"yuu put dots too well toogetar,you start too much tinkin"
Posted on 06/13/2012 10:58:45 AM PDT by ransomnote
A landmark study on Hiroshima survivors comprehensively disproves nuclear lobby spin about ionising radiation being safe at low doses. Noel Wauchope reports.
The nuclear industry has a long history of concealing the truth about low dose radiation
This week, a new report about low dose ionising radiation was published — one that should put a spanner in the works of the nuclear lobby. It is called ‘Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases’.
First of all, let me explain why this report is so important and so timely.
It’s now just over a year since the tragic Fukushima disaster. So the nuclear lobby thinks that it’s time to restart the nuclear renaissance, and to get people to stop worrying about ionising radiation.
To this end, the industry, and particularly the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have projects under way.
In particular, there are two important projects going on — seemingly unrelated ones. But they are, as a matter of fact, closely related. Both aim to dampen the public concern about ionising radiation — indeed, to promote acceptance of “low level radiation”:
One sets out to downgrade nuclear emergency procedures. The other aims at discrediting the scientifically accepted model on the cancer risk of low level radiation — known as the Linear No Threshold model (LNT), which states that there is no level below which ionising radiation is not harmful, with risk increasing with each added unit of radiation. Project 1 – weakening emergency safety standards.
The USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have, in recent times, quietly downgraded nuclear emergency procedures. In particular, the new rules almost entirely ignore the radiation hazard. You can read more about this here.
Among the changes to the original 1979 program for nuclear emergency action, they have eliminated the requirement that local responders always practise for a release of radiation. Also, there is a new requirement that some planning exercises incorporate a reassuring premise — that no harmful radiation is released. As this article comments:
‘ many state and local emergency officials say such exercises make no sense in a program designed to protect the population from radiation released by a nuclear accident …
‘… The Japanese disaster reinforced such worries when officials told some towns beyond 12 miles from the disabled plant to evacuate. The U.S. government recommended that Americans stay at least 50 miles from the plant. Soil and crops were contaminated for scores of miles around. At one point, health authorities in Tokyo, 140 miles away, advised families not to give children the local water, which was contaminated by fallout to twice the government limit for infants. ”
And the NRC and FEMA plan to review their procedures soon — in all likelihood, to continue their history of watering down safety standards, even to wholly ignore problems hen encountering violations at the nation’s aging reactors. (This is detailed by David Worthington in ‘US nuclear safety regulations softened by industry influence’.) Project 2 – discrediting the radiation risk model
The U.S. Department of energy funds research projects worldwide that promote the theories of “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive radiation”.
Project 1 – weakening emergency safety standards. Project 2 – discrediting the radiation risk model
THIS is their reaction to Fukushima!?
Also, I think his part is a little too optimistic:
"It’s now just over a year since the tragic Fukushima disaster."
Fukushima reactor cores are still releasing radiation into the environment and will continue to do so for the forseeable future because no one knows how to stop it. That and tremendous amounts of fuel in spent fuel pools, some of which are located in destroyed buildings, one of which has a sagging wall or two, mean that the disaster is ongoing.
Their mission statement:
Independent Australia is a progressive journal focusing on politics, democracy, the environment, Australian history and Australian identity. It contains news and opinion from Australia and around the world.
IA supports quality investigative journalism, as well as citizen journalism and a diversity of voices.
Red flag words are "environment", "progressive" and "diversity".
"yuu put dots too well toogetar,you start too much tinkin"
Sorry, Leftards, “the science is settled,” low-dose ionizing radiation is NOT harmful to health.
Life is unsafe and if he is worried there is a cure.
True. Any affliction is just temporary until we die.
How about the medical research cited in the article? Too ‘progressive’ for your liking, too?
“Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950 – 2003:
An Overview of Cancer and Non-cancer Diseases”
http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1
You REALLY want to try to compare elective, controlled amounts of radiation you received to nuclear waste being dumped into the air, water, and land??? You were advised of the cancer risk when you accepted the treatment, weren’t you? Because of liability, Doctors, Dentists etc. all advise of the risk/benefits. I am quite certain you were not asked to ingest or inhale cesium, strontium, plutonium etc. for your treatment. There is no comparison.
Sorry, Leftards, “the science is settled,” low-dose ionizing radiation is NOT harmful to health.
______________________________________________________
So that’s what the nuke shills are down to? Flat out lies? BEIR VII (state of the art US research) demonstrates that low-dose ionizing radiation IS harmful. THIS study proves it IS harmful. The only ones saying it isn’t are the same ones with a) no credibility and b) vested interest in lying.
Life is unsafe and if he is worried there is a cure.
True. Any affliction is just temporary until we die.
________________________________________________________
So....let’s just let incompetent nuclear industry management continue without comment? We address elective risk based on information but you don’t like that? We should just ‘die’ if we object to nuclear industry incompetence and misinformation? What other industries should we allow to abuse the public interest without comment? Which industries should be allowed to pollute the environment and condescend to us if we object?
if tshtf what happens when we can keep all those nuclear plants running.....
I scanned the pdf, didn’t read it through, it doesn’t mention anything about soy or miso...
You might find this interesting:
http://yufoundation.org/furo.pdf
Cheers!
Hey, if it doesn’t kill you.....
Thank you for posting the link. I will read it later. I skimmed it for now.
Some people are genetically able to handle radiation poisoning better than others. Researchers in the Chernobyl region have a rule of thumb regarding exposure.
15 percent of the population is resistant to radiation effects and fares better than average.
15 percent of the population is ‘sensitive’ to radiation and fares worse than average (in Chernobyl this meant rapid death)
The rest of the population (the large part of the bell curve) have an average response (diseases like cancer etc.)
The man most directly responsible for the Chernobyl disaster (ranking official on duty in the plant who ordered operators to ‘test’ the reactor systems with horrific results) was the only man in the control room to survive. The other men who were contaminated in the control room died grisly deaths within weeks. That same man was believed to be responsible for a nuclear sub disaster in which he was the survivor. So I will read the PDF with interest and while there may be foods that support immune system and body repair, I go into it knowing that there is a genetic element to responses to radiation in the population.
The initial reports of deadly amounts of radiation contaminating the USA have been shown to be unscientific and plain alarmists. Anonymous “landmark” studies are also unreliable. I have had CBN training in the military later service and think this alarm ism is silly and sometimes hilarious. The cesium in my gasoline lantern have not killed me yet. 65 pounds of plutonium disappeared form Rocky flats weapons factory in fire upwind form me when I was a kid and no problems. We depend on the radioactive decay in the earth for half of our heat or we would freeze to death.
So....let’s just let incompetent nuclear industry management continue without comment
I didn’t say that. I agreed there was a cure..that any affliction is tempory until we die. It’s like coughing or bleeding. Eventually they stop.
I live near the Savannah River Site and I know many people who have died or are dying of cancer. The majority of them worked at SRS. If there is a cure no one is bothering to cure them.
You lost any credibility when you linked to Gundersen. The man’s a loon and an opportunist.
By ‘this alarmism’ you mean ‘medical studies of Hiroshima victims’?
“65 pounds of plutonium disappeared form Rocky flats weapons factory in fire upwind form me when I was a kid and no problems” THIS gives you confidence??? Well hey let’s just let the nuke industry story radioactive waste in open buckets! That’s how well they keep track of plutonium!? And you brag of it??
Ok the ‘we depend on radioactive decay’ to warm the earth bit is pathetic. I guess we should just say THANK YOU to the nuclear industry incompetence that has lead to the spread of radioactive waste - they were just keeping us warm! Say...why aren’t the folks in the Chernobyl region just a little more grateful than the rest of us???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.