Radiation Effects in U.S. from Japan Nuke Accident

reply to post by Bootifool


Living close to Seattle,
I'm watching every day.


Nice First Post!

How many people have died from the Fukashima accident?

Bootifool
I put this in the Japan forum since that is where the Fukushima stuff goes but this is actually about how this is/ will be felt in the US. This is beyond chilling.

If this is a true reflection of the status quo, then I wonder how long it will be before there are population relocations because of this. And where will people go?

I'd love to hear what you think... does this article paint a realistic picture? Or is this sensationalism and fear-mongering? Or is it perhaps worse than this?

www.turnerradionetwork.com...

Please forgive me if this was already posted... I did search.
Please forgive me if I messed this up, this is my first thread.

I haven't finished reading yet, but it all began to fall apart for me in the first paragraph with the following:

U.S. Government propagandists are claiming everything is all right - but they aren't even monitoring radiation levels

Directly followed by:

Newly released government projections (contained in this article) show parts...

:

How can you claim "the government isn't doing their job" and then say "let me use their sources". Again... that's just my original thought when I begin to read this article.

I don't trust the article, they are connecting events that aren't proven to be connected to the melt down. Animal die offs and weird diseases have been happening for years, and well before 2011. They claim that the deer in Montana are dying off because of radiation? Really? I'm just fine, and I live closer. The deer in my front yard are doing just fine too.

kotu44
I don't trust the article, they are connecting events that aren't proven to be connected to the melt down. Animal die offs and weird diseases have been happening for years, and well before 2011. They claim that the deer in Montana are dying off because of radiation? Really? I'm just fine, and I live closer. The deer in my front yard are doing just fine too.

It's wise to not trust it too much, but even official sources may not be trustworthy in nuclear accident cases.

Much of the die-offs cited in the OP article could be unrelated to Fukushima, however there is one peer-reviewed journal article they mentioned that may be related:

From the OP source:

The article will be published next week in the peer-reviewed journal Open Journal of Pediatrics. Congenital hypothyroidism is a rare but serious condition normally affecting about one child in 2,000, and one that demands clinical intervention - the growth of children suffering from the condition is affected if they are left untreated. All babies born in California are monitored at birth for Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) levels in blood, since high levels indicate hypothyroidism.

Joe Mangano and Janette Sherman of the Radiation and Public Health Project in New York, and Christopher Busby, guest researcher at Jacobs University, Bremen, examined congenital hypothyroidism (CH) rates in newborns using data obtained from the State of California over the period of the Fukushima explosions.

Their results are published in their paper Changes in confirmed plus borderline cases of congenital hypothyroidism in California as a function of environmental fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. The researchers compared data for babies exposed to radioactive Iodine-131 and born between March 17th and Dec 31st 2011 with unexposed babies born in 2011 before the exposures plus those born in 2012.

Confirmed cases of hypothyroidism, defined as those with TSH level greater than 29 units increased by 21% in the group of babies that were exposed to excess radioactive Iodine in the womb. The same group of children had a 27% increase in 'borderline cases'.

So if 1 in 2000 babies were affected before Fukushima, and there's a 21% increase, that means 1 in 1650 babies would be affected. Whether this is linked to Fukushima might still be questionable, but even if it is, I see it as bad, but not the end of life as we know it.

SilentKillah
How can you claim "the government isn't doing their job" and then say "let me use their sources". Again... that's just my original thought when I begin to read this article.

As I said a lot in the article can't be trusted. And you have a point about that contradiction, however, in the two other major nuclear accidents at TMI and Chernobyl, it's pretty well documented that the official sources of information were totally unreliable early in the disasters, and it wasn't until later that the truth about what really happened finally came out. The same pattern appears to have also occurred with Fukushima, except it's more recent so we are still seeing the truth leak out.

hellobruce

jrod
reply to post by hellobruce

 

From Al-Jazeera:
www.huntingtonnews.net...
www.redflagnews.com... shima-nuclear-rescue-efforts-video-reports#sthash.1gMaYxV1.dpbs
americanlivewire.com...

So basically all you have is 1 source, a lawyer, for all the claims - as expected, no decent source!

Nuclear ships, Navy ships have all sorts of hazards for the crew. These cancer cases so far cannot be directly linked to Fukushima. However the USS Ronald Reagan was near Fukushima on a rescue mission. Radioactive seawater was used in the desalinization process and they did not catch this until it was too late. When mistakes like this happen it is not uncommon for the CO/XO to try to cover their butts. It should not have happened, all these ships can monitor radiation. I do know shortly after a quake a small boy(frigate or destroyer) detected elevated radiation levels and the CO made the call to get out of there. It appears that the elevated radiation levels were either undetected or ignored on the Reagan until it was too late.

The Ronald Reagan was exposed to Fukushima radiation, and now young service members have cancers that may have been caused exposure. This is factual.

reply to post by Bootifool


My opinion is that the industry is not telling us the truth, to do so would mean the death of the nuclear industry, a very good thing for sure. Msm isn't telling the story at all anymore. Scientists are being muzzled and threatened I'm sure.

In my hometown I've met some idiots who work at the local university nuclear engineering dept. who have the gall to suggest radiation is good for the body. I studied the subject in depth at the university and when I confronted one of these guys the only response he had was to become hostile, because every point he made could be refuted with citation off the cuff. This was one incident. The problem with these jokers is they are the establishment and the public is a threat to them. They are cornered and that is when they become dangerous.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have to agree that official sources regarding this subject can't be trusted. Public relations depts aren't in the disseminating the truth business, they are in the spin and damage control business.

th3dudeabides
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I have to agree that official sources regarding this subject can't be trusted. Public relations depts aren't in the disseminating the truth business, they are in the spin and damage control business.

I will add to your excellent comment that its been my experience that there is usually 2 reports....the 'official ' one for the public consumption/various media and the truth [which gets buried deep and not easy to find].

th3dudeabides
reply to post by Bootifool

 

My opinion is that the industry is not telling us the truth, to do so would mean the death of the nuclear industry, a very good thing for sure. Msm isn't telling the story at all anymore. Scientists are being muzzled and threatened I'm sure.

In my hometown I've met some idiots who work at the local university nuclear engineering dept. who have the gall to suggest radiation is good for the body. I studied the subject in depth at the university and when I confronted one of these guys the only response he had was to become hostile, because every point he made could be refuted with citation off the cuff. This was one incident. The problem with these jokers is they are the establishment and the public is a threat to them. They are cornered and that is when they become dangerous.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not fun going up against the establishment for the sake of the people when one only has lint in the pocket vs. very deep and connected pockets.

My experiences in this was that I could spend my life trying to change 'the system' or I could just hope to educate and help one person at a time. That even gets difficult when media REFUSES to tell the truth.

jrod

shaneslaughta
Why is this not all over the news? If its really effecting people and animals you would think someone would speak up.

Prevent a mass panic, possible riots, anarchy, ect.. A mass evacuation would be very messy.

Hypothetically lets say the dangerously high radioactive ocean water is all over the North Pacific, so high that the west coast is being exposed. They could try alert the public and recommend evacuations which would wreck havoc, or down play it and avoid the mass panic and in a few years when cancer rate spikes make up a new bogey man if there is a need to blame the rise in cancer/radiation sickness cases. Pure speculation.

You are so closer to the truth of how things work in all this than you may think.
You seem to be on the right track with your thinking....keep trusting your 'gut' on this.

If you read the article then I would suggest looking up the research already done by Joe Mangano and Jeanette Sherman. They have done radiation research for YEARS.

rickymouse
I suppose I should be finding out where our bulk sea salt comes from. I have a geiger counter, I should test if it elevates from the salt. All the testing of nuclear bombs in the past has probably already contaminated the saltwater anyway so knowing if it is new or old is a problem.

Ricky this is probably not a bad idea. Even if only to "yardstick" the levels of radiation. And then again, if I lived in the Northern hemisphere I think I would be seriously considering a geiger counter just for general use. Then I'd no longer be relying on whatever agencies to make sure the foods etc that I purchase are safe.

Damn. This is all just too depressing.

MountainEnigma
reply to post by Bootifool

 

I think all the world governments might put a group of scientists on this in many areas of the situation, to see if they can come up with short-term and long-term solutions.

...

Any thoughts??

Ah! My dear MountainEnigma. I would that it were so! If only governments actually did work in the way you suggest. If only they did responds to such situation in a way that vaguely approximated "intelligent" and "responsible". But sadly I have not seen much evidence of that of late. Have you?

I don't think we can rely on the powers that be to anything but posture and dither. They're great at that!

kotu44
I don't trust the article, they are connecting events that aren't proven to be connected to the melt down. Animal die offs and weird diseases have been happening for years, and well before 2011. They claim that the deer in Montana are dying off because of radiation? Really? I'm just fine, and I live closer. The deer in my front yard are doing just fine too.

Hi Kotu

Though I posted the article, I do understand your (and others') reservations about this article. Let's face it EVERYONE has an agenda these days. Every bit of news arrives because someone somewhere wants you to think a particular way. If this article arrived "in a vacuum" I'd discard it. But what troubles me most is that it does tie together things that I have been observing across many media sources in the last while. I can't say I believe every word in that article. But I can say I think it points to a real situation. One that is very, very troubling.

I guess I am very much with Arbitrageur on his (her?) response to you.

I know I express doubt, but I do the same thing with anything I read. I don't trust any single source of information and it seems like I have to cross fact check everything. Like you said, everyone has an agenda. It's very hard to find out what the truth is.

Really, most news websites and the MSM have become almost useless, they are designed for entertainment and to keep people hooked. Most of the time reality is boring, and that's not good for ratings.

reply to post by palmalBlue2


Let's not forget the economic impact it would have too. This probably scares those who call the shots more than anything else.

reply to post by jrod


So what levels of radiation are "low dose"?

Kiyohiko Sakamoto MD PhD

My Background
Medical Instructor, Radiology, School of Medicine, U of Tokyo 1964-66
Research Fellow, NIH-NCI, M.M. Elkind’s Lab, Bethesda, MD, USA 1966-68
Research Associate, Gray Laboratory, H.B. Hewitt’s Lab, London UK 1968-69
Assoc Professor, Rad Research, Tohoku U, School Medicine, Sendai 1969-72
Assoc Professor, Dept Rad Biophysics, Faculty of Med., U of Tokyo 1972-81
International cooperation UBC Triumf Lab, Canada, pi-meson therapy 1975-78
UC Berkeley, USA, heavy-ion cancer therapy 1978-81
Professor, Dept Rad Research, Tohoku U, School Medicine, Sendai 1981-86
Professor, Dept Radiology, Tohoku U, School of Medicine, Sendai 1986-96
Director, Tohoku Radiological Sciences Center, Sendai, 1996-2001
Chairman, Board of Directors, Tohoku Rad. Sci. Center, Sendai, 2001-2012
Academies and Societies
International: Int. Association of Rad. Res., Rad. Res. Society (Councillor)
Am. Society Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (emeritus)
National: Japan Cancer Association, Japan Radiological Society, J Rad Res,
Japan Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (emeritus)

Much information is known about the effects of low doses and low levels of radiation on living organisms, especially mice and people
Low doses of radiation stimulate:
Immunity to cancer
Biological defences against DNA damage
LDR can be used to cure/prevent cancer
The dose or dose rate at which radiation starts to become harmful is also known
There is no basis to fear low-level radiation

I don't suppose anyone will believe this man either. I'm sure Mr Gunderson is much more qualified to speak on the subject, right?

Restricted

whitewave
reply to post by Restricted

 

If your house catches fire with the wind blowing towards my house, you don't get a say in whether I try to put out the fire. Japan's meltdown affects the U.S. ( and rest of the world) and we have a right to protect ourselves from the radiation flowing from their country. Sanctions just won't do in this instance. They need a global effort of cleanup crews before we're all poisoned.

Well, they've been talked to by some of the best and brightest and GD if they don't want to handle it themselves. It's stupid, I know, but so far no one is willing to violate their sovereignty to address the problem.

Well for me the world should have stepped in period. It is like telling Iran it is OK to have a nuclear bomb after they already said they want to wipe israel off the map lol. It makes no sense to continue to let them dump radioactive water directly into the ocean.

Ridiculous..... For me this is no different from pointing a nuke at us and firing, I mean seriously accept help instead of just continuing to dump it in the ocean. Now it still leaks.

When a country puts the rest of the world at risk they should expect consequences.

The Bot

reply to post by GaryN


Heat is a form of radiation. Without heat we could not survive. So it is true that radiation can be good for you.

Alpha and Gamma radiation, those are the ones we need to be on the look out for especially Gamma. Caesium-137 is known to produce Gamma rays.

I'm far a far cry from a nuclear scientist, but I think it is safe to assume that even small 'doses' of Gamma radiation is very harmful to the human body.