Ionizing Radiation- They are lying to us.

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by Sarahko
reply to post by meathed


Q. So HOW can they get away with this??

A. I dont know, but this is what governments do and will continue to do, they lie to the people.

Q. If they really are lying, why aren`t other countries coming in and helping out to show how big the lie is?

A. Because we dont care. Its one less mouth to feed in the future. Its one less person buying the petrol that you want. I could go on.

Q.]Or maybe they know that the radiation that has spilled out so far is so big, that everyone will die in a very short span and that they cannot afford telling everyone to leave because of the mass panic and because, anyway, we have all been contaminated already??

A.Lots of people will die but it will take years for cancers to form. And by then legally anyone whom gets cancer from this wont be able to sue, as there will be no proof.

I think we are going to need Erin Brockovich to help on this one
.

Please call Erin real quick

Originally posted by tinker9917

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by Sarahko
reply to post by meathed


Q. So HOW can they get away with this??

A. I dont know, but this is what governments do and will continue to do, they lie to the people.

Q. If they really are lying, why aren`t other countries coming in and helping out to show how big the lie is?

A. Because we dont care. Its one less mouth to feed in the future. Its one less person buying the petrol that you want. I could go on.

Q.]Or maybe they know that the radiation that has spilled out so far is so big, that everyone will die in a very short span and that they cannot afford telling everyone to leave because of the mass panic and because, anyway, we have all been contaminated already??

A.Lots of people will die but it will take years for cancers to form. And by then legally anyone whom gets cancer from this wont be able to sue, as there will be no proof.

I think we are going to need Erin Brockovich to help on this one
.

Please call Erin real quick

I think Erin may be to busy with the BP lawsuits.
But we can try.

reply to post by meathed


Its soo easy for the government(s) to deny any health damage from radioactive fallout because doctors would need to know a patients chemical body burden results prior to their exposure. How many people have a body burden test done? Not many I imagine.

Without those test results prior to exposure, doctors can just shrug and honestly say no way to know for sure and its the truth sadly.

What Is Body Burden?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
reply to post by meathed

 

Its soo easy for the government(s) to deny any health damage from radioactive fallout because doctors would need to know a patients chemical body burden results prior to their exposure. How many people have a body burden test done? Not many I imagine.

Without those test results prior to exposure, doctors can just shrug and honestly say no way to know for sure and its the truth sadly.

What Is Body Burden?

And this is why there couldnt be a better way for the governments to depopulate without any responsibility.
This is why they ARE doing this now.

Dupont NRC, AEC seen here www.archives.gov... NRC seen here nrc.gov... and why DuPont, they made the hands on clocks and other things glow in the dark , well a few years ago that was all pulled form the market why?? the risk of cancer that is why the same reason you can not get lead paint to protect you, from low dose RAD, but then you will glow, so there is no worry now is there? found this oh you got to love the back peddling pally,

Before the realization that radiation was harmful, radium was actually used as a health additive in personal care products, and its inclusion was an advertising point to make these products appeal to consumers. Unfortunately, numerous radiation-related deaths occurred before the scientific community realized that radium and other radioactive elements posed a health threat.

also used to make the hands of old clocks glow in the dark west bends, and a few Timex did this.

reply to post by bekod

radioactive toothpaste! i saw the original advert recently. i believe it was marketed as a premium product so with regards to the working class flat caps in good old blighty (early 1900's), it was out of their price range.

to the op. i have wondered since the incident occured with the reactors as to why no thermal imaging footage has been shown!
regards f

Here's some very interesting and disturbing information I came across while reading up on this matter.

In addition to such obvious and socially significant effects, the Committee is aware of research which indicates major effects of exposure which have been largely ignored. Some examples will be given. For example, the sharp decline in fish stocks in the northern hemisphere in the late 1960s has been conventionally ascribed to over-fishing. Sternglass has suggested that some if not all of it may be a consequence of radiation exposures from weapons fallout. If even part of this suggestion is true, the resulting consequences of the testing and by implication, of discharging materials to the sea, are not accounted for in the cost-benefit analyses supporting nuclear projects. They may be massive. The post-war period also saw a very large reduction in bird populations, an effect which was seen also after the Chernobyl accident. One of the most startling examples of this has been the entire loss of the black-headed gull population from the Ravenglass estuary near Sellafield. Research suggested that the egg shells were affected by the discharges from Sellafield but experimental work showed that the effect was not due to external radiation but must be some consequence of one of the internal nuclides, perhaps Sr-90 or Ba-140 exposure in the shell. Lobster carapaces in the Irish sea have been recently shown to concentrate the isotope Technetium-99 to a very large extent. Some lobsters with over 100,000Bq/kg of this isotope have been tested. The isotope Strontium-90 has been shown to cause genetic effects in many animal and plant systems. For example, Ehrenberg showed genetic mutations in wheat at very low doses of Sr-90.

This information is contained within a pdf made free to download due to the Fukushima disaster at this site
European Committee on Radiation Risk
The report is titled ECRR 2010: The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition.

One more tidbit from the same report.

Results of research into contamination of the Irish Sea carried out in the late 1990s showed significant affects on coastal communities of the radionuclides which contaminated that shallow and constrained water body. Nevertheless, Caesium does flow out of the northern and southern channels and coastal levels are now falling, and are less than 20Bq/kg in sediment at the highest points. The situation is much worse in the Baltic Sea where there is virtually no exit and radioactive material from weapons and Chernobyl fallout combines with radionuclides from the various nuclear plants in Sweden, Finland and Russia to aggregate in the sediment and biota. The HELCOM reports show levels of Cs-137 in sediment at 1000Bq/kg, more than ten times higher than levels found in the Irish sea at the peak of Sellafield discharges. ECRR has opened an office in Sweden to begin researching the effects of these levels of contamination.
There are meteorological implications of radioactive discharges also. An interesting suggestion has been that the large quantities of the radioactive gas Krypton-85 released following fission may be a contributing factor in the thinning of the ozone layer, since its ionisations will result in more rapid breakdown of molecules in the stratosphere which absorb the far ultraviolet solar radiation. Krypton-85 has also been cited as an agent which will alter the normal conductivity of the atmosphere and thus alter the processes which affect weather patterns.

I haven't got to it yet but this report claims their model correlates higher cancer rates due to low dosages that are 100x greater than the ICRP model. Its a long report, 280 pages, but i'll get there.

Here's the direct response from the European Committee on Radiation Risk to the Fukushima disaster.

ECRR Risk Model and radiation from Fukushima
Chris Busby
Scientific Secretary
European Committee on Radiation Risk
March 19th 2011

Radioactivity from the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population
like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the
basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the
ICRP radiation risk model are unsafe for this purpose. This is clear from hundreds of
research studies of the Chernobyl accident outcomes. It has also been conceded by the
editor of the ICRP risk model, Dr Jack Valentin, in a discussion with Chris Busby in
Stockholm, Sweden in April 2009. Valentin specifically stated in a videoed interview
(available on www.llrc.org and vimeo.com) that the ICRP model could not be used to
advise politicians of the health consequences of a nuclear release like the one from
Fukushima. Valentin agreed that for certain internal exposures the risk model was
insecure by 2 orders of magnitude. The CERRIE committee stated that the range of
insecurity was between 10 and members of the committee put the error at nearer to
1000, a factor which would be necessary to explain the nuclear site child leukemia
clusters. The ECRR risk model was developed for situations like Fukushima.

Since the ECRR 2003 Radiation Risk Model, updated in 2010, was developed for just
this situation it can be employed to assess the risk in terms of cancer and other ill
health. See www.euradcom.org. It has been checked against many situations where
the public has been exposed to internal radioactivity and shown to be accurate.

Using the ECRR 2010 radiation risk model the following guide to the health effects of
exposure can be employed.

Take the dose which is published by the Japanese authorities. Multiply it by 600. This
is the approximate ECRR dose for the mixture of internal radionuclides released from
Fukushima. Then multiply this number by 0.1. This is the ECRR 2010 cancer risk.

Example 1: According to Japanese chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano, the dose
from exposure to radioactive milk from Fukushima is so low that you would have to
drink milk for a year to get the equivalent of a CT scan dose. A CT scan dose is about
10 milliSieverts (mSv) Assuming you drink 500ml a day, the annual intake is
180litres so the dose per litre is 0.055mSv. The ECRR dose per litre is at maximum
0.055 x 600 = 33mSv. Thus the lifetime risk of cancer following drinking a litre of
such contaminated milk is 0.0033 or 0.33%. Thus 1000 people each drinking 1 litre of
milk will result in 3.3 cancers in the 50 years following the intake.
From the results in Sweden and elsewhere following Chernobyl, these cancers will
probably appear in the 10 years following the exposure.

Example 2: External doses measured by a Geiger counter increased from 100nSv/h to
500nSv/h. What is the risk from a week's exposure? Because the external dose is only
a flag for the internal dose we assume that this is the internal ICRP dose from the
range of radionuclides released which include radiodines, radiocaesium, plutonium
and uranium particles, tritium etc. A week's exposure is thus 400 x 10-9 x 24 x 7days
or 6.72 x 10-5 Sv . We multiply by 600 to get the ECRR dose which is 0.04Sv and
then by 0.1 to get the lifetime cancer risk which is 0.4%. Thus in this case, in 1000
individuals exposed for a week at this level, 4 will develop cancer because of this
exposure. In 30 million, the population of Tokyo, this would result in 120,000 cancers
in the next 50 years. The ICRP risk model would predict 100 cancers from the same
exposure. Again we should expect to see a rise in cancer in the 10 years following the
exposure. This is due to early clinical expression of pre-cancerous genomes.

Other health effects are predicted, including birth effects, heart disease and a range of
other conditions and diseases. For details see ECRR2010.

These calculations have been shown to be accurate in the case of the population of
Northern Sweden exposed to fallout for the Chernobyl accident, and also are accurate
for the increased in cancer in northern hemisphere countries following the 1960s
weapons testing fallout (the cancer epidemic). The public and the Japanese and other
authorities would do well to calculate exposure risks on the basis of these
approximations and to abandon the ICRP model which does not protect the public.
This was the conclusion of a group of international experts who signed the 2009
Lesvos Declaration (this can be found on
www.euradcom.org...)

The more I read the more it becomes clearly obvious that there is a real effort being made by the media and governments to keep a lid on the true dangers of any exposure from nuclear fallout.

I can't wait for Obama care... they will force to buy govt healthcare, refuse to tell us about what is making us sick, and can refuse us healthcare. Something to look forward to.

Originally posted by tinker9917
I can't wait for Obama care... they will force to buy govt healthcare, refuse to tell us about what is making us sick, and can refuse us healthcare. Something to look forward to.

edit on 7-4-2011 by tinker9917 because: spelling

Scary thing is a dose of radiation can cause more health issues than just cancer. Basically when your DNA is mutated by radiation your gene's can mutate into anything causing any number of health effects.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Wow thank you so much. Very nice digging efforts there, I am very pleased with your most recent posts. Extremely eye-opening.

I would like to also share with you this information I posted in a new thread by me today.

Biological effect begins with the ionization of atoms. The mechanism by which radiation causes damage to human tissue, or any other material, is by ionization of atoms in the material. Ionizing radiation absorbed by human tissue has enough energy to remove electrons from the atoms that make up molecules of the tissue.When the electron that was shared by the two atoms to form a molecular bond is dislodged by ionizing radiation, the bond is broken and thus, the molecule falls apart. This is a basic model for understanding radiation damage.

Check my thread for sources and further explanations.

Basically ionizing radiation will cause individual atoms within a molecule to become "ionized" and strip an electron off of them. By stripping this electron off, it changes the chemical structure of the individual atoms.

This causes the molecular bonds between atoms to break. Envision a molecule. Now envision it falling apart. That's your DNA strand when irradiated sufficiently.

The reason that "mutations" occur in the DNA, is because our body attempts to "repair itself" from the damage being inflicted. This is an automatic common process.

However often times the rebuilding process does not work out so well, and thus we have defective genetic material and high rates of mutation.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


After reviewing the information you linked from the ECRR I have to say that it appears far more realistic and rational that the BS being put out by the media.

I will go ahead and give the ECRR two thumbs up for being honest and open about their calculations and their approach to such an issue.


Sad that these folks are being ignored. Very sad.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Wow thank you so much. Very nice digging efforts there, I am very pleased with your most recent posts. Extremely eye-opening.

I would like to also share with you this information I posted in a new thread by me today.

Thanks muzzleflash.

I was reading your thread earlier and completely agree. Gave you a star and flag infact.

All these soo called experts equating exposure from nuclear particles to the natural background radiation of the planet with a 50 year old risk model is frightening. The more I read the more I want to pull my hair out and fly to Japan to strangle CNN's Sanjay Gupta.

I saw this report today about how 50 doctors and nurses who went to Japan from Isreal are possibly dead or suffering from radiation sickness.
www.israelnewsagency.com...

Here comes the damage control attempts from the nuclear industry. More lies and propoganda to try and garner support for nuclear energy.

Analysis: Fukushima and the 'nuclear renaissance' that wasn't

Fear factor

Nuclear power has had an uphill climb in public perception since the 1945 explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II first put the word "atomic" onto headlines across the globe.

"Radiation in particular is a scary thing -- we can't see, we can't touch it, you can't look at the ground and know its there," said Harding, a former vice president of engineering at GE Nuclear Energy who now advises companies on nuclear industry issues.

"(Nuclear power) gets conflated in people's minds with weapons," Harding said. "The fact that the first controlled nuclear plants were to run submarines and other military secrets, there is a web of secrecy as to what you can talk about, which adds to the mystique."

While the devastation in Fukushima is "horrible," Harding and other nuclear proponents argue that nuclear crises aren't being judged by the same yardstick as other -- and statistically more deadly -- industrial disasters. "Look at Bhopal: thousands of people died there -- did people walk away from chemical engineering?" said Harding, referring to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical plant disaster in India.

There were no deaths at the 1979 Three Mile Island crisis in the U.S. A 2005 report from the World Health Organization said as many as 4,000 people may die of radiation exposure from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Russia, although fewer than 50 deaths were directly attributed to the disaster.

"The numbers don't lie, coal kills millions every year" through air pollution, said Michael Shellenberger, head of the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank that aims to modernize liberal thought, at Fortune's Brainstorm Green conference last week in California.

What a pile of garbage.

Fewer than 50 deaths attributed to Chernobyl.

WHO said 4000 may die from radiation exposure from Chernobyl.

Coal kills millions every year.

According to Wiki it took over 100 years for 100,000 people to die in the USA from coal mining or coal related effects. I'm also pretty sure coal dust doesn't contaminate the environment for hundreds and thousands of years.

How dumb do they think we are?