[ RadSafe ] The coming cancer cost from Fukushma ionising radiationaccording to Gundersen

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, John.

You are correct that we cannot KNOW that "zero" cancers resulted from
Three Mile Island.  We can, however, look at the releases
(overwhelmingly thermally hot noble gasses, that went up and dispersed),
and conclude there is very little source term to cause cancer.  We can
look at the number of well done studies (as opposed to the poorly
designed, often lacking in evidence studies) that have not found a
statistically significant increase in the cancer rate among the
population that might conceivably been exposed, let alone those for whom
there is a good reason to believe were exposed.  It is possible that
somewhere there are people who were exposed to some number of atoms of
radioactive material from TMI, and that one of those atoms decayed at
just the right time and in just the right place to induce a mutation in
a cell, causing it be reproduce in an uncontrolled manner.  It is also
possible that that person's anti-cancer systems failed to detect and
destroy that particular cancer before it manifested to the level it
could be detected my medical science.  However, to date we can't pick
that out of the background rate of cancer.  

I would also submit that the evidence is good that high levels of stress
have been demonstrated to have a number of negative effects on an
individual's wellbeing, including their ability to fight cancer.  I
would submit that as bad at TMI was engineering-wise, many, many people
were made to feel more stressed that the actual hazard warranted by
anti-nuke "experts" saying things they knew to be false.  This is
especially true in the subsequent years, after the release had stopped
and the released material dispersed and decayed away, but the anti-nuke
"experts" strove to keep stress high for their own political reasons.
While it is at least as difficult to measure stress induced cancer in a
human population as it is to measure radiation induced cancer from small
exposures, I submit that we cannot KNOW that "zero" cancers were cause
by the irresponsible utterances of the anti-nuke community in general,
and their most noted spokespersons in particular.  Since we cannot know
that either that accident or the anti-nuke response caused any cancers,
we can consider those two sources equal.  

Thus, it is not incorrect to say it can be demonstrated that Arnie
Gundersen personally has caused as many cancers as TMI did. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of John R Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:51 AM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The coming cancer cost from Fukushma ionising
radiationaccording to Gundersen

Christina

There is no way that we could know that "there were zero cancers as a
result 
of Three Mile Island". Has there been "no cancers" in that region of the

world since it occured?

John

-----Original Message----- 
From: Roger Helbig
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 3:18 AM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] The coming cancer cost from Fukushma ionising 
radiationaccording to Gundersen

Gundersen really has a knack for outdoing Busby or maybe just channels
him - he certainly peddles hype and hysteria with considerable aplomb
- amazing since there were zero cancers as a result of Three Mile
Island - is that not correct?

The coming cancer cost from Fukushma ionising radiation

by Christina MacPherson ( christinamacpherson at gmail.com )

Nuclear Expert: 1,000,000 cancers from Fukushima in Japan over next 20
years  ENE News - First thyroid, then lung, organ, brain, leukemia
(VIDEO)  Title: Fukushima - Total Cost
http://enenews.com/nuclear-expert-forecasts-1000000-cancers-from-fukushi
ma-in-japan-first-thyroid-then-lung-organ-brain-leukemia-vide0
Dec 21, 2011

Description: Arnie Gundersen of Fairwinds Associates (a leading
nuclear expert) and Warren Pollock (http://www.wepollock.com )
redefine the Fukushima nuclear incidents (meltdowns and explosions) in
terms of human and total cost. [...]

I think the 20 year cost from Fukushima will be about one million
cancers

Based on Three Mile Island studies
About a 20% increase in lung cancer 3-5 years after TMI
And that was small compared to Fukushima
And in a much lower population density
First thyroid cancer
Then lung cancer
Then organ cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, things like that

Christina MacPherson | December 23, 2011 at 8:09 am | Categories:
Resources -audiovicual | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-5mE

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://nuclear-news.net/2011/12/23/the-coming-cancer-cost-from-fukushma-
ionising-radiation/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu