This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nuclear Cheerleaders Use Voodoo Science to Pretend Low Levels of Radiation Are Safe … Or Even Good For You
Department of Energy Pretends that Low Levels of Radiation Are Safe
Dr. Peter Karamoskos – a nuclear radiologist and a public representative on the radiation health committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency – wrote in the Sydey Herald last year:
You have to hand it to the nuclear industry and its acolytes. In the middle of the second-worst nuclear power disaster in history at Fukushima, and with still no end in sight, you would think they would respond with contrition, humility and profuse mea culpas. Not on your life. The industry representatives and its acolytes came out swinging in full denial attire.
***
But more insidious and objectionable is the creeping misinformation that the nuclear industry has fed into the public sphere over the years. There seems to be a never-ending cabal of paid industry scientific ”consultants” who are more than willing to state the fringe view that low doses of ionising radiation do not cause cancer and, indeed, that low doses are actually good for you and lessen the incidence of cancer.
It is not only the nuclear companies who are pushing this junk science.
The Department of Energy is responsible for the design, testing and production of all U.S. nuclear weapons. DOE also promotes nuclear energy as one of its core functions. As such, it might not be surprising that DOE has been covering up nuclear accidents for decades.
DOE is also trying to replace the widely-accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs recently used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation:
Another DOE-funded study published yesterday – which is being widely publicized in both the mainstream and alternative media – found that mice exposed to low-level radiation suffered no “apparent” genetic damage. Sounds impressive, until you realize a 3 basic facts.
First, the mice were only studied for 5 weeks. The whole danger of low-level radiation is from repeated exposure over a long period. A 5-week study is therefore scientifically meaningless.
Second, the study didn’t distinguish between radiation coming from outside the body and particles of radiation ingested into the body: what are known as “internal emitters”. Internal emitters – say airborne radioactive dust which we breathe in or radioactive fish which we eat – are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation. See this and this.
For example, the head of a Tokyo-area medical clinic – Dr. Junro Fuse, Internist and head of Kosugi Medical Clinic- said this month:
Risk from internal exposure is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure.
Third, the researchers only:
Tested for several types of DNA damage, using the most sensitive techniques available.
However, DNA damage is only 1 of the 2 main ways in which low level radiation causes damage. The second – and perhaps more important – way that low level radiation causes damage is through the creation of free radicals. Specifically, several studies have shown that radiolysis of water, formation of reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxidation in the body are the main culprits for the damaging effect of low-level radiation. The DOE-funded study didn’t test for free radical creation.
As such, the new study is garbage and junk science.
Real Scientists: Low Levels of Radiation Can Cause Cancer, Genetic Damage and Other Serious Illness
The overwhelming consensus among radiation scientists is that repeated exposure to low doses of radiation can cause cancer, genetic mutations and other severe health problems.
A major new study of atomic bomb data by the official joint U.S.-Japanese government study of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors found that low dose radiation causes cancer and genetic damage, and debunks the radiation “hormesis” claim (the ridiculous claim that a little radiation is good for you) once and for all:
As Dr. Karamoskos notes:
Ionising radiation is a known carcinogen. This is based on almost 100 years of cumulative research including 60 years of follow-up of the Japanese atom bomb survivors. The International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC, linked to the World Health Organisation) classifies it as a Class 1 carcinogen, the highest classification indicative of certainty of its carcinogenic effects.In 2006, the US National Academy of Sciences released its Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (VII) report, which focused on the health effects of radiation doses at below 100 millisieverts. This was a consensus review that assessed the world’s scientific literature on the subject at that time. It concluded: “. . . there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced.”
The most comprehensive study of nuclear workers by the IARC, involving 600,000 workers exposed to an average cumulative dose of 19mSv, showed a cancer risk consistent with that of the A-bomb survivors.
***
IARC states that ”by 2065, predictions based on these models indicate that about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur”. Whether we will be able to detect them when there will also be more than 1 million other cases of cancer over this period is debatable. But every one of these excess cancers is a tragedy for each victim and their family, and is no less so simply because cancer is a common disease.
Many studies have shown that repeated exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation from CT scans and x-rays can cause cancer. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. (Remember, the radiation from CT scans and x-rays are external emitters – the radiation emanates from outside the body.)
Research from the University of Iowa cconcluded:
Cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women.
And see these studies on the health effects cumulative doses of radioactive cesium.
As the European Committee on Radiation Risk notes:
Cumulative impacts of chronic irradiation in low doses are … important for the comprehension, assessment and prognosis of the late effects of irradiation on human beings …
And see this.
A military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq states:
Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer.
(Military briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to be able to assess risk to their soldiers.)
The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:
- ACE Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level Radiological Hazards during Military Operations, 2 AUG 96
- AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99
- FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01
- JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00
- NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00
- USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02
Why was the military advising commanders on radiation in Iraq? Presumably because the American military used depleted uranium in Iraq (see this, this, this, this, this and this).
Indeed, the top government radiation experts – like Karl Morgan, John Goffman and Arthur Tamplin – and scientific luminaries such as Ernest Sternglass and Alice Stewart, concluded that low level radiation can cause serious health effects.
Low levels of radiation cause not only cancer, but heart disease, stroke and other serious illness.
And its not just humans: scientists have found that animals receiving low doses of radiation from Chernobyl are sick as well.
Nuclear Cheerleaders Just Trying to “Keep People Calm While They’re Being Poisoned”?
This is actually part of the trend of governments worldwide raising acceptable radiation levels based upon politics.
No wonder one medical doctor asks whether acceptable radiation levels are being raised “to keep people calm while they’re being poisoned”.
Indeed, while counter-intuitive, many preeminent scientists believe that repeated doses to low level radiation can cause more illness than short, high-dose exposures. And see this.
- advertisements -
An ad hominem attack using a "red herring" , with the purpose to obfuscate, confuse the issue; the crest of the information offered; LOW LEVEL RADIATION IS HARMFUL. Classy... Your feeble attempt to discredit the information fails.
It's been known that low level radiation (from nuclear reactors in "normal operation") is harmful, for a long time: Here's an interview with dr. Ernest J. Sternglass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPO7Tft0YlQ
GW has gotten further and further into the Universe of the Weird. I too noticed the cut and paste elements of recent articles, the use and disuse of the same sources and a curious dislike of (so far) all forms of modern energy. I know several nuclear scientists in Oak Ridge and not one has ever claimed that radiation is "good for you". As far as I can ascertain, the health of the average Frenchman with their treasure trove of reactors is among the highest in the world.
you're wrong, and badly informed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EqEZR2sraw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKIh1fwKlQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DctVYzfwpvE
and more recent:
https://vimeo.com/41867072
And yet the worst french reactor still has three times the backup time of your worst GE plants, i guess french lives are worth three times as much as an american's (by GE's calculations).
Or maybe their regulators are'nt as corrupt............
They're now corrupt as well. Privatisation of the nuclear industry has led to a change (for the worst) in oversight, and a deteriorating safety standard.
Up till the mid nineties, the french plants were the country's strategic keystone. Proof that France was still a world power. (See the last bombtest of an H-bomb in the nineties) Francs could be devatluated to pay for government deficits. Since it was all the same pool, that was no problem. Now the two main corporations are just part of another (global) industry with mounting cost to run these plants and desillusioned former employees, who got fired when they protested the changes in inspections. I.o.w. before there was no real profit motivation, it was all paid by taxpayers, with strict government oversight. Now they're running those things increasingly on shoestring budgets and will be cutting (more) corners.
It's going to be the same story: capatalisation of gains and when it turns pearshaped; socialisation of losses.
We just got lucky.
If the caribean let loose with a huge methane earth fart we coulda been wiped out
And if you ever hear the earth let one rip dont try to light it. That shit's not funny
god bless you again george....the freaks advocating hormeisis are the same assholes who advocate ingesting fluoride, smoking as healthy, and a host of other flat earth horse manure....
And unlimited money printing!
Three Headline contributor articles in one day, you certainly are prolific George, do you actually sleep?
Psst! ... I'm fairly sure 'Tyler' has been cloned ... just saying.
They're printing off copies I tell ya ... genetic-feckin-MMT!
Unconstrained ball-bags bitchez!
Alpha clone or Epsilon clone?
Your "CT scans and x-rays can cause cancer" list of this, this, this, etc. links is a bit disingenuous. The first two links make no such conclusion. Several others are merely news stories citing one of the other articles.
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions"
GW is The Confirmation Bias King. He only listens to activists espousing his favorite conspiracy theories, denouncing all other people as paid liars.
Plus he'll selectively quote, or claim that quotes say things they do not.
Fun with dental x-rays.
why the junks? protecting "investments", or "normaly bias"? (or both)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26625/abstract
Radiation good, raw milk bad for you. Got that muppets?
Everyday the world gets closer and closer to resembling the plot of bad sci-fi movie These movies never end well.
The shills never discuss the very real security problems posed by these dirty bombs.
Shut.Them.Down.
I used to believe that industry shills believed their own bullshit. I now have a more nuanced view. Some do, some don't. But almost none of them care because they are part of Team [fill in corporation/industry] and that becomes all important. The team/tribe must win at all costs, especially since the team pays the bills. This is why a true free market can never exist. Human beings are imperfect and they will poison their own town if they believe the team requires it.
If you make good money in the nuclear industry but dont have any certifications or training in anything else comparably lucrative, then u gonna publicly support nuclear. You only gotta make it 15 more years to retirement. Surely it can hold together till then
Yes, I do understand why they do it, and so far the corporate and banking world have been right that it will hold together and they will prosper even as they gradually destroy their own towns, cities, economies, etc. Hopefully I am wrong in thinking that there is an endpoint that is going to be less than perfect for them and the rest of us.
We need ENERGY FROM THORIUM.
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Of course low levels of radiation *can* cause cancer. So can sunlight. Only idiots argue in these terms.
The salient question is how much of a risk it is.
The problem is you tinfoil crowd have but the most tenuous grasp on science, statistics and sanity.
There's a cumulative effect of radio-isotopes as "by- or wasteproducts" of nuclear fission plants, which is obviously different than cosmic radiation.
It's been clearly explained there are measurable increases in cancer rates, when there's been an exposure. Please see the work of E.J. Sternglass, and also see this video, recently published: http://fairewinds.org/content/hot-particles-and-measurement-radioactivity
Perhaps you can explain your idea of the concept of "sanity" to this japanese doctor, he seems to have a slight problem: http://enenews.com/alert-fukushima-pediatrician-we-need-outside-help-jap...
You might be able to help him with displaying your firm stance and use of powerful words.
Tinfoil hats are so passe, gold is the only guaranteed shielding from 'harmful' radiators, ask any B-2 pilot...........