[ RadSafe ] The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima

[Hans Wiegert]

Great quote! I have to remember this!


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Ex-pres. LBJ stated it well when he advised,
>
> "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk"
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Fri, March 9, 2012 3:40:23 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima
>
> 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
>
> Maury&Dog
>
> =====================================
>
>
> Weekend Edition March 9-11, 2012
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/09/the-dangerous-myths-of-fukushima/##[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 Fukushima.”
>
> 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
>
> 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
>



-- 
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!*