Medical Journal - 14,000 deaths in US tied to Fukushima! = More To Come!

reply to post by quedup


OP is right to question and research the things that many of us do not want to accept. Thank you for you input and making us aware of the issues we are going to face. S & F.

reply to post by quedup

Yes, it was funded because it sounded good on paper. It was funded for a single year. But in that year it was found that the work being done was useless, due, among other things, to poor science on the part of the researchers (the same who are publishing the report in the OP). That's why it was dropped.

Radioactive products are scary, especially to people who don't really understand what makes them dangerous. We evolved with radiation. Our bodies are perfectly capable of dealing with low levels. Even not so low levels. The scaremongers would have you believe that any radioactivity at all is a terrible thing. It isn't. As a matter of fact my life was saved in part by radiation. We cope with natural radiation, we cope with radiation from nuclear testing, we cope with cosmic radiation. We are surrounded by radiation.

There is no doubt that Fukushima will be experiencing real problems as a result of the nuclear disaster for a very long time, just as Chernobyl and the areas around it are. But the ocean and the atmosphere are very very large, with a very large capacity of absorbing and diluting the products of the disaster long before they reach North America at levels which pose any danger.

There is just far too much fear mongering against nuclear power (which, by the way, I am not really in favor of). Mangano, et al. are at the forefront of it but their poor science has not helped their case so far.

More to come.







Report: First debris from Japan tsunami reaches West Coast

www.kirotv.com...

Asahi: 462 trillion becquerels of strontium leaked into ocean, says estimate — Based on Tepco information

www.asahi.com...

TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after the accident, the released amount of radioactive strontium in the ocean, the Asahi Shimbun found that estimates be at least about 462 trillion becquerels. Fisheries Agency is considering the strengthening of research examining the accumulation of fish and shellfish samples. Calculation was performed based on data released by TEPCO, etc.. Unit 2 in April, for radioactive contaminated water spilled from No. 3 in May [...] The amount drops to the ocean from the atmosphere is not included. [...] Strontium is not easily excreted and accumulate in the bone, it is that there is cause bone cancer and leukemia, it has been pointed out the need for further investigation. Professor, Tohoku University Graduate School of Agriculture geological history of Katayama (Resource Ecology and Fisheries), according to the need to pay special attention to accumulation in the bone, such as whole food Kounago and Silas. “Strontium tends to accumulate in organisms at low concentrations. We need detailed investigation,” he said. [...] Earlier this month, it is thought that over 5 trillion becquerels of strontium was contained in the 45 metric tons of contaminated water that leaked from an apparatus at Fukushima: 5.8 trillion becquerels of strontium leaked from Fukushima over weekend

reply to post by Phage


As crazy as it sound Phage - I often wonder if David Icke is right - he has been right about most things so perhaps he's right about the darn Reptilians too. Maybe they are ruling the world and are quite able to survive in high doses of radiation in the air and know we can't.

Who decided what is taught in the schools/colleges/universities if he's right - then who the hell do we believe - come to that who do YOU believe.

All sounds over the top I know but we live in such a crazy world - nothing would surprise me any more.

Study published here

dx.doi.org/10.2190/HS.42.1.f

Someone copy pasted the entire text here, but broke all formatting.

www.simplyinfo.org/?p=4355

Uploaded the fulltext PDF freely here

jjjtir.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/23x0811uh195237q.pdf

Abstract

International Journal of Health Services
Issue: Volume 42, Number 1 / 2012
Pages: 47 - 64

An Unexpected Mortality Increase in the United States Follows Arrival of the Radioactive Plume from Fukushima: Is There a Correlation?

Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman

Abstract:

The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.

Holy crap. A lot of people I know here in BC, Canada fraser valley area have been getting really sick lately. It could just be bad flus, but it just seems like everyone is worn out and lethargic, stomach issues, dizzy spells, I personally had one tooth removed, and have another with a pretty serious cavity that wasn't there a month ago. It happened even though I brush floss and use mouth wash. My dentist is drooling over it, but he said I had no issues when I was in and dealt with the other tooth. As well my fiance is complaining of a tooth that now has some decay.

Originally posted by subcsailor
My background...I am a nuclear engineer. No haters please.

I work with many radiological detectors. And these babies run all the time for sampling purposes. If higher than normal airborne contamination has been blowing through the mid-west I would have seen some sort of rise. And to date it is all normal. But now I am wondering. I'm going to ask our guys in the lab. They got detectors that are a lot more sensative than what I have available. I'll ask them how their daily checks and calibrations have been going.

Ok I'm back. Lab guys say absolutely no change in background levels. This research is so flawed on many levels. First off the contamination is particulate. That means these researchers could have pulled a sample and measured it themselves. They looked at numbers and did not perform any real scientific research.

Now if you want to be afraid of something. I got one for you. Radon is naturally occuring on the earth. But it will collect in our basements if not properly ventilated. So if you spend a lot of time in your basement please check for radon. Look up radon test kits on google. You can set one up, then send it back for testing. And they are not that expensive. Really.... radon in higher concentrations are bad. They emit alpha's which are pretty damaging if ingested / inhaled.

Holy cow!

That's a huge number already.

This is yet another story that should be the leading report on the major news networks..

it's ridiculous how "in the dark" they leave us.

I really can't stand them and their "journalists".

very sad news if this is accurate research. I hope they're wrong. I have a feeling they might be?

reply to post by kmoowiu

On first blush it looks like more cherry picking of data. Why only 14 weeks prior to the disaster? Why not a year? Why not 2 years?

No regard to the cause of death? Wouldn't that seem to be important?

It's interesting, but I don't know if 14 weeks is long enough to see people dying off considering the distance between Japan and the US etc.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


How has Australia fared in this regard?

No signs of Problems here, but then again we're not really in the path of prevailing winds? Not sure about the sea's though. However, indonesia may be a whole different kettle of fish?

TextNUCLEAR experts say even a highly unlikely Chernobyl-like disaster in Japan would have no impact on Australia.

Associate Professor Reza Hashemi-Nezhad says Australia was simply "too far away" for the radioactive material released in such an event to pose a local health risk.

He also said ongoing monitoring of atmospheric radioactivity levels in Australia had shown no change since Japan's nuclear crisis began unfolding late on Friday.

"The Australian situation is normal and would stay normal even if there was a catastrophic situation over there," Dr Hashemi-Nezhad, from the University of Sydney's Institute of Nuclear Science, said today.

"The effect here would be next to nothing - negligible - we are too far away

i have been through WMD training and this is BS

An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan,

Deaths from this type accident won"t start for a couple years and most will not happen for 20 or more years.

99.9999% will be cancer deaths from the very low radiation levels and almost imposable to detect and will never be proved to be from fukushima radiation.
It take time for radiation cancers to start and grow to the point they will kill you and there has not been enough time yet.
With cancers from any cause most are not found for 6 months to a year after they start and few rare cancers will kill anyone in less then 3 years after they start(not after they are found, many people die in less then a year because there cancers were late stage when found)

Even veterans that were exposed to US nuclear test can not be tested to prove that is was 100% from a nuclear test or something else.

The only thing the VA knows is that the percentage of veteran that were involved in the test that get certain cancers is higher then the normal population.

If there numbers were right at 14000 deaths now the death rate in 20 years would be around 10,000.000 a year.

They are going on % just like veterans that get ALS are service connection because the % among veterans is way higher. but the VA is still looking for the cause of this anomaly and so far they have found none.

reply to post by Ilyich


I REALLY wish I had not read your post. I live In Western Washington near B.C. and have just recently gotten a bizzare tooth/jaw ache and have also noticed the odd behaviour of others i.e. always sick/fatigued....I know I am a little bit of a hypochondriac and there is hopefully nothing to this.....but your comment about the teeth really bothers me...I also take good care of them so this annoying ache is a little odd....but what could radiation have to do with this?

All of you that agree with this nonsense are a bunch of first grade nutters.
I live in Tokyo and I find it funny to read the ramblings of a paranoid generation who jump at a mouse fart.
hahahahahaha nutters.

This is a very interesting article to say the least. If this article proves to be correct, then some government will have to pay for the deaths. The question is... is the article correct, or anywhere being close to correct? If they can prove that the article has fact to it, then more than likely the US government will be at fault for the deaths.

reply to post by quedup


I don't really trust the validness of this source on the account I try to be skeptical, and I live right smack dab where the radiation would be falling in the U.S. So far everything has been hunky dory for us. Besides that I just don't understand what "TBTB" would have to gain from this. You can't very well run a country when it's dying and people are exponentially getting more pissed off.

I have been expecting to see reports of babies being born with associated health problems - hopefully not but I think that would be a very telling factor. In particular babies conceived around the time of the disaster.

There's so much conflicting information around the whole issue but I can't accept that a wide area hasn't been affect and the Ocean in particular - you might say and would be right to say that the Pacific is huge and it is but we should never forget that fish happen to swim and move around and across huge distances. I myself am wary with regard to eating fish now.

It the lack of knowledge and reliable information that's more scary than anything else.

Originally posted by musashi9
All of you that agree with this nonsense are a bunch of first grade nutters.
I live in Tokyo and I find it funny to read the ramblings of a paranoid generation who jump at a mouse fart.
hahahahahaha nutters.

This bunch of paranoid nutters as you call them may perhaps wish to know where your expertise lies - it would be interesting to hear a few facts from someone in the know - ?????

reply to post by StopFearMongering


But they are running a Country like that already.

I think I understand what you mean and if we assume that this was the accident portrayed to be then they wouldn't have had a choice in the matter.

I think most people are simply scrambling for the truth whatever that may be as they are fed up to the back teeth of being lied to and all the propaganda being spued out.

I don't think you can accuse a Medical Journal of Scaremongering - I really don't but if it makes you feel better Phage has his doubts about the scientific research that backs the claims being made.

reply to post by quedup


I wasn't necessarily accusing them of scaremongering, it was just more being skeptical. I find that study to be pretty subjective. There's just a lot more variables to take into account. It'd kind of be like walking into a bar and assuming everyone in their is drunk off the bars booze, but there is the off chance they got drunk beforehand then went to the bar, if that makes sense.