[ RadSafe ] " Seaborne Fukushima Radiation Plume Hits West Coast - How the Media Reported it Dangerously Wrong "

[Jaro Franta]

John Gofman cited in " How the Media Reported it Dangerously Wrong "

" According to Gofman's obituary in the L.A. Times, "Gofman and his
colleague at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Arthur R. Tamplin,
developed data in 1969 showing that the risk from low doses of radiation was
20 times higher than stated by the government. 
Their publication of the data, despite strong efforts to censor it, led them
to lose virtually all of their research funding and, eventually, their
positions at the government laboratory." 
Their conclusions were for the most part, later validated."

"Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an
individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to
irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,"
said Dr. Alan Lockwood, MD in an article on Fox News Health.


Jaro 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


http://www.environews.tv/121716-no-safe-level-period-media-got-dangerously-w
rong-fukushima-radiation-hitting-west-coast/ 
Seaborne Fukushima Radiation Plume Hits West Coast - How the Media Reported
it Dangerously Wrong

bureau EnviroNews DC News Bureau
by Shad Engkilterra
on December 17, 2016

(EnviroNews DC News Bureau) - "It is not a question any more: radiation
produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest
doses," says the late Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus at the University
of California, Berkley, in his book Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out.

On December 12, 2016, EnviroNews USA's own Editor-in-Chief Emerson Urry
touched off a firestorm with his news article titled, "It's Finally Here:
Radioactive Plume From Fukushima Makes Landfall on America's West Coast,"
which claimed "medical science and epidemiological studies have demonstrated
time and again that there is no safe amount of radiation for a living
organism to be subjected to - period."

In his piece, Urry also exposed other news agencies like NBC, the New York
Post, USA Today and The Inquisitr, catching them with their pants down, in
the act of repeating the false assertions of the U.S. and Canadian
researchers, telling people not to worry about the recently detected low
amounts of cesium 134 found in salmon, and that the levels were within
"safe" or "accepted" thresholds for human health.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Emerson Urry recused himself from all editorial duties on
this news story.]

Thom Hartmann picked up the article by Urry and read it on his show. 
Then Hartmann offered up his own journalistic explanation on how radiation
works, and addressed the problem with the proclamation that there is a
"safe" level of radiation to consume or be exposed to.
"As the element is decaying it is throwing off radiation, and the radiation,
if it hits the DNA in the nucleolus and the nucleus of a cell, can alter
that DNA in ways that can produce things like cancer," Hartmann said. 
"Now it can also cause simply the cell to die or it can mutate the cell in
all kinds of other weird ways, and so it's kind of a numbers game. 
If you irradiate a million cells. you might get two or three that become
cancerous. 
That's all it takes, right? You've got cancer," Hartmann continued in his
video report. 
"The cesium could cause no cancer, or it could cause cancer in the first
cell it irradiates. 
To say that there is a safe level of radiation is frankly wrong. It's just
wrong."

VIDEO: THOM HARTMANN REPORTS ON ENVIRONEWS OREGON'S ARTICLE ON FUKUSHIMA
PLUME HITTING AMERICA'S WEST COAST

There's No Such Thing As A Safe Level of Radiation!

Urry said later in a statement, "It's one thing for the media to regurgitate
trivial facts on trivial matters,
but to blindly repeat that consuming low levels of radiation is 'safe,' is
irresponsible reporting and borders on dangerous. 

News editors should take care to do their due diligence on a matter as
serious as leading readers to believe consuming any amount of radiation is
'safe' when medical science and
epidemiology, dating back 50 years to the present, have demonstrated
repeatedly that that's just not true. 
Even the smallest exposures increase the risk of cancer to the subject."

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR)
report titled, "Public Health Statement for Cesium" from 2004, "stable and
radioactive cesium can enter your body from the food you eat or the water
you drink, from the air you breathe, or from contact with your skin. 
When you eat, drink, breathe, or touch things containing cesium compounds
that can easily be dissolved in water, cesium enters your blood and is
carried to all parts of your body. No known taste or odor is associated with
cesium compounds."

Cesium is similar enough to potassium that it can fool the body. 
This results in its bioaccumulation. 
When cesium enters the biological system of a fish, which is then eaten by a
larger fish, the larger fish becomes contaminated. 
As the larger fish eats more, it becomes more contaminated. 
The cesium accumulates in its body. 
When a person eats that fish, he or she also ingests the cesium that hasn't
decayed or been excreted. 

The more seafood that person eats, the more radioactive material he or she
will be exposed to.
The researchers who discovered the cesium recently also made the mistake of
equating the dangers of consuming seaborne isotopes to that of receiving an
x-ray, missing the point entirely that ingested or inhaled "internal
particle emitters" are known to be especially hazardous.

"Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an
individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to
irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,"
said Dr. Alan Lockwood, MD in an article on Fox News Health.

"Children are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation and stand a
much greater chance of
developing cancer than adults," said Andrew Kanter, MD, President of the
Board for Physicians for Social
Responsibility (PSR) in that same Fox News Health article. "So it is
particularly dangerous when they consume radioactive food or water."

Those who might expect the government to protect them from contamination by
radiation have only to look at the downwinder situation in Utah or the
consequences of Gofman's research in the late 1960s.

According to Gofman's obituary in the L.A. Times, "Gofman and his colleague
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Arthur R. Tamplin, developed data
in 1969 showing that the risk from low doses of radiation was 20 times
higher than stated by the government. 
Their publication of the data, despite strong efforts to censor it, led them
to lose virtually all of their research funding and, eventually, their
positions at the government laboratory." 
Their conclusions were for the most part, later validated.
"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water
or other sources, period," said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past President
of PSR, in late March of 2011 in the immediate aftermath of the meltdowns. 
"Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine 131 and cesium 137, increases the
incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize
the radionuclide content in food and water."

"There is no safe dose of radiation," says Prof. Edward P. Radford,
Physician and Epidemiologist as quoted by GreenMedInfo.

In an email to EnviroNews, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen said Japan had
raised the maximum allowable exposure by 20 times the previous number for
civilians to be able to return to their homes. 

The U.S. and the EPA have considered such plans in the case of a nuclear
accident. 
In food, the U.S. has an allowable dosage of radiation that is 12 times what
Japan allows.
"Corporations get the benefit, civilians take the risk," Gundersen wrote.

While Urry and Hartmann have sounded the alarm, there remain unanswered
questions that desperately need to be resolved. 
Who will clean up the contamination in the food chain? 
How much radiation exposure will governments continue to say is safe in
spite of the medical research? 
How can people trust what's on their plate and in their corporate owned
media?




.