[ RadSafe ] The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima
hans.wiegert at sealedair.com
Fri Mar 9 18:05:10 CST 2012
I looked at their website. They have their mind is made up and I don't
think that the facts would change anything!
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Is there an HP on here willing to take the trouble to draft a response to
> this article -- I'd like to circulate it. I don't have the references at
> hand to compose a good response -- I suspect little is correct and a lot
> other not -- probably goes well with his baby tooth project .... Thanks if
> anyone would undertake something along this line
> Weekend Edition March 9-11, 2012
> myths-of-fukushima/##<http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/09/the-dangerous-myths-of-fukushima/#%23>[link to source]
> Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on googleMore Sharing Services24
> Exposing the "No Harm" Mantra
> The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima
> by JOSEPH MANGANO and JANETTE SHERMAN
> The myth that Fukushima radiation levels were too low to harm humans
> persists, a year after the meltdown. A March 2, 2012 New York Times article
> quoted Vanderbilt University professor John Boice: “there’s no opportunity
> for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance for success –
> the doses are just too low.” Wolfgang Weiss of the UN Scientific Committee
> on the Effects of Atomic Radiation also recently said doses observed in
> screening of Japanese people “are very low.”
> Views like these are political, not scientific, virtually identical to
> what the nuclear industry cheerleaders claim. Nuclear Energy Institute
> spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo issued a statement in June that “no health
> effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at
> In their haste to choke off all consideration of harm from Fukushima
> radiation, nuclear plant owners and their willing dupes in the scientific
> community built a castle against invaders – those open-minded researchers
> who would first conduct objective research BEFORE rushing to judgment. The
> pro-nuclear chants of “no harm” and “no studies needed” are intended to be
> permanent, as part of damage control created by a dangerous technology that
> has produced yet another catastrophe.
> But just one year after Fukushima, the “no harm” mantra is now being
> crowded by evidence – evidence to the contrary.
> First, estimates of releases have soared. The first reports issued by the
> Japanese government stated that emissions equaled 10% of 1986 Chernobyl
> emissions. A few weeks later, they doubled that estimate to 20%. By October
> 2011, an article in the journal Nature estimated Fukushima emissions to be
> more than double that of Chernobyl. How anyone, let alone scientists, could
> call Fukushima doses “too low” to cause harm in the face of this evidence
> is astounding.
> Where did the radioactive particles and gases go? Officials from national
> meteorological agencies in countries like France and Austria followed the
> plume, and made colorful maps available on the internet. Within six days of
> the meltdowns, the plume had reached the U.S., and within 18 days, it had
> circled the Northern Hemisphere.
> How much radiation entered the U.S. environment? A July 2011 journal
> article by officials at Pacific Northwest National Lab in eastern
> Washington State measured airborne radioactive Xenon-133 up to 40,000 times
> greater than normal in the weeks following the fallout. Xenon-133 is a gas
> that travels rapidly and does not enter the body, but signals that other,
> more dangerous types of radioactive chemicals will follow.
> A February 2012 journal article by the U.S. Geological Survey looked at
> radioactive Iodine-131 that entered soil from rainfall, and found levels
> hundreds of times above normal in places like Portland OR, Fresno CA, and
> Denver CO. The same places also had the highest levels of Cesium-134 and
> Cesium-137 in the U.S. While elevated radiation levels were found in all
> parts of the country, it appears that the West Coast and Rocky Mountain
> states received the greatest amounts of Fukushima fallout.
> Radiation in rainfall guarantees that humans will ingest a poisonous mix
> of chemicals. The rain enters reservoirs of drinking water, pastures where
> milk-giving cows graze, the soil of produce farms, and other sources of
> food and water.
> Finally, how many people were harmed by Fukushima in the short term?
> Official studies have chipped away at the oft-repeated claim that nobody
> died from Fukushima. Last month brought the news that 573 deaths in the
> area near the stricken reactors were certified by coroners as related to
> the nuclear crisis, with dozens more deaths to be reviewed. Another survey
> showed that births near Fukushima declined 25% in the three months
> following the meltdowns. One physician speculated that many women chose to
> deliver away from Fukushima, but an increase in stillbirths remains as a
> potential factor. In British Columbia, the number of Sudden Infant Death
> Syndrome deaths was 10 in the first three months after Fukushima, up from
> just one a year before.
> On December 19, 2011, we announced the publication of the first
> peer-reviewed scientific journal article examining potential health risks
> after Fukushima. In the 14 week period March 20 – June 25, 2011, there was
> an increase in deaths reported to the CDC by 122 U.S. cities. If final
> statistics (not available until late 2014) confirm this trend, about 14,000
> “excess” deaths occurred among Americans in this period.
> We made no statement that only Fukushima fallout caused these patterns.
> But we found some red flags: infants had the greatest excess (infants are
> most susceptible to radiation), and a similar increase occurred in the U.S.
> in the months following Chernobyl. Our study reinforced Fukushima health
> hazard concerns, and we hope to spur others to engage in research on both
> short-term and long-term effects.
> For years, the assumption that low-dose radiation doesn’t harm people has
> been used, only to fall flat on its face every time. X-rays to abdomens of
> pregnant women, exposure to atom bomb fallout, and exposures to nuclear
> weapons workers were all once presumed to be harmless due to low dose
> levels – until scientific studies proved otherwise. Officials have dropped
> their assumptions on theses types of exposures, but continue to claim that
> Fukushima was harmless.
> Simply dismissing needed research on Fukushima health consequences because
> doses are “too low” is irresponsible, and contradictory to many scientific
> studies. There will most certainly be a fight over Fukushima health
> studies, much like there was after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
> However, we hope that the dialogue will be open minded and will use
> evidence over assumptions, rather than just scoffing at what may well turn
> out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.
> Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist and Executive Director of the
> Radiation and Public Health Project.
> Janette Sherman is an internist and toxicologist
> 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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
Hans J. Wiegert
Sr. Electrical Engineer - ECL Technology
Regional Radiation Coordinator
CRYOVAC, Sealed Air Corporation
100 Rogers Bridge Rd., Bldg. A
Duncan, SC 29334-0464
Tel: (864) 433-2641
Fax: (864) 433-3200
*The work will wait while you show the child the rainbow, but the rainbow
won't wait while you do the work!*
More information about the RadSafe