"Safe" Radiation is a Lethal Lie

[flamingdem]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12534

-------- snip

Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed. (http://nukefree.org/arnie-gundersen-radiation-dangers )

No matter how small the dose, the human egg in waiting, or embryo or fetus in utero, or newborn infant, or weakened elder, has no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault.

Science has never found such a "safe" threshold, and never will.

---
Those who pioneered the health physics profession---towering greats like Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and Dr. John Gofman---set a definitive, impenetrable standard. A safe dose of radiation does not exist. All doses, "insignificant" or otherwise, can harm the human organism.

That has been repeatedly shown in major studies---done most notably by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, Joe Mangano, Arnie Gundersen, Dr. Steven Wing (http://nukefree.org/tmia-bloomberg-dr-ed-lyman-developments-fukushima ) and others---showing that among human populations near commercial reactors, infant death rates plummet once the reactors shut down.

[closeupready]

1. Propaganda 101.

K&R

[flamingdem]

36. No, backed by the National Academy of Science

http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.

Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.

[closeupready]

60. No, what I meant was, the misleading talk about the pervasiveness of radiation -

which is intended to make the troubles at Fukushima seem benign - is elementary propaganda. So we agree. :hi:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

48. It seems the true propaganda is telling us it is safe and there's nothing to worry about

After Chernobyl, in 1986, our government was more honest about the dangers of the radiation wafting over the US. There was a rainstorm that went across the country and we in southern Wisconsin were told when it would arrive over us, and that we should avoid being outdoors at that time.

[closeupready]

53. That's what I meant - it's not safe, and the people who say it is have a financial interest

in doing so, or otherwise have an interest in seeing the nuclearization of the world advance.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

59. ...

sorry I thought you meant it the opposite way - guess I'm over touchy about this.

[hayu_lol]

2. Better not go out into the sunshine...

stare at a puter monitor, live anywhere near a coal-fired generating plant and so on.

Too late for my generation...we are the ones who used to watch the bones in our feet wiggle in new shoes, over and over again.

Life is a risk...either take that risk or find another planet to live on.

[avaistheone1]

10. The OP is correct.

A safe dose of radiation has never been established.

The more you expose yourself to radiation and the higher the dose, the greater the risk.

Keep building your cumulative exposure without regard for the volume of radiation you have been exposed to over your life and your chance of being an unhappy camper are greater.

If you want to be so foolish, hey go for it. Go over to Japan and help out on reactor 2!

[RegieRocker]

22. Pitiful. Life is a risk so don't complain. Big difference between going

out into the sunshine and being 5000 miles from the sun. Why do you enjoy being an enabler and find joy in the earth and people being slowly killed?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. just because we did ignorant things doesn't mean we need to pass our stupidity on to the next genera

[avaistheone1]

3. Agree

k&r

[KansDem]

4. Shit...

...and I fly on Thursday...x(

[robcon]

5. The OP is non-lethal, but it's a lie.

It's anti-science.

[Bonobo]

8. I also am unreccing because I dislike the spread of ignorance.

No one is arguing that extra radiation is good for you.

But the fact is that "radiation" is not a monolithic thing and it is is also a fact that radiation is all around us.

So I just don't like to see DU descend into non-scientific idiot babble.

So I am unreccing.

[PCIntern]

18. Now THAT's a surprise...

I'm shocked...

[avaistheone1]

19. Unreccing your unrecc. Well it kinda is a monolithic thing...

The more exposure and stronger doses of greater radiation you receive over your lifetime the greater your risk.

Just because radiation is all around does not mean that we can be exposed to ever increasing loads of radiation for unlimited periods and not increase our health consequences.

[Little Star]

42. [phone]

[lbrtbell]

44. I'm reccing, because it's the truth

You seem to love burying your head in the sand, rather than facing facts. These are scientific facts, and your refusal to face them makes them no less true.

[Junkdrawer]

11. The science isn't being reported. Only industry propaganda....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713927

[Bonobo]

13. Disagree. nt

[hedgehog]

6. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste"

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. *

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

"Radioactive elements from coal and fly ash may come in contact with the general public when they are dispersed in air and water or are included in commercial products that contain fly ash.

The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less. Components of the radiation environment that impact the U.S. population are illustrated in figure 4. Natural sources account for the majority (82 percent) of radiation. Man-made sources of radiation are dominated by medical X-rays (11 percent). On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose.
Fly ash is commonly used as an additive to concrete building products, but the radioactivity of typical fly ash is not significantly different from that of more conventional concrete additives or other build-ing materials such as granite or red brick. One extreme calculation that assumed high proportions of fly-ash-rich concrete in a residence suggested a dose enhancement, compared to normal concrete, of 3 percent of the natural environmental radiation.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html


Those "ugly" wind turbines are looking mighty pretty about now!

[RegieRocker]

31. Not this again. Coal ash is not more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel.

[hedgehog]

34. I suspect the correct but more complex statement would be

" people are currently exposed to more radiation from coal ash than from nuclear waste" - the word "currently" operative until/unless there is an accident with nuclear waste.

[RegieRocker]

41. People in the US? What about the people surrounding TMI?

Would that also the people during our nuclear testing? The miners of uranium? etc. etc.

[lbrtbell]

46. Especially high-altitude wind turbines

They do the job without posing a threat to birds:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x280716

[Junkdrawer]

7. Japan has two choices: Evacuate a massive area or raise "safe" radiation limits.....

They can only afford the latter so that is what they've done. (from 1 mSv/Year to 100 mSv/Year!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x755466

[BeFree]

27. Yep

And it will become a global position the way things are going.

Well, let's hope what they say: "Radiation is good for us" somehow turns out to be true.

[PVnRT]

37. Then why are they encouraging people within 12-18 miles to leave?

[Junkdrawer]

40. Voluntary = the polluted land is your problem. Mandatory = Government compensation for damages. n/t

[flamingdem]

39. The Japanese Nuke Agency is trying to discredit the independent readings by Greenpeace

Greenpeace said its experts had confirmed radiation levels of up to 10 microsieverts per hour in a village 40 km (25 miles) northwest of the plant. It called for the extension of a 20-km (12-mile) evacuation zone.

"It is clearly not safe for people to remain in Iitate, especially children and pregnant women, when it could mean receiving the maximum allowed annual dose of radiation in only a few days," Greenpeace said in a statement, referring to the village where the radiation reading was taken.


Reuters notes that the Japan Nuclear Agency says Greenpeace's radiation measurements outside evacuation zone can't be considered reliable.

[Teaser]

9. Unshielded reactor

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

12. Remain Calm-All is Well!

They love to compare exposure to radiation with "benign" events. It's just like a chest x-ray or its just like a dental x-ray. Yeah right. Don't worry about anything. Except an x-ray is over in about a millisecond. Being exposed to radiation of that nature for any extended periods of time is cumulative and is bound to have consequences.

[Bonobo]

14. It's a good thing that no one is saying that except the strawmen on DU. nt

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NutmegYankee]

20. Have you tested your home for Radon? nt

[closeupready]

26. Wrong topic.

nt

[NutmegYankee]

32. It was on topic.

I am playing off of the statement "Being exposed to radiation of that nature for any extended periods of time is cumulative and is bound to have consequences."

Millions of people are exposed everyday in their homes. It was meant to be an open question.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

38. Its a Fair Question

I had to have my house tested. Both to get a C of O and a mortgage. I live in a part of PA with known radon issues. I was just being flip with my post because of the way the media always likes to equate exposure to any radioactivity with everyday events that are not really appropriate or accurate. (just like certain levels of radon in your home is like smoking x packs of cigarettes) I don't like alarmists any more than you do.

[NutmegYankee]

51. Understand. It all comes down to risk.

Radon is a good example since it kills about 21,000 people each year. You can lower the risk with mitigation, but every home has some in it and there is never a "safe" dose. There is always a small risk that you could get cancer. I knocked my levels to 0.5 pCi/L, which is about as low as you can practically get it considering that the average outdoor air level is 0.4 pCi/L. Even then, I know there is a small risk of cancer, but it's equivalent to everyone's risk. The paranoia over low doses of radiation just isn't worth it.

[flamingdem]

15. Thailand detects low-level radiation in sweet potato from Japan

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81553.html

BANGKOK, March 28, Kyodo

Thailand's Food and Drug Administration detected Monday a low level of radioactive iodine in imported sweet potatoes from Japan's Ibaraki Prefecture.

FDA chief Pipat Yingsaree said the radiation level was only 15.25 becquerels per 1 kilogram, far below the standard limit of 100 becquerels per kg.

But as a precautionary measure, the 75-kilogram shipment, which has been under quarantine, will be destroyed, he said.

--

Experts have conducted random checks on food imports from Japan since March 16, after Japanese authorities discovered leafy vegetables and water contaminated by radiation in area around the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex.

[flamingdem]

24. Low radiation levels on ship at Tacoma port - passed 400 miles from Fukushima Plant

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/22/159

Low levels of radiation were detected today in the air filters of a ship moored at the Port of Tacoma, officials told KIRO-TV.

U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Regina Caffrey said the Hyundai Oakland, which last docked in Shanghai, never got closer to Japan than 400 kilometers.

She said radiation has not been detected on any other ships in the Puget Sound and that the “very low levels” have been deemed by several agencies to not be a threat.

There are “no health or safety risks,” Port spokeswoman Tara Mattina told KIRO-TV.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/22/1595900/officials-low-radiation-levels.html#ixzz1HskJ4FcU

[cali]

16. this is bullshit. you are exposed to radiation every single day of your life

live in a brick or stone house- even more exposure. dog shit like you've posted does nothing to really educate.

And fear mongers suck eggs.

[PCIntern]

21. Sorry, you're dead wrong...

there is no room for saturation radiation in the grand scheme of things. We are having enough mutations with unavoidable exposures.

[cali]

25. and every time you cross the street you could be hit by a car

you could choke on any given bite of food.

[avaistheone1]

23. Wow. So that means it's safe?

Please do educate us.


:think:

[cali]

30. no, it does not. it means that there's a risk but that very low levels

of radiation pose a low risk to health. you are exposed to low levels of radiation every day. Will some people develop cancer from it? Possibly, and somewhere today someone will die slipping in the shower. It's about how high the risk is.

[PCIntern]

17. Exactly correct. ....

thank you for posting that...

[FLPanhandle]

28. I guess we better immediately shut down all commercial air travel

Have you seen how much radiation you get from being up at 40,000 ft.?

Also, we need to depopulate Colorado and other high altitude places.

Absolute statements like "Science has never found such a "safe" threshold, and never will." are a sign of ignorance or propaganda.

[flamingdem]

33. External radiation is not the same as ingesting or inhaling particles

Please stop spreading this disinformation. A molecule of cesium or iodine could cause cancer and stays in the body potentially forever damaging tissues. Cesium and Iodine have been found all over the USA from the Fukushima plant.

This is not the same ballgame.

[PVnRT]

43. A molecule can cause cancer? lololol

[closeupready]

54. At this point, if lolol is the best you guys got, you've lost.

nt

[flamingdem]

55. Now that deserves an lol ! nt

[FLPanhandle]

57. The article and opinion didn't limit itself to ingesting radioactive particles though

It was an absolute statement that included things like xrays.

That's why I said any absolute statement like in the OP is either ignorant or propaganda.

[yawnmaster]

62. A single atom of ingested or inhaled plutonium will probably not decay in your lifetime...

and will behave as an atom of heavy metal.
Single atoms must decay to be of any consequence and with a halflife of 200k years, the odds are with you.

Particles is an overloaded word. In the conversations I've seen in this context, particles is micrograms of a material which is very many atoms, having a much better chance of decaying in your lifetime.

Don't confuse atoms and particles in this context. A single atom will very likely, not cause you harm.

[lbrtbell]

45. The real reason not to live in high altitudes

Radiation notwithstanding, the oxygen is so thin that your body has to create more red blood cells just to avoid dying from altitude sickness. It's also extremely hard on people with breathing problems.

I don't think people should have to mutate, in order to live around the fundies in Colorado Springs. :rofl:

[flamingdem]

35. 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation - All levels cause cancer

http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

ll Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.

Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.

Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

47. I beg your pardon! The drinking water in Los Alamos NM is the

most delicious water I ever had (actually), and according to reports it's radioactive.

I was so relieved to hear that nukular is good for you, but resent the time I spent as a child participating in those horrifying air-raid drills. They scared us to death, leaving us in a state of permanent PTS FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL!!!!

I'll be waiting for the line up of nu and fab innovations in nukular waste recycling: kiddie cereal, Nuke-U-Puffs :applause:; foundation makeup named glow-right-at-night :wow:; and bottled water from Los Alamos called Pur-Plute. :nuke:

It wouldn't surprise me, because after all the happy horsesh*t about radiation, nothing will ever surprise me again (actually).

[flamingdem]

49. LOL - Anne Coulter is set for life promoting those products! nt

[snappyturtle]

50. Acceptable levels or not, is not the question to me. What really pisses

me off about Fukushima is that the radiation that the plant is leaking is creating havoc that was avoidable. I accept that I receive doses of radiation from the sun, airplane trips and x-rays but I am not willing to accept radiation resulting from incompetance to safeguard the back up systems. TEPCO knew/knows about the inherit danger of their geological location and they have yet to show me they had marginally adequate safeguards and now they're seemingly wringing their hands on how to best contain their error and continue to spew erroneous reports.

What I'm saying is to let me decide my exposure to radiation not foist it upon me because of, opps! an error! I feel so badly for the Japanese people who have lost so much not only due to Mother Nature but to fellow countrymen (TEPCO). The latter is unacceptable, to say the least, to me. imho

[Recursion]

52. Though without radiation we would all die pretty quickly

Vitamin D is kind of important, and we don't make it without it.

[kudzu22]

56. It's a question of magnitude and probability

High radiation is dangerous, low radiation may also be technically unsafe, but to a much lesser degree. This is like saying because a 40-foot fall will kill you, a prolonged exposure to two-inch falls is also potentially deadly. Sure, you could slip and hit your head and die, but the odds are pretty long.

[DainBramaged]

58. Ask Madme Curie how safe radiation was

on July 4, 1934, Skłodowska-Curie died at the Sancellemoz Sanatorium in Passy, in Haute-Savoie, eastern France, from aplastic anemia contracted from exposure to radiation.<31> The damaging effects of ionizing radiation were not then known, and much of her work had been carried out in a shed, without proper safety measures. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light that the substances gave off in the dark.<32>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

[yawnmaster]

61. Useless without the definition of "safe" that is being used...

I didn't see it in the article, and if one is using:
1 : free from harm or risk : unhurt

then still useless since very little in life fits this definition.

This is a case where we need a relative measure, not an absolute measure.

Using the absolute measure is hyperbole but can be so very dramatic.