Stop the Fukushima fear mongering!

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

One direct examination has been conducted: In its 10th report, dated March 2013, the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey reported examining 133,000 children using new, highly sensitive ultrasound equipment.

Highly sensitive ultrasound. If you used that equipment on anyone, anywhere in the world, it would probably show similar results, but in Japan they issued iodine pills for all the children (adult thyroids are not sensitive to radioactive iodine), so why would they have more thyroid problems? Too much iodine is also NOT good for anyone. You might not want to read these links if you like your daily fear 'fix':

Shame on you, Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano!
nuclearpoweryesplease.org...

Steve Wing's Critique of Congenital Hypothyroidism Study after Fukushima Accident by Mangano and Sherman
fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.ca...

Sherman is another shill working for publications that are concerned only with making money out of other peoples fears. Shame on her indeed.

And even anti-nuke writers were concerned about the fear-mongering:

Putting Fukushima in Perspective: A primer on radioactivity in the Ocean

But when I read that the west coast of north America is now dying because of radionuclides leaked from Fukushima I have a responsibility to communicate to the public that this is not so.

Radioactivity that we are exposed to here every day, by being on or in the water or consuming seafood is the same as if the terrible events at Fukushima never took place.

www.dailykos.com...

Yeh! Quit it! Huge doses of radiation are good for you and the environment. Because of Fukashima, tons of sea food is now washing up on western U.S. shores, free of charge and it glows with in the dark.

reply to post by HUMBLEONE


" it glows within the dark."

Actually that would be the "Bristol Bay ?",,thing /hoax /jellyfish /new movie,,,,etc,,
it glowed reall purty,, like,,

Highly sensitive ultrasound. If you used that equipment on anyone, anywhere in the world, it would probably show similar results, but in Japan they issued iodine pills for all the children (adult thyroids are not sensitive to radioactive iodine), so why would they have more thyroid problems? Too much iodine is also NOT good for anyone. You might not want to read these links if you like your daily fear 'fix':

reply to post by GaryN


Saying that using highly sensitive equipment on anyone, anywhere in the world, it would PROBABLY show similar is totally unscientific and the opposite of fear-mongering aka "downplaying" real results. They issued some iodine to some children - no one knows if it was enough or timely. It's totally possible there was too much iodine radiation for any tablets to help - or - not enough iodine tablets to stave off the onslaught of iodine radiation - or - not all children got any.

I 'bet' that using highly sensitive equipment on EVERYONE in the world would NOT show similar results unless and except they were in a higher than 'normal' radioactive environment. Regarding 'normal' - it's becoming common to expect everyone to live within radiation and that by raising acceptable limits it becomes 'normal'... when I say a 'normal' radioactive environment I mean one that is PRE all this nuclear dumping, pollution, poisoning.

Because most of the global environment is now being bathed in man-produced radiation, the 'new' normal is what they want us to believe and accept - but it is not normal or natural. It's propaganda. Nuclear energy is safe??? Clean??? *cough*... yeah, right... lots of evidence of that one! *sarcasm*. Give me Tesla's energy, wind, solar or hydro ANY day over nuclear! It's sheer madness to defend it! Proof of it's devastation is blatantly obvious - the only thing that thrives in nuclear waste is cockroaches and maybe some mushrooms.

Using chemo for cancer patients is like a death sentence. The actual numbers of people who survive chemo are well under 10%. Chemo is like adding battery acid to your system. It is one of the great medical scams of the century. The medical schools are owned and dictated to by pharmaceuticals. Allopathy has been marginalized and virtually demonized. Doctors do as they're taught - few question anything, they just hear cancer and decide chemo and most die.

Cancer rates are soaring - why is that? Even animals are dying of cancer more than decades ago. Why is that? Radiation has ZERO health benefits, it is toxic. Sure, some people can survive low levels - no one can survive high ones. It accumulates and eventually the system just can't bear it anymore, especially with toxic diets, toxic air, etc. etc. etc. Radiation isn't the ONLY poison out there, but it's sure one that's readily AVOIDABLE but is forced on us by lies and empty promises. Clean energy. Cheap energy. Yeah.... tell that to all the ringworm children...

reply to post by GaryN



Yes, I understand chemo and cancer. Success with chemo is 10% or less - most oncologists would NOT take chemo if they had cancer including the one locally who recently said so, but it is THE allopathy prescription, period.

FACT: approximately 2% of all cancers respond to chemotherapy.

weeksmd.com...

From Dr. Robert Morse, biochemist, naturopathic physician and how chemo kills video. If anyone wants to understand cancer and chemo, this man is absolutely brilliant, simple to understand and very well degreed and experienced in medicine.

"85-90% people die from chemo - it's an acid between 1 and 2 ph, (between battery acid and hydrochloric acid), is 10-50 times higher than the acid that caused the cancer. The medical profession is the number 1 killer modality."

www.youtube.com... (Part 1)

Radiation does not cure or heal, and yes, I realize they use it for x-rays at low doses. It reveals information, it does not 'help' the problem. Cancer is chemistry. Chemo is equivalent to battery acid. Cell phones give off radiation and gee, what a coincidence, people are popping up with cancerous tumors on the side of the head they use the cell phones on - or breast cancer where women tucked the cell and carried it around in their bras for years. It damages cells, period - once our tolerance has been breached a tumor forms.

There is no such thing as being too concerned about man-made radiation that does NOT occur naturally in the environment. I got the spiel from the Government of Canada when I called about Fukushima that there's more radiation in a banana than from Fukushima... it's a 'line' they're feeding us. I don't believe the nuclear industry. I don't believe the government. I don't believe mainstream medicine because it's run and governed by pharmaceuticals. I don't believe chemo helps cancer in 90% of the cases. Now the question is if chemo helped in 10% or were their immune systems just strong enough despite the cancer AND chemo to win out? No way to ever know.

Why is it some people resist believing radiation is actually harmful? There's a ton of pro-radiation propaganda out there - of course they want us to believe it's all good and clean energy ( ) - just like sugar is good and on and on and on. And every generation gets sicker younger... diet problems? absolutely! air problems? absolutely! Radiation is not the only problem out there - but it's sure one that causes me great concern and I cannot control - I can control what I eat and where I live, I can't control enforced exposure.

Fear mongering is when there is nothing to be fearful of. Many of us believe man-made radiation is, in fact, fearful - so talking about it is not fear-mongering. Would you want to live in Fukushima now? I sure don't - and I don't like being only 5,000 miles across the Pacific from it either! It's a travesty and time will tell how much it kills - my 'guess' (because I'm not a scientist) is that it will kill the entire Pacific Ocean; cancer rates along the entire west coast of North America will dramatically rise from the coast to maybe up to 600 miles inland (wherever there's substantial rainfall, like where I live) because it will come down in the rain... and that's WITHOUT any further problems... even as it is it's going to spout poison for hundreds of years - we cannot survive that - fish cannot survive that - vegetation cannot survive that. The 'dead zone' will be vast. Check back in another 2 years and see what the cancer rates are here (North America) and how the Pacific ocean is faring...

reply to post by wishes

Radiation does not cure or heal,

What?

Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to shrink tumors and kill cancer cells (1). X-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles are types of radiation used for cancer treatment.

The radiation may be delivered by a machine outside the body (external-beam radiation therapy), or it may come from radioactive material placed in the body near cancer cells (internal radiation therapy, also called brachytherapy).

Systemic radiation therapy uses radioactive substances, such as radioactive iodine, that travel in the blood to kill cancer cells.

That's from the National Cancer Institute, I'd think they know what they are talking about.

GaryN
reply to post by wishes

 

Radiation does not cure or heal,

What?

Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to shrink tumors and kill cancer cells (1). X-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles are types of radiation used for cancer treatment.

The radiation may be delivered by a machine outside the body (external-beam radiation therapy), or it may come from radioactive material placed in the body near cancer cells (internal radiation therapy, also called brachytherapy).

Systemic radiation therapy uses radioactive substances, such as radioactive iodine, that travel in the blood to kill cancer cells.

That's from the National Cancer Institute, I'd think they know what they are talking about.

But what that doesn't say is it not only killing cancer cells it kills all kinds of your cells that are around it. The reason that this works is because you have more normal cells than cancer cells. So its not healing you its killing you it just kills all the cancer cells before it kills all of your cells. I would call that treatment at best.

BGTM90

GaryN
reply to post by wishes

 

Radiation does not cure or heal,

What?

Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to shrink tumors and kill cancer cells (1). X-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles are types of radiation used for cancer treatment.

The radiation may be delivered by a machine outside the body (external-beam radiation therapy), or it may come from radioactive material placed in the body near cancer cells (internal radiation therapy, also called brachytherapy).

Systemic radiation therapy uses radioactive substances, such as radioactive iodine, that travel in the blood to kill cancer cells.

That's from the National Cancer Institute, I'd think they know what they are talking about.

But what that doesn't say is it not only killing cancer cells it kills all kinds of your cells that are around it. The reason that this works is because you have more normal cells than cancer cells. So its not healing you its killing you it just kills all the cancer cells before it kills all of your cells. I would call that treatment at best.

edit on 10-12-2013 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)

Yes, exactly - the amount of radiation it takes to kill a tumor is more than enough to kill every living cell... hence 'death'. There are far better treatments for cancer - radiation is the worst possible 'treatment' yet it is the primary treatment in allopathic medicine. Dr. Robert Morse explains it exceptionally well- the chemistry, the acidic environment, the remedy. It's all in his videos.

The actual statistics for surviving chemo is very low - under 10%. Not very good odds. A family member just went through a horrible death from pancreatic cancer. He wanted chemo, I tried to talk him out of it - and honestly if I were in his position I would probably go for it because it's a 'chance'. It made him sicker, weaker, whacked out his blood cell counts. Pancreatic cancer is deadly because it cannot be diagnosed until it's so advanced - most other cancers there is 'time' to change the diet to truly beat it. Doing chemo/radiation is (in my opinion) expediting death.

Radiation/chemo is hardly a cure when the success rate is under 10%. Not very good odds but is better than zero (like in pancreatic cancer though longevity with pancreatic cancer is almost zero regardless of chemo or not). There is a far better success rate treating cancer with diet (fruit heals the cells so the cells can heal the body) and baking soda and molasses (baking soda alkalizes) when diagnosed early enough.

reply to post by wishes

Yes, exactly - the amount of radiation it takes to kill a tumor is more than enough to kill every living cell... hence 'death'.

You keep talking through irrational fear, not through an understanding of what is going on.

Does radiation therapy kill only cancer cells?

No, radiation therapy can also damage normal cells, leading to side effects (see Question 10).

Doctors take potential damage to normal cells into account when planning a course of radiation therapy (see Question 5). The amount of radiation that normal tissue can safely receive is known for all parts of the body. Doctors use this information to help them decide where to aim radiation during treatment.

So yes, it's is true, radiation can kill good cells. Cancer cells are fast growing, and fast growing cells are about 4 times more sensitive to radiation than mature cells, so doctors work out the best dose to kill as many of the cancer cells as possible, and as few healthy cells as possible. The alternative is that you die, so most people choose the Torture Treatment.
The drugs they give for chemo should be banned, they are nasty, man-made stuff. There are natural chemicals, found in some plants, that have been used for thousands of years, which have numerous medicinal benefits, but we can not discuss those here. There is such huge money involved in the cancer treatment market that the big corporations do not want you to know that you can both protect yourself from cancer, with Hormesis, or cure it if you do get it from some of the nasty chemicals the corporations feed us or expose us to every day, with safe substances that NATURE has provided, and have been used for around 3000 years, but have been demonised, just like with low level radiation. Big business WANTS us to get sick, it's how they make money!

reply to post by GaryN


I am not talking through irrational fear - I gave you Dr. Robert Morse's video - he explains exceptionally well how chemo does not work. There are other resources that say the same thing, Dr. Morse just says it best.

I am talking through reading, researching and first hand experience. We agree there are better treatments, I have no idea why you are hung up that radiation/chemo cures at all but it is most certainly your belief to hang onto as long as you like.

Yes they (the allopathic and chemo manufacturers) take 'good cells' into consideration. How much 'battery acid' is helpful? My answer is 'none'. People who have chemo and survive (I believe) do it in spite of the chemo, not because of it.

Radiation... is... not... good... for... anyone's.... health... period... ESPECIALLY Fukushima's. Is just my opinion based on my research - I'm open for proof otherwise but don't believe it's out there. I know the nuclear industry will throw out numbers, but they have no credibility. Someone like David Suzuki I would give credibility to - they don't have a 'bone' in the fight so to speak... Yes they talk about acceptable limits -that they raise to suit the levels of pollution. Cancers are near epidemic proportions - radiation is absolutely a main contributor of it (as well as other factors) - man made radiation is never healthy in any dose - it's just that small doses aren't necessarily lethal - right away.

GaryN


The drugs they give for chemo should be banned, they are nasty, man-made stuff. There are natural chemicals, found in some plants, that have been used for thousands of years, which have numerous medicinal benefits, but we can not discuss those here. There is such huge money involved in the cancer treatment market that the big corporations do not want you to know that you can both protect yourself from cancer, with Hormesis, or cure it if you do get it from some of the nasty chemicals the corporations feed us or expose us to every day, with safe substances that NATURE has provided, and have been used for around 3000 years, but have been demonised, just like with low level radiation. Big business WANTS us to get sick, it's how they make money!

edit on 10-12-2013 by GaryN because: (no reason given)

The Radio Isotopes they use for cancer treatment are man made to and they are nasty also so by your logic they should be banned. But I do agree that there are certain plants demonized by the our society that have shown to be most affected against cancer and it is the medical and pharmaceutical industrial system that lobby to have these nature remedies demonized. But you have to understand there is a difference between low level radiation which is around us all the time from natural processes and internal contamination. When radio isotopes enter the body they go to various locations in the body and deliver a high dosage of radiation to the immediate cells surrounding them. Cesium goes into muscle tissue and can cause heart problems and if enough is getting into you it can cause hart failure because it kills your cells faster than they can regenerate. Plutonium can accumulate in the testicles and cause genetic damage to the sperm with can cause genetic deformations and still births. Its not just cancer and its not just low level radiation. Also Uranium is more of a heavy metal toxin than it is a radio toxin. It can accumulate in the brain and cause a whole host of problems. Im not fear mongering just stating facts that people should be aware of. Im not saying lets all freak out or that we are all going to die but we should not continue to pollute the planet with these toxins.

reply to post by BGTM90

The Radio Isotopes they use for cancer treatment are man made to and they are nasty also so by your logic they should be banned.

Natural and man-made radiation sources emit exactly the same energies, the body, or any instruments, can not tell the difference because there is none. Some isotopes are short lived in nature, such as Cobalt 60, as it only has a 7 year or so half life, so have to be boosted back up to higher energy levels in a medical isotope reactor. That's why those Mexicans who stole the truck with the old medical radiation device in it only got 'sunburn', though one showed signs of radiation sickness, but will be OK.

When radio isotopes enter the body they go to various locations in the body and deliver a high dosage of radiation to the immediate cells surrounding them.

Yes, and that fact is why they use radio-active iodine to kill Thyroid cancer cells. And yes, the main threat from plutonium, or DU, is that it is toxic chemically, not that it is radio-active. Albert Stevens had the biggest known dose of internal radiation, he didn't die of cancer, or of chemical toxicity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Im not fear mongering just stating facts that people should be aware of.

That's good, but we have to have our facts straight. Vitamin A can also be a toxin and can cause your system to malfunction, even kill you if you take too much. Some vitamin B12 is a slow release gamma source, and your body could not function without that gamma radiation, yes, radio-activity is part of life! Potasium is radio active, we can't live without it. As with everything in life, there are safe limits, but the anti-nuclear fanatics say there is NO safe level of radiation, which means we should all perish from our own internal radiation.
And I don't think anyone, with an unbiased and scientific understanding, can discount the growing number of studies on long term exposure effects of gamma radiation that show LESS ill health amongst exposed workers. If you are not willing to look at and think about the scientific reports, than you are just running on blind fear due to emotional responses, and not using common sense.

Im not saying lets all freak out or that we are all going to die but we should not continue to pollute the planet with these toxins.

And that surely should apply to the greatest source of toxins, from the Oil and petrochemical industries, who for some reason are immune to rules and regulations. Even our water might be causing cancer, and bottled water wont save you, it mostly just comes out of a tap. Spring sourced water can be more radio-active too, and some will put you over recomended safe limits if you drink more than 2 litres a day, every day. If there are NO safe limits for radiation, it should be banned shouldn't it? Worry more about man-made chemicals than man-made radiation. It might save your lfe one day.

Are Chemicals in Drinking Water Giving People Cancer?
www.wakingtimes.com...

GaryN
reply to post by BGTM90

 

Natural and man-made radiation sources emit exactly the same energies, the body, or any instruments, can not tell the difference because there is none. Some isotopes are short lived in nature, such as Cobalt 60, as it only has a 7 year or so half life, so have to be boosted back up to higher energy levels in a medical isotope reactor. That's why those Mexicans who stole the truck with the old medical radiation device in it only got 'sunburn', though one showed signs of radiation sickness, but will be OK.
Potasium is radio active, we can't live without it.

But there is a difference see Cobalt 60 is not found in nature so you have to make it. You don't boost it back up to higher energy levels in a medical isotope reactor you literally create it. Radioisotopes have distinctive energy levels that they decay at so you can not boost the energy level of a it. Same thing with Iodine 131 & 138 and Cesium !34 & 135. A machine can tell the difference because if it detects any of these isotopes it knows it is man made because any naturally occurring isotopes have decade a long time ago.

Potasium is radio active, we can't live without it.

No Potassium 40 is radioactive and we could live with out Potassium 40 and the average human has about .02 g of it in their body compared to 160 g of regular potassium.

And I don't think anyone, with an unbiased and scientific understanding, can discount the growing number of studies on long term exposure effects of gamma radiation that show LESS ill health amongst exposed workers. If you are not willing to look at and think about the scientific reports

Ok well why don't you post these reports so we can have a look at them. I'm also curious as to who preformed these studies or better yet who funded them and if they are truly unbiased. The NRC and the IAEA are Pro Nuclear and are in the business of promoting nuclear power and making it as cheap as possible. So any studies funded or preformed by them can not be trusted because they are bias just like you wouldn't trust a study by anti nuclear organizations because they are also bias.

Worry more about man-made chemicals than man-made radiation.

Man made radioisotopes are man made chemicals. I don't see why you would separate these two things.

the Oil and petrochemical industries, who for some reason are immune to rules and regulations.

The Nuclear industry is the exact same you have a Regulator (NRC) who is in bed with the with the nuclear power companies. And the power companies don't face penalties for not being up to code they just give them more and more time to do it.

reply to post by BGTM90

But there is a difference see Cobalt 60 is not found in nature so you have to make it.

Right, it has decayed, so there is no natural source, but if it DID exist at one time, then it must have been natural. The decay chains of all the elements are known, so they can bombard the appropriate element, in a reactor or using a linear accelerator, to get the isotope they want. Again, that isotope is 'natural', as if it wasn't, it could not exist, and would decay in picooseconds back to a more stable isotope or element.

There is no natural 60Co in existence; thus, synthetic 60Co is created by bombarding a 59Co target with a slow neutron source.
en.wikipedia.org...

That is what I mean by 'boosting' it back up. Its half life is just over 5 years, so the C60 the Mexicans handled had undergone at least 5 half-life periods, so was much weaker, and thus didn't kill them like 'renewed' C60 would have.

Ok well why don't you post these reports so we can have a look at them.

I have posted a few on various threads here, but they are scattered around the 'Net, so I have just volunteered to try and gather them all into one resource site. I'll post it when I get going. One fellow who is involved with Hormesis has just been honoured my McMaster University for his work, I doubt the University is also 'in bed' with the Nuclear industry.

Edward Calabrese honored by McMaster University as a pioneer in the field of hormesis.
atomicinsights.com...

The Nuclear industry is the exact same you have a Regulator (NRC) who is in bed with the with the nuclear power companies.

If you look at pro-nuclear power sites, you will see the NRC referred to as the "Nuclear Rejection Committee". They seem to be working for Big Oil, as they take years to study reactor applications, and keep changing the requirements. Now they are thinking of making US nuclear plants be able to withstand aircraft impacts because terrorists could do a 9/11 on them. The NRC is on YOUR side, if you are anti-nuclear.

GaryN
reply to post by BGTM90

 

Right, it has decayed, so there is no natural source, but if it DID exist at one time, then it must have been natural. The decay chains of all the elements are known, so they can bombard the appropriate element, in a reactor or using a linear accelerator, to get the isotope they want. Again, that isotope is 'natural', as if it wasn't, it could not exist, and would decay in picooseconds back to a more stable isotope or element.

But the point is that humans and every other animal on this planet didn't evolve with these substances in there environment so the body hasn't developed ways to process them. Just like these unnatural chemicals you are concerned about. You are stretching the definition of natural and even using quotes because you even you can see that these chemicals are not natural.

That is what I mean by 'boosting' it back up. Its half life is just over 5 years, so the C60 the Mexicans handled had undergone at least 5 half-life periods, so was much weaker, and thus didn't kill them like 'renewed' C60 would have.

But your not boosting Cobalt 59 Back up to Cobalt 60 it was never Cobalt 60, Cobalt 60 decays into Nickel so there is no 'renewed' Cobalt 60 it has to be made from Iron. And your own words if there was more of it it would have killed them so why is Gama Ray radiation good for you again?

I doubt the University is also 'in bed' with the Nuclear industry.

You doubt but you don't know. Universities need funding too. and what would you know…

Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement and Ontario Minister of Government and Consumer Services Ted McMeekin announced $22 million in infrastructure funding for the Nuclear Reactor during a visit to McMaster today.

mnr.mcmaster.ca...

They have their own reactor and they received 22 million dollars to fund their nuclear reactor.
Nuclear power is big money which means big money to lobby politicians to let them do what they want.

They seem to be working for Big Oil, as they take years to study reactor application

Well I would hope they take years to study reactor applications its not just something you should just blow past.

The NRC is on YOUR side, if you are anti-nuclear.

Exelon’s risky decisions occurred under the noses of on-site inspectors from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No documented inspection of the pipes was made by anyone from the N.R.C. for at least the eight years preceding the leak, and the agency also failed to notice that Exelon kept lowering the acceptable standard, according to a subsequent investigation by the commission’s inspector general.

Exelon’s penalty? A reprimand for two low-level violations — a tepid response all too common at the N.R.C., said George A. Mulley Jr., a former investigator with the inspector general’s office who led the Byron inquiry. “They always say, ‘Oh, but nothing happened,’

www.nytimes.com...

Heres a quote from then senator Obama

Obama responded by calling the NRC a “moribund” agency. “It’s become captive of the industries that it regulates, and I think that’s a problem,”

www.salon.com...

Under a withering assault from the industry, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is stepping down, effective upon the confirmation of his successor, according to a statement from Jaczko.

The resignation follows months of bureaucratic knife-wielding by the four industry-backed members of the five-person panel.

So when one of the chairmen of the NRC Doesn't agree with the industry what does the industry do? Get the other four members to get him to resign

www.huffingtonpost.com...

By the way if your concerned about the whats in your water and unnatural chemicals the nuclear fuel cycle isn't a clean natural process. You need giant machines with run on oil to dig and transport the uranium ore with contains .01% usable material so you need a lot. The uranium pollutes local water ways and the air. then you have the wast products that get stored in huge lakes with it has to be converted into yellow cake with used a lot of nasty chemicals. Then you have to convert it to Uranium Hexafloride with is it self a very toxic and unnatural compound. The process of converting yellowcake into UF6 contains that following chemicals: nitric acid, ammonia, hydrofluoric acid, fluorine, and chlorine trifluoride. All of those are very nasty chemicals that find their way into our environment. Then you have to use more energy to enrich the uranium into reactor grade fuel. And you have a huge amount of unusable UF6 with they store in giant tanks which are continuously being corded by their contents. And then you have to use a whole bother verity chemicals to convert the usable UF6 into UOx. So the nuclear industry is far from green and far from natural.

Plus the open pit mining has brought sickness death and heart ache to many indigenous people of Alstrlia and the United States.

Hears an interesting video for you.

reply to post by BGTM90


I'm not going to argue that all resource extraction can have negative impacts, and Canadian corporations are right up there with the worst of them. But if you look at the mess being made by oil/coal/gas extraction, gold mining, and even the rare earth mines in China that many solar and wind power systems need, and compare all those to the Uranium mining operations, you will see that Uranium mining is just a very small proportion of the mess we are making of the Earth.
Just one Canadian example:

Rare cancer strikes
Natives in the small community of Fort Chipewyan, 300 km north of Fort McMurray and downstream from the oilsands, have been dying of a rare bile-duct disease in disproportionate numbers.

oilsandstruth.org...

There is also all the Uranium we will ever need in just sea water, so we could make the oceans less radio-active by removing some of that Uranium, which should please the radio-active fish worries that are all the rage after Fukushima.

Nuclear Fuel From the Sea
Next time you go to the beach, think about this: You’re swimming in nuclear fuel. Our oceans contain an estimated 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium, diluted down to a minuscule 3.3 parts per billion. The idea of extracting uranium from seawater has been kicking around for decades now, but the materials and processes to do so may finally be economically viable.

spectrum.ieee.org...

And your own words if there was more of it it would have killed them so why is Gama Ray radiation good for you again?

It's all about doses, just like your vitamins. The right amount is good for you, too much can make you sick or even kill you. That's what the Hormesis studies are all about, finding out the best levels to promote better health. The growing number of long term, large sample studies showing the benefits of low level radiation can not be dismissed out of hand, that's what scientific studies are for. We know if you drink gasoline it will kill you, so you don't do that, we don't ban gasoline because it could kill you if you don't respect it. Same with radiation, you can't just ban it outright if it has some good uses, such as cancer treatment. And that's the subject of the thread, stopping the unscientific FEAR of radiation in instances like Fukushima, when there are no scientific studies to show that those levels of radiation are of any concern to public health.

Did you even look at the "Radiation and Reason" site:
www.radiationandreason.com...‎

They have their own reactor and they received 22 million dollars to fund their nuclear reactor.
Nuclear power is big money which means big money to lobby politicians to let them do what they want.

Canada supplies much of the medical radio-active isotopes used around the world. 22 Million is chump change compared to the huge amounts given to other universities for other much less important research. Politics is a dirty business, we all know that, and I'm not going to say there is no power and influence involved, but that applies to things like the Gulf oil spill too, BP has many friends in high places, they can get away with murder.

And if you want to go head-to-head on nuclear physics, we should do that on another thread. I'm trying to put it in as simple terms as possible here by just saying that the isotopes needed can be created by adding energy to less radio active or stable material to get what is needed for medicine or other purposes. All the isotopes did exist at one time, even if you have to go back to a supernova or cosmic particle accelerators. Things like cobalt 60 are no longer found as they have decayed, and so are called Extinct Radionuclides. Man can recreate them, nature made them first.

reply to post by GaryN


Ok whats the Good dose of gasoline we should be consuming? Or how about Chlorine? or Bromine or Nitric Acid. Any way Im done discussing this with you, you never seem to refute anything I say. You just bring up studies none of with you have posted and then start talking about how petroleum companies are bad. I never once said the petroleum products or the industry that makes them are a good thing so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

reply to post by BGTM90

Any way Im done discussing this with you, you never seem to refute anything I say.

Fair enough, but you don't respond to articles such as the "Radiation and Reason" site. I tend to believe him, don't think he nneds the money from selling books, or is under the control of the Nuclear industry.

I never once said the petroleum products or the industry that makes them are a good thing so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Just trying to put things in perspective. Very few people have been killed as a result of Nuclear energy production, or the few mishaps, over more than 50 years, but the numbers from Carbon sources is huge, and doesn't get anybody all worked up.

Diesel exhaust contains toxic air contaminants. It is listed as a carcinogen for humans by the IARC in group 1.[1] Diesel fuel also contains fine particles associated with negative health effects.
..
Mortality from diesel soot exposure in 2001 was at least 14,400 out of the German population of 82 million, according to the official report 2352 of the Umweltbundesamt Berlin (Federal Environmental Agency of Germany).

14,000 just in Germany, so scale that up to global numbers, but nobody seems to care.

And for anyone who is still interested in the subject, how about the opinion of a Japanase scientist who lived near to Fukashima? (pdf)

LOW-LEVEL RADIATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FUKUSHIMA RECOVERY(pdf)
Radiation Oncology

atomicinsights.com...

And from (as far as I can tell) an independent researcher:



Low-Dose/Dose-Rate Low-LET Radiation Protects Us from Cancer (pdf)

www.radiation-scott.org...‎

I'm willing to look at any studies you can find that take the opposite position.

Japan has one of the lowest cancer rates in the world. Missa Onsen has even lower rates. Coincidence?

Cancer mortality rate is half the national average.
An organization that has analyzed the statistics for the past 37 years reported in 1992 that the cancer mortality rate of residents in the Misasa Onsen area was about half that of the national average. Based on these results, a proposal was made that the effect of low-dose radiation exposure should again be scientifically investigated. This report strongly demonstrates the theory of a radiation hormesis effect.

Secrets of Misasa Onsen “Therapeutic Hot Springs”: good to bathe in, drink, and inhale
spa-misasa.jp...