear power has the same risk as nuclear weapons


        Report comment

        • Sickputer

          Good summation hh. I thought he said that about frogs, but his accent was hard to understand at times.

          "for dose is based on a "uniform phantom"

          SP: I believe that uniform phantom was a nuclear industry term and was expressed as a 20-year old male. Although I think one of the next two speakers used the 30-year old model.

          This phantom reference means radiation dosage effects estimated by pro-nuke scientists are based on the strongest members of the human race, thus skewing projections for young, old, female, or fetus.


          Report comment

        • HH

          Dr. Wertelecki began his presentation saying he thinks the news releases of the WHO and IAEA are "masterpieces of manipulation."


          Report comment

          • Sickputer

            Yes, I don't think he or Dr. Fairlie will be getting invited to any WHO cocktail parties anytime soon.


            Report comment

            • HH

              Points by Dr. Ian Fairlie, apologies if I misheard anything

              * March 15 – explosive event in fuel pond of Unit 2 followed seconds later by explosive event in spent fuel pond at Unit 4
              * 20-30 feet holes
              * he believes criticality, too (like Arnie Gunderson)
              * there is far too much P and U lying around Fukushima for there not to have been a criticality event
              * 4 explosions destroyed reactors of Units 1,2,3 and spent fuel pond of Unit 4
              * fuel fires at Unit 4 pool
              * core meltdowns in reactors of Units 1,2,3
              * 7 workers/soldiers killed by the explosions
              * 8% of Japan's surface area was contaminated
              * 12,000 workers exposed to up to 250 mSv
              * the WHO report was a disgrace in many ways
              * parts of Tokyo contaminated, even if they got 1 mSv, it's still a huge dose
              * Stohl plume maps used data from CTBTO measurement stations @12:12
              * spreading very small doses over large populations and some people are going to die
              * WHO, UNSCEAR, IAEA are all trying to downplay collective doses
              * Chernoby: Europe was clobbered with radiation
              * France government said Chernobyl fallout couldn't possibly land in France
              * Highest doses in UK fell on Sellafield
              * He believes Chernobyl was and is a catastrophe for the rest of Europe
              * He's not minimizing Fukushima at all
              * Any country that has nuclear power in it, their data sources are contaminated
              * 16,000 Pbq Xenon-133 released from Fukushima
              * atomic tests in 60's put out a huge amount of Cesium into the atmosphere


              Report comment

              • HH

                (continued)

                * Recent WHO Report says 70% increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed as infants
                * 6% higher risk in breast cancer in females exposed as infants
                * 7% higher leukemia risk in males exposed as infants
                * he believes breast cancer and leukemia incidences may be bigger than WHO said


                Report comment

                • HH

                  Notes on Dr. Joseph Mangano's presentation, apologies if I misheard anything

                  * Open Journal of Pediatrics – published a paper on changes of hypothyroidism in U.S. children since Fukushima
                  * Read the book "Mad Science"
                  * Calculating an exact dose is impossible
                  * greatest challenge in research community is CORRUPTION
                  * from the very second after Fukushima meltdown began, there was a rush to judgement by Japanese gov't, Tepco, IAEA to MINIMIZE THE DISASTER
                  * it is up to objective researchers to stand up to those who minimize
                  * start research immediately
                  * get the information out to the public
                  * hypothyroidism is when thyroid hormone is very low and underactive – if it occurs in newborn it can cause great harm to physical and mental health
                  * occurs from exposure to iodine
                  * California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii had the highlest levels of gross beta and soil and air
                  * first 50 weeks after fallout from Japan reached the U.S., hypothyroidism increased 28% increase on west coast, last 9 months increased 16.5%
                  * this is statistically significant


                  Report comment

          • HH

            CORRECTION: he said "masterpieces of language manipulation"


            Report comment

  • HH

    Points from Dr. Steve Wing's presentation, apologies if I misheard anything:

    (His presentation is important because many studies are based on the atomic bomb lifespan study and he discusses the flaws in that study)

    * scientists can't conduct randomized human experiments so have to extrapolate from cellular or animal studies or conduct epidemeological studies, both suffer from measurement error and BIAS
    * the WHO study is based on dose estimates based on previous report on Fukushima and also based on data from lifespan study of atomic bomb survivors
    * the WHO study did not assess doses within 20 kilometers of the Fukushima power plant
    * the WHO study chose not to asses radioactive gases such as Xenon
    * the WHO study did not assess fetal doses (see Dr. Wertelecki's presentation to learn more on this)
    * the atomic bomb lifespan study did not begin until after 5 years of the bombing, and many people did not survive to be studied
    * the atomic bomb lifespan studies cancers beginning in 1958 so it OMITS ALL CANCERS that occurred in 13 years of exposure, and lots of cancers occur in less time than that
    * the atomic bomb lifespan study does not include the impacts of utero exposure, and shorter latency cancers such as leukemia and lung cancer
    * the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) (who did the atomic bomb lifespan study) chose not to include gamma/beta induced radiation and fallout radiation effects to estimate any of the radation doses


    Report comment

    • HH

      (continued)

      * so the fallout of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not used in the studies, and this fallout affected people further away
      * missing data is a big problem in the atomic bomb lifespan study
      * people who visited Nagasaki and Hiroshima after blasts were not included in the atomic bomb lifespan study
      * distal survivors were not studied in the atomic bomb lifespan study
      * in the 1950's there were higher rates of mortality among survivors with unknown doses, they were taken out of the study – high mortality invididuals were removed from the study which affects the study
      * all survivors were entered in a followup, all survivors had completed sufficient interviews to be assigned a dose, yet RERF entered people who could not be in the study until later "immortal person time" which inflates denominator of the cancer rates for the proximal survivors. This is another phenomenon that causes an UNDERESTIMATATION of the cancer rates for the proximal survivors.


      Report comment

      • HH

        * Three Mile Island – symptoms included reddening of skin, deaths of pets/animals, nausea/vomiting, hairloss — and were told this was due to stress
        * Dr. Wing studied this and said their symptoms did not fit 'stress' diagnosis
        * out of 160,000 people within 10 miles of Three Mile Island meltdown, there were 5,493 cancers — 1975-1985
        * LUNG CANCERS ROSE DRAMATICALLY IN DIRECTION OF THE PLUMES
        * science is affected by the political system


        Report comment

  • HH

    Notes from Dr. Wertelecki's presentation – apologies if I misheard anything

    * the news releases by the WHO or the IAEA are masterpieces of language manipulation…IAEA now is basically behind WHO
    * he discusses the persisting patterns of elevated congenital malformations in Chernobyl impacted regions of Ukraine
    * The gold standard that all studies are compared to is the Hiroshima/Nagasaki studies — Dr. James Neil (Books: "The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors"' and "Physician to the Gene Pool"

    VERY IMPORTANT POINT:

    * the studies done about atomic fallout survivors don't really apply to nuclear meltdowns, because:

    1. atomic fallout survivors are exposed to neutron/gamma, but meltdown survivors are exposed to beta
    2. not a blast, but a continuous drip with a meltdown
    3. not external, but inhaled or swallowed radiation


    Report comment

    • HH

      Chernobyl: People have to eat the cesium food or they will die from hunger. They have to burn radioactively contaminated wood. Then they use ashes for garden, so radiation levels even higher.
      * ruled out alcohol as reason for Teratogenic (birth defects and microcephaly) seen from Chernobyl
      * Strontium found in potatoes – cesium urinate out, but Strontium stays with you
      * Hanford study on Ionizing Radiation causing Congential Malformations found statistically significant elevated NTD rates – but the study was dismissed because it contradicted the atomic bomb study
      * EUROCAT did 2 studies but didn't study anybody near Chernobyl
      * Sweden/Norway study found increase in cognitive insufficiencies of those in utero at time of Chernobyl
      * From Chernobyl, they also see also teratomos, conjoined twins, mocrophthalmia, ntd
      * PREVENTION IS FIRST before studies
      * Dr. Wertelecki's group is the only one that doesn't get any funding by the European Union. They don't get a penny.


      Report comment

  • HH

    Listening to these courageous and uncorruptible men gives me hope.

    They are the barrier holding back the pro-nuclear medical establishment's lies.

    And they do this with very little money, often pro-bono.

    You will get a million dollar education listening to them.

    Don't rely on my notes. Listen for yourself!

    Every presentation is a wealth of information.

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAMF-lSmGmxNtKnOuFj4aiZFMChkfEjnO


    Report comment

    • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

      HH Thank you for summarizing these, indeed it is encouraging..And yes we will receive a million dollar education. I will add that I have recieved that worth & so very much more.
      Go to university & these are the books & you are supposed to believe what the professor says..period..

      Here we get information as well as ideas & opinions from around people who are only here to try to learn & share..and to debate, find the faults & even try to come up with solutions. This is how it should always be.

      There NEVER should be a government set up that has 1 person who can override the laws, regulations or power in any way. Have an elected parliament & or congress, who debate the issues arrive at a possible solutions & present it to the people, who then vote. It should always be the people that must agree to any changes period. A government for the people & by the people. I do not want someone to lead me, I want someone to work with me.


      Report comment

  • W8R W8R

    2 points…
    1. Criticality is a question, fission byproduct gasses do not lie..
    2. All measurements released are for Cesium, as thats what Geiger tubes are calibrated with.. They have the readings for the rest.. I would love to see:
    Plutonium, Uranium, Strontium, Neptunium, Iodine, Chlorine and Xenon…
    Lets see some stats on Alpha emitters.
    And aerosolized microparticles. IE <5 microns..
    And, yes, they have collection filters in place..
    FOIA here we come….
    Much like the disaster itself, this battle has just begun…


    Report comment

  • H H

    Points from Ken Buesseler's presentation (apologies if I misheard anything_

    Mr. Buesseler is a Marine Scientist from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

    – Research team went out on a ship in June 2011 to gather information on radiation in the ocean – great cooperation between American and Japanese scientists who wanted this study – also France, Spain and UK interested

    – His presentation concentrated on Cesium 137 in the ocean

    – Comparison of Cesium-137 in ocean — 290 +/- 30 PBq from atomic testing — Chernobyl = 9-17 PBq — Fukushima = 14-31 PBq — N. Pacific pre-Fukushima = 69 PBq

    – radiation gets into the ocean from rain, direct discharge, rivers, groundwater, atmospheric

    – 80% of radiation from Fukushima ended up in the ocean

    – Atmospheric radionuclides put it in the ocean very quickly

    – Cesium contamination is highest north of the Kuroshia Current

    – November 2012 – The amount of Cesium was 15 TBq

    – The seafloor itself is now contaminated; more on the seafloor than in the water

    – Rain, river water and river sediment is a source of contamination for decades to come

    – Estimated .3 TBq/ month of Cesium-137 to ocean from the Power Plant

    – Estimates atmospheric fallout from Fukushima was 10-16 PBq

    – Into the ocean 3.5–15 PBq

    – 50 days for Cesium-137 to be excreted from fish

    – 18% of fish above radiation limit – levels still high in some fish – unpredictable


    Report comment

  • H H

    VERY INTERESTING PRESENTATION BY:

    Dr. Timothy Mousseau, Department of Biological Sciences, University South Carolina *

    – He had Japanese collaborators but they didn’t want to be named
    – He has published 50+ studies on Chernobyl – Fukushima
    – Studied Chernobyl since 2000 – studied birds, insects, microbes, plants
    – He concluded that most organisms that have been looked at in any detail show significant increased rates of genetic damage in direct proportion to amount of exposure to radiation contaminants
    – Most organisms living in contaminated areas show increased rates of deformities, development abnormalities, tumors, and cancers in direct proportion to the contamination levels they are living in.
    – He found Reduced fertility rates – about 40% of male birds in more contaminated parts of Chernobyl are completely sterile
    – Most have reduced lifespans
    – Most of them have smaller sizes
    – Many have gone locally extinct in the more contaminated areas – so biodiversity has been affected
    – Indirect evidence shows because radiation levels are low enough that organisms that don’t drop dead immediately as a result of exposure, some of them live long enough to accumulate mutations and pass them along to multiple generations!
    – Some live long enough to migrate, carrying the mutations they’ve accumulated
    – Animal studies provide clues to human population


    Report comment

    • H H

      continued…

      – He goes to as many places as he can and counts every last organism (birds, insects, spiders, whatever is possible) – 700 inventories in 2 years in Japan and 896 inventories for Chernobyl, and measures radiation levels – then develops predictive models
      – The trouble with Japan was trying to find cold spots (control areas) with minimal contamination to make comparisons for his studies
      – @39:40 – Important – Those stories saying Chernobyl zone is a thriving Eden for wildlife probably comes from a 2006 UN Chernobyl report (IAEA) which was based on ZERO studies
      – He said that it is UNTRUE.
      – He used that statement as his “Call of Action” to go out and study this
      – The main question is: Is there an impact of the radioactive contaminates on species?
      – The answer is YES. There are only 1/3 of the birds that there should be and only ½ as many species, so biodiversity is cut in half.
      – He found an Absence of bumblebees, very few butterflies, spiders, grasshoppers, dragonflies, birds, birds have higher rates of cataracts
      – He found many fewer mammals.
      – A couple of folks in the U.S. said he was wrong, so Mousseau brought in some independent researchers to trap mice, and found many fewer small rodents and big impacts on reproduction.
      – Chernobyl is NOT a wildlife haven.


      Report comment

      • H H

        continued…

        – In Japan – significantly reduced numbers in more contaminated areas – it’s a very silent place – very fewer birds and very fewer insects
        – In the first year in Fukushima, they found butterflies and circadas dramatically impacted; but spiders went up in numbers in the more contaminated areas. Why? Because there are no birds around to eat the spiders.
        – In the second year after Fukushima, the radiation effects are getting stronger.
        – Barnswell birds – found partial albino and strange color patterns – genetic mutations – white spots like they found in Chernobyl birds – tumors on beeks – missing patches of skin – tumors around the eye – tumor on the head – strange growths on their feet – tumors on their wings – brains are smaller — neurological impact — reduced cognitive function — never seen anywhere else and much more common in areas of high contamination
        – Trees are deformed – firebug pattern abnormalities

        Why has it been so easy for them to find these results and no one else? Because no one else has looked. Why haven’t they? Because they don’t want to know the answer, so they don’t pay for research in this area.

        * apologies if I misheard anything


        Report comment

  • H H

    Another excellent presentation at the Symposium.

    This one by Steven Starr, Clinical Laboratory Science Program, University of Missouri >>>

    • Cesium-137 is the most abundant long-lived radionuclide – it will be 180 to 320 years before Chernobyl cesium disappears
    • Cesium-137 = water soluble; quickly makes its way into soil and water; mimics potassium; quickly becomes ubiquitous; causes cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations; it's lethal at the atomic and molecular level
    • It’s a false comparison to compare Potassium-40 found in a banana to other radiation
    • Potassium-40 = 0.0000071 Curies per gram (seventy-one ten millionths Curies per gram)
    • Cesium-137 = 88 curies per gram
    • Strontium-90 = 140 curies per gram
    • Cesium and Strontium emit 10 to 20 millions times that of Potassium-40
    • Lawrence Livermore chart of March 14 shows easterly winds shifted and pushed plume back over to the Japanese mainland
    • Plume first went south over Tokyo then reversed and went north
    • Heaviest contamination is where it rained, which accounts for patchy deposition
    • 13% of Japanese mainland was contaminated with radiation = 11,580 square miles — Fukushima exclusion zone = 300 square miles — Chernobyl exclusion zone = 1,090 square miles
    • Rather than evacuate, Japan raised their radiation limits from 1 to 20 mSv


    Report comment

    • H H

      continued…

      • 20 mSv will cause: per 100,000 people, an additional 1,000 cancer cases in female infants; 500 cases in infant boys; 100 in 30-year old males
      • Cesium-137 biological half-life in human is 110 days
      • Cesium-137 biomagnifies as it moves up the food chain
      • From a daily ingestion of 10 Becquerels of Cesium-137 per day, in 500 days there will be 1,400 Becquerels in the body
      • Ingestion of Cs-137 is particularly injurious to children – causes irreversible damage to tissues in heart and other organs – bioaccumulates in the endocrine system, heart, pancreas, kidneys, intestines
      • There is NOT uniform distribution of Cs-137 in the body (as the EPA says)
      • Cs-137 also concentrates highly in the Thyroid gland and plays a major role in Thyroid Cancer (from research by Professor Bandazhevsky, M.D.)
      • 2,000,000 million people in Belarus live on land contaminated with Cesium-137
      • In Belarus – 45 to 47% of high school graduates had physical disorders (gastro-intestinal, weakened hearts, cataracts)
      • 40% had chronic “blood disorders” and malfunctioning thyroids
      • Japanese children allowed to ingest food with Cesium-137 will most likely develop what was seen in Belarus’ children

      * apologies if misheard anything


      Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Herbert Abrams, Stanford University School of Medicine, spoke at the "Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident" Symposium.

    Important points from his presentation called "The Hazards of Low Level Ionizing Radiation: Controversy and Evidence"

    * The BEIR VII report – studied health effects from 0 to 100 millisieverts (mSv)

    (a) "High radiation doses tend to kill cells, while low doses tend to damage the genetic code (DNA)"
    (b) Found a 3% increase in cancer at low doses
    (c) Found one excess cancer in 100

    * Mechanisms of cancer induction:

    - Damage to DNA
    - Single strand breaks
    - Double strand breaks
    - Oxidative changes in nucleotide bases
    - DNA deletions, gene and chromosome damage

    * "There is NO evidence of a threshold below which no cellular damage occurs."

    * 300 million medical x-rays are performed a year; 120 million dental x-rays

    * Significant lifetime excess cancer risks for 12 cancers, including lung, liver, breast, prostate, stomach, colon, thyroid and leukemia

    * Breast cancer has almost a 100% excess risk.

    * @ 100mSv = per 100,000 people, found excess cancers of 800 in males and 1300 in females; excess deaths 400 males and 610 females

    http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.