This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Thank You Fukushima: Global Cancer Cases To Skyrocket
Update: Cancer - it's a growth industry
- AFLAC INC SEES 2014 AFLAC JAPAN SALES OF THIRD SECTOR CANCER AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS TO BE UP 2% TO 7%
The incidence of cancer worldwide is growing at an alarming pace. A new report by the World Health Organization finds that, as USA Today reports, new cancer cases will skyrocket globally from an estimated 14 million in 2012 to 22 million new cases a year within the next two decades, the report says. During that same period, cancer deaths are predicted to rise from an estimated 8.2 million annually to 13 million a year. The total annual cost globally of cancer was estimated to reach approximately $1.16 trillion in 2010, which is damaging the economies of even the richest countries and is way beyond the reach of developing countries.
...
The most common cancers diagnosed globally in 2012 were those of the lung (1.8 million cases, 13% of the total), breast (1.7 million, 11.9%), and large bowel (1.4 million, 9.7%), the group says. The most common causes of cancer death were cancers of the lung (1.6 million, 19.4% of the total), liver (0.8 million, 9.1%), and stomach (0.7 million, 8.8%).
...
"These new figures and projections send a strong signal that immediate action is needed to confront this human disaster, which touches every community worldwide, without exception."
The report "actually puts onto paper what a lot of us have been saying for some time," says Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "The burden of cancer internationally has doubled over the last 20 years, and it will double over the next 20 years. These facts support that we need to be serious about cancer prevention activities."
...
As a consequence of growing and aging populations, developing countries are disproportionately affected by the increasing numbers of cancers, the report says.
More than 60% of the world's total cases occur in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, and these regions account for about 70% of the world's cancer deaths, a situation that is made worse by the lack of early detection and access to treatment, it says.
...
The total annual cost globally of cancer was estimated to reach approximately $1.16 trillion in 2010, which is damaging the economies of even the richest countries and is way beyond the reach of developing countries, the report says.
Of course, the ongoing debacle in Fukushima will only exacerabate this trend as we have previously noted here - among Fukushima youths, here, and here - US sailors.
»
- 32223 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"It is the internal exposure in the food that is going to be the real problem at the end of the day due to bio accumulation but that is going to take a few years to fully manifest itself unless the whole food chain collapses in the Pacific where we can't accumulate that material internally in the first place."
So then, what do you do when much of the food that one brings home from the grocery store is more radioactive than your environment is?
Background of Hamburger:
http://imageshack.com/a/img837/8448/05yn.jpg
Hamburger:
http://imageshack.com/a/img547/5175/fbdd.jpg
Tuna background:
http://imageshack.com/a/img855/2176/uq0z.jpg
Tuna check:
http://imageshack.com/a/img20/1633/4rgn.jpg
Cauliflower background:
http://imageshack.com/a/img849/5420/kq5v.jpg
Cauliflower:
http://imageshack.com/a/img199/4674/gxou.jpg
California Organic Oranges:
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/1219/l2zj.jpg
Potatoes:
http://imageshack.com/a/img36/5184/4ufq.jpg
Red Bell Pepper:
http://imageshack.com/a/img14/8606/kguz.jpg
New Salad:
http://imageshack.com/a/img689/3084/vtsg.jpg
So ah, to all you detractors, go ahead and say radiation is good for you and these amounts will not be harmful. Even better, keep eating the food you are eating as it is so good for you and radiation from fukushima is alright.
Be happy...don't worry?
NO
thats Iodine that loves a Thyroid
Cs* will bioaccumulate in other place jus fine ty
further, the I half-life is very short, meaning very powerful when exposed, usually when reactions become open-air we see more I radionuclides in the atmosphere, for xample when the H2 blew the bLdgs it scattered a ton of the material previously contained within the buildings
on that note, drilling holes into the roof of bldg3 isnt helping release rates, but seems necessary to diagnose whats going on at the operation floor level (top floor/spentfuelpool level)
******** we should be clear non-radioactive I displaces the opportunity for radioactive I absorption, and thus the use of KI is for immediate exposure situ, where immediate exposure to radioactive I is expected, otherwise the 'filling' with good I goes by, wasted (and potentially incurring further side-effect costs)
******** we should be clear non-radioactive K displaces the opportunity for radioactive Cs uptake in plant-life, and as with the Thyroid, soils must be flush with K so discrimination is maximized / maximum K selection -- so farmers need to reapply KCl (as many do anyways), and there is much argument for pre-treating/saturating your soil (relative to the crop, obviously) over these years, maintaining an elevated K count, then ADVERSTISING THE FACT AND ILL BETCHA PPPL BUY IT
oh, and organic soils have the highest (TF) transfer factor, meaning plants most efficiently bioaccumulate Cs over K in that soild type
From the same people who brought us global warming. More pap for the sheeple.
Surely you don't question global warming. 10,000 years ago, my neck of the woods was buried under a mile of ice, fer chrissake. But I believe that our impact is still a worthy debate.
If this was understood, my apologies. But with all the creationist-type retards running around, you never know.
I saw this story earlier, only it was the hook to explain why they need to regulate/ban/control sugar. This sugar control theme keeps getting repeated over and over, and the only thing I can think of now is that TPTB are so desperate for the 10% of the funds they don't control that they want to start taxing calories, and are focusing on the addictive ones just like they did with alcohol and tobacco.
I have always wondered if the increase of cancer could be explained by the wide use of HFCS today. Many cancers utilize fructose for proliferation, especially Pancreatic cancer which is much more common now. Highly processed sugars taken to excess can lead to many health problems.
Miffed;-)
ZH sinks to a low level when they use a headline like this. The article does not mention Fukushima, only the ZH bullcrap does. There are a lot of different causes of cancer and older people tend to be more prone to get it so the aging of the world's population has to be a big factor. The other causes are important as well. Blaming it on Fukushima is myopic at best. Radiation does cause cancer but xrays, cat scans and other medical procedures give people in the US more radiation dose than Fukushima ever will. Natural background radiation from the Sun is still the biggest contributor. Californians will get more cancer from sunbathing than they will from Fukushima. I'm sure I'll get a lot of negative comments but I do know what I'm talking about.
Yeah, its sad that how low Zerohedge going these days, but I guess they dont want to get rid of their retarded conspiracy nut audiance.
Sure, and Fukushima has been in a cold shutdown since the summer of 2011. /s
Ever heard of PlumeGate? Or how about the dying Pacific? Since you're 'Murican you must've read about the starfish die-off on the pacific coast, no?
Enjoy your seafood!
thes days?
i think Tyler has always maintained excess radiological posioning increases cancer rates thus healthcare costs centralized enforcing the planner prefered paradigm
Do you know what you are talking about from your extensive reading of the literature about what happens when we dump hundreds of petabecquerels into the ocean?
I don't think that experiment has concluded yet.
But, okay, you're confident.
You and your children are welcome to my share of the tuna..
I'm sure this can't be good
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/us-gov-admitting-findings-o...
Here is the full report you can download.
https://app.box.com/s/rt4g13nxvqyljfqxmdxt
10 Picocurie [pci] = 0.37 Becquerel [bq]
Been data mining this 300 page tome, very interesting they did the testing in June 2011.
The soil and lichens have VERY high radioactivity. 6000 Bq /kG!
They dont plan on retesting until 2016 (think election)
Simply...the radiation did not yet have time to bio accumulate
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/real-data-on-fallout-in-usa...
This shows real data on Radioactive contamination. Primarily they were measuring I131, CS134, CS137
Of course we know from this article that up to 180 TONS of uranium and plutonium were also aerosolized. Much deposited into the ocean no doubt. But the EPA air samples in this linked study make it totally plain that much of it deposited on US cities and farms.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collaborated with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program in an effort to monitor North American precipitation samples for the presence of nuclear fallout in response to the Japan Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station incident that occurred on March 11, 2011. Specifically, excess precipitation and filtrate (insolubles suspended in precipitation) from National Trends Network sites and selected Mercury Deposition Network sites were analyzed for the presence of radiological fallout for samples collected during the March 8th to April 5th, 2011 sampling period. NADP samples were provided to the USGS's TRIGA Nuclear Facility in Denver Colorado, where the radiological determinations were made.
...
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/further-analysis-on-2011-al...
The bottom line....Fukushima had the same impact from 2000 miles away, that a large nuclear bomb would have going off at ground zero. Read it, hard to believe, but true. They did in fact have three large nuclear bombs go off here, so the comparison is easy, and unusual in the ability to make the comparison. Sheesh, bombs just have like 16 pounds of uranium and plutonium. Fukushima had over 200,000 lbs.
And the source study and the charts that I pulled out are right here on my original post.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/cd134-cs137-ratio-and-food-...
...
In table 40: Cs137 in lichen
1970-71 Clam lake range 8000-27000 pCi/kg (300-1000 Bq/kg) (stock --after three massive atomic bombs were set off on the island)
1971-79 Clam lake range 1500-67000 pCi/kg (55-2479 Bq/kg) (stock --after the three atomic bombs were set off on this island, the radiation in lichens tripled after the first initial dosing, and then lasted for a decade)
1997 Amchitka range 64-74 pCi/kg (2.3-2.7 Bq/kg)
2011 Amchitka range 1890-7120 pCi/kg (70-263 Bq/kg) (stock--after Fukushima)
STOCK--So Fukushima, 2000 miles away caused a radiation level about 1/4 of what three direct atomic bombs would do at ground zero. Look at the blue highlights above. Think about that now.)
The point being that while Cs levels in 2011 had increased compared to 1997 due to Fukushima, they were still lower than anytime between 1970-79, due to nuclear testing. (Stock --due to direct bombing of the island the tests were conducted on, not at all a fair comparison!)
Stock Here-- This reviewer is kind of pretending that the high rates at Clam lake are due to overall world wide nuclear testing "fallout". Clam lake is in the Anchitka Island which was not receiving just worldwide nuclear fallout, but was the actual site of several direct nuclear bomb tests.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explo...
The only way that the tens of tons of uranium and plutonium shown by US EPA air samples could occur was if the explosion came from within the reactor vessel, and/or spent fuel pool. So clearly the explosion was a nuclear type of explosion from within. Nuclear promoters have long stated that nuclear plants can't blow up in a nuclear explosion. We know this to be a lie. In fact Chicago's own Argonne National Lab has video from back in the day when it was "cool" to perform open air tests to blow up reactors to prove the nuclear chain reaction can blow up the reactors. The special type of Nuclear Explosion is called a "prompt moderated criticality".
...
A blast from a "hydrogen explosion" would come from a wide area where hydrogen would be, Hydrogen is the lightest element, so it would float up and fill the reactor building from the top down. If it truly was a hydrogen explosion, and it wasn't, then the blast would come from the top down. The fuels would be compressed into their deep containments, not launched thousands of feet into the air as did occur.
I am going to stop calling these things reactor vessels, and instead call them "Radiation Canons"
...
bro you need to slow down, read more, then post
H2 blew the roofs off, would shove little nowhere below.
k
now take that on face.
where did H2 come from?
the meltdown causes H2o to split, the meltdown...
caused by failed water cooling of radioactive interactions, which we shouldnt be doing at all (thanks So Cal)
relying on water cooling flow, via electricity or diesel, or any human interaction is design flaw borne from government intervention in the free market
and is what caused the current state where 3 (three) separate cores have exited primary containment vessel, via excess heat/gravity combo platter
H2, and the containment resulting from the buildings walls are side-effect issues, while increasing atmospheric interaction with the radioisotopes external to the building, granted, the particles are heavy with few travelling via jetstream to be deposited by gravity at some later point, but in Fuku pref itself the initial explosions did dust the area. The ongoing concern isnt this, unless reactions become more open air, or cooling stops/decreases, it is the necessity of cooling rather than remediation of the corium situation that pollutes fuku groundwater, crops, and the Pacific at a pace that's simply breathtaking
Read the rest of the article, all the government data is sourced in the article to double check the numbers if you want. The point is reactor 3 blew the fuck up like a nuclear bomb explosion, it didn't melt down and contradicts a basic meme pushed by the industry that is pushed that nuclear reactors don't blow up but only melt down. The only explosions in a meltdown scenario are supposed to be steam based which compress down into the containment chamber and blow out sideways not straight up into the air.
Not only that but they also have the god damn video from Argonne National Lab on youtube proving one can blow up a nuclear reactor in just such a manner.
key points.
Now we do know that tens of tons (at least) were launched into the air and effectively aerosolized by the Radiation Canon (aka reactor vessel). Simply using the density of the uranium and plutonium in the air as presented by EPA air sampling tests that are data mined to reveal their dirty little secrets. All that data and the simple calculations to calculate mass using known density and area/volume of dispersion are HERE-
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphe...
3 facts: in reactors, as uranium burns, it turns into some percentage of plutonium. Also any "spent fuel" will therefore also contain plutonium. And finally in Reactor, aka Radiation Canon 3, they were using MOX fuel which is a uranium with highly concentrated Plutonium.
Bottom line....if there is uranium in the air, there is plutonium in the air.
and some pure math to back it up.
Yes it was a nuclear explosion. We did the math here on March 31, 2011 and showed in the Fukushima Mega-thread that a nuclear detonation occurred.
How much energy is required to raise both the refueling crane and reactor vessel cover to a height of 450 feet?
It would require 10,968,750 horse power (HP); by assuming the height of the hydrogen vent tower to be 150 feet, the reactor containment vessel top appears to have gone two and one-half times higher or 450 feet; The top of the reactor vessel weighs 2000 tons. It requires 12.1875 HP to raise one ton in one second.
So we needed 10,968,750 HP to raise 2000 tons 450 feet in one second.
1 HP = 0.000641615568281 tons of TNT or we have 7037.7 tons of TNT.
7 kilotons of TNT just to lift the top of the containment vessel off
You have further force required to raise the refueling crane to that same 450 feet of height.
It was instantly obvious to any observer with a rudimentary knowledge of Physics that this was an explosion possessing force that could in no way be the result of a steam explosion.
You also have this to go along with that
http://enenews.com/facility-director-we-saw-fukushima-plutonium-out-in-t...
On March 14, CEMRC observed activity from [Fukushima] in their environmental filters. “It took roughly three days (for radioactive material) to come 10,000 miles,” [Russell Hardy, director of the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center in New Mexico] said. “It was low-level activity, below any environmental concern, but we started seeing iodine-131, tellurium and cesium. We know that it came from Fukushima because of when it happened and because each of the nuclear incidents — whether it’s Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island — they each use different mixtures in their fuel rods and they have different types of reactors. When they have an incident, they create their own signature. Looking at these ratios of plutonium, americium and cesium, you can determine which event it was tied to.” “The four times that we’ve seen plutonium out in the desert (from a 1960 Atomic Energy Commission underground explosion 12 miles from Carlsbad), as well as the Fukushima incident, just validates that what we’re doing works,” Hardy said.
Bottom line Fukushima blew the fuck up skywards like nuclear bomb going off not a steam explosion and is now melting down after the fact spewing more radioactivity out sideways.
All of you willful deniers are gonna get yourselves a deserved, personal visit from the contrail fairy if you don't shut up and take your seats in the drum circle like you were told!
Speechless.
MayIMommaDogFac...There are two types mainly of being exposed to radiation.
One kind is from a hot particle that nukes the cells nearby like a jack hammer.
The other kind is the neat and even distribution of radiation from a medical Xray.
You are probably one of the ones who thinks all radiation is evenly distributed. Even if you breath in a particle of Depleted Uranium and measure it with a geiger counter from the outside of the body.
You forget or have been told that your dose is X amount, but will argue without end that the cells that are right next to the particle are getting the same dose as what you measure from outside the body a few inches away from the particle
It is called a "point source"
Being exposed to hot concentrated particles is not the same as being exposed to a nice evenly distributed dose.
Thanks!!
MayIMommaDogFac...I agree with you that very little Fukushima radiation will make it all the way to the US. Pray that no spent fuel in US reactors does not vapourise CS137/134 in the air like Fukushima.
I can tell you that cesium has a very low boiling point of around 600 degrees Celsius which is very low and is the main reason why the meltdown released mainly Cs137/134
Plutonium did not boil like the alcohol to make wisky because it has a boiling point of over 3000 degrees Celsius. It mainly stayed behind.
Any release of Plutonium is rather by dissolving into sea water, or becoming attached to a dust particle or something else.
Different kind of radiation. There was no cancer 500 years ago. Cancer occurs easiest in cells primed for cancer. Melanoma was nonexistent until the skin started absorbing radionuclides.
OK, so let's say Fuku generated 5 GW for 30 years.
( That has to be a very generous estimate. )
That's 5 * 1000 * 1000 * 30 * 365 * 24 kWh
== 1.3e12 kWh
Now it will cost the world an extra $ 1.16e12 / 3
per year in cancer deaths. ( I hope that number
assigns dollar values to years of lost life, as
well as simply summing up direct medical costs, but
let it go. Be generous. )
That is $4e11 per year. This will continue for, say,
20 years. (Be generous!) $4e11 * 20 == $8e12.
Assuming that the Fuku plants cost nothing to build,
and nothing to maintain (seems unlikely), then the
true cost of power from the Fukushima plants to the
human race has been $8e12 / 1.3e12 kWh == $7 / kWh.
Seven dollars. Per. Kilowatt. Hour.
To be paid in blood, and tears, in ruined lives and nightmares.
But hey, look on the bright side! The Fukushima
plants were also producing weapons-grade metal for
the secret Japanese weapons program.
Until somebody stepped on it.
The Secret Powers are the enemies of humanity.
We either figure out how to get rid of them,
or they will certainly get rid of us.
They've already started.
Re; To be paid in blood, and tears, in ruined lives and nightmares.
I see the error in your calculations...
You are assuming the bottom 90% (the peasant class) are actually "worth" something.
It only matters if someone in the top 10% gets killed. I'm sure "they" are talking appropriate precautions.
The peasants have always been expendable.
Dang it, I always miss stuff like that!
Re; That is $4e11 per year. This will continue for, say,
20 years. (Be generous!) $4e11 * 20 == $8e12.
Please clarify significance of "e" ?
Is your keyboard malfunctioning?
Or an equation symbol?
Dam, Dave Matthew Band was right all along...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL_czyUro7o
There is a mural in Afghanistan that rings true with ZH.
http://editorial.designtaxi.com/news-soldierart070114/3.jpg
But it is crap like this, Alice...bang, zoom, straight to the moon! Selling false fear and division puts you right back in the pile of shit you emerged from...USA Today? yafuckinkiddingme?
Nice!
But they forgot to add the most pertinent and critical part of the message:
"You are not your electronic gadgets".
The Mother of all Contrails.
But I thought that the 'alar' they spray on apples was causing all of this.... Or was it the 1 part per billion allowable rodent hairs in peanut butter.... Or was it just people who drank more than 3 cups of coffee per day.... No wait, it was teenagers who held a cell phone up to their head more than 15 minutes a day.... but no, it was indoor air pollution in office buildings that did it.... Wait now, it was George Bush setting the Iraq oil wells on fire... BUT -- The real reason is that calls by cancer researchers for dramatic increases in cancer rates causes an increase in research dollars from government grants and private donations...
Dammit Jose, it wasn't none of that. It was them red m&m's back in the 70's. That was even before all those kids were killed by pop rocks.
"These facts support that we need to be serious about cancer prevention activities."
what about a cure? well i know a cancer patient and the drug that keeps her alive is $8K month.....so it appears to me that the incentive is to keep that $8K a month flowing.
Life of an average cancer patient: $350K
Ouch
A cure isn't good for business, man. The Holy Market may punish Pfizer, Johnson, Roche, Bayer, Novartis & Co. if a cure for cancer is acknowledged.
The deal isn't health, is sickness.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are smiling and backslapping each other, more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
bon Appetite
dont eat sushi
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/maggots.asp#photo
Oh, man! Don't do that!
GUYS ... don't forget that most of today's cancer issues coming at an age of 64 or higher on average. With all the population getting older and older there is a huge statistic impact from the age only .... !!!
No panic ;) ... Just enjoy your life ... When it comes, it comes .... Have a nice day.
Mike
The Uk insuirance industry reports life expectancies decreaing.
So your argument doesnt work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23126814
Queenie kinda short of quid. New death tax?
True on boomers, but now kids number one cause of death is cancer......wake up. Dont pick the obvious "reason"
This surge in the new middle classes of all countries is a real bummer...you not only max out on loans..but you get cancer too....WTH
This all needs to be put a bit into perspective. There will be more people on the planet so rates of cancer will go up. Also, large parts of the population will be aging and that increases rates of cancer as well. Better diagnostic and reporting systems will become available in '3rd' world countries affecting the number of cancer cases, etc.
On the other hand, pollution -including radiation- in the world will rise thereby increasing environmental risks to cancer. Good thing is that medicine is getting better at early detection and treatment of cancer. Bad thing is that the chances of getting cancer increase due to environmental causes.
Yeah, radioactive environmental causes.
(Living in denial is always an option, isn't it?)
US Gov Admitting Findings of Uranium all over Alaska, in the Food Chain Been data mining this 300 page tome, very interesting they did the testing in June 2011. The soil and lichens have VERY high radioactivity. 6000 Bq /kG! They dont plan on retesting until 2016 (think election) Simply…the radiation did not yet have time to bio accumulate larger animals but was huge in the lichens and mussels. http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/us-gov-admitting-findings-o...
I can't help but notice that one of the two testing sites in that study, Amchitka Island, was the site of THREE underground nuclear weapons tests in the late 1960s and early 1970s. You don't suppose that that fact might influence those reported results just a bit, do you?
Read and/or comprehend better. The study was done there because of those earlier tests, to compare what we are seeing now.
Many commentors now are simply gov trolls to promote and try to confuse.
that is exactly the point, after threee nuke tests, the result were high.
And then they went down a lot after 3 decades....and were tested, and then went back up, as high as during the direct bomb tests, due to Fukushima.
That says A LOT, revisit the issue with your knowledge.
Screw Fukushima... those are caused by smoking, drinking and Spenda.
The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479243/pg1
Why, because noone breathes Fukushima hot particles?
What, have you been holding your breath since March 11 2011?
'whatthecurtains' what is spenda? Do you mean splenda sweetner, or a type of macaroni, or a type of bacteria, or something else?
Complete garbage title that has NOTHING to do with the rise in cancer. Increasing obesity levels, dietary changes (more diary/meat consumption), and increasing smoking rates are the reasons why.
I don't think we had obesity pals on the USS Ronald Reagan and the whole fleet.
Go check how many of the 12.000 deployed there are becoming ill.
Fukushima huh? Whatevs...
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY (14:24)
The planet provided us an amazing protective atmosphere, shielding us from the hostile radiation of outer space.
Humans decided to go ahead and make their own radiation, get this, inside the atmosphere! lol
That takes top prize at the Darwin Awards.
We think it's bad with Fukushima (and it is), just wail til we lose a bunch more reactors in a war, economic collapse or natural disaster. Put a fork in it.
"Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac." ~George Carlin
ZH, stop posting BS tinfoil articles. Nothing to do with Fuku.
Today's Snow Report:
http://imageshack.com/a/img593/4014/bz45.jpg
Radiaoactive snow is good for you, go back to sleep.
The best protection against Fuku radiation and cancer is to self-detox.
63% removal of radioactive cesium in independent Swiss studies. Radioactove Cesium, the #1 isotope released by Fukushima.
www.vitapect.org
Does it take enriched uranium and plutonium out of the lungs?
Can't believe you cocksuckers fall for this shit. The report makes NO MENTION of Fukushima or man made radiation sources of any kind.
It says we are going to die of cancer becuase we are fat, lazy smokers. Add morons to that list to round it it out.
Can't believe you don't take into account three full meltdowns, coriums going underground, contaminated water flowing freely into the Pacific Ocean, nuclear blasts of reactors...
Are you kidding??? Or else, are you on the NPP/nuclear weapons business?
Smells like a GW article that he can cite later.
Shit. Articles about Fukushima trigger an unusual amount of comments to debunk truth. Too huge to deal with? Facing the facts is always better and brave.
On the contrary it gives lots of fun to see the many shills jump out at once from their hideouts at ZH to stave off the lights on the scary realities on Fukushima.... lol ... there are just rats everywhere
http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/
http://fukushima-diary.com/
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
http://enenews.com/
fukushimafacts.com
Hello... I CANNOT find any reference about FUKUSHIMA in that said USA Today's report, not either in the commentary!
I wonder whether any ZHers with account at USA Today can post a comment there asking why Fukushima is not mentioned at all as the suspected trigger of cancer cases... i just read ZH's attempt to link the worldwide cancer increases with Fukushima through an article that is strangely sterile of any reference to Fukushima name, both by WHO and the paper itself, neither in body article nor in its commentary.
What may get wrong??
Where exactly was Fukushima mentioned in that article?? What nitwit wrote this ZH article??
More stories about the PLUME-GATE by Hatrick Penry
Something Wicked This Way Comes: the Story of Plume-Gate the World’s Largest Provable Cover-Up in PDF | hatrickpenry
http://hatrickpenry.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/something-wicked-this-wa...
The pdf is of 28.9 MB, 445 pages, dated on 2014-02-03 with md5 hash tag: ad742e6cd5827322bfcf80eeabc80cfe
The radioactivity scare is just a scare.
MSM is good at scare sheeps with imaginary hobgoblins.
Help a loto to distract them from the real dangers, the stuff feeding MSM and owning it.
Do they found radioactivity from Fukushima in California?
Yes.
But how much?
Numbers are cospicuously absent in these articles.
This because numbers would show radioactivity to be irrilevant and sheeps are unable to count.
Is it strange they always throw lines like "in the next 20 years"?
In the next 20 years the scaremonger will fill their bank accounts with money and the scared sheeps will be shaved and slaughtered by them.
30 years ago Chrnobyl blow out and, apart for the first responders and the people eating the food produced around Chernobyl (Soviets idiocy) there was no difference in the cancer frequancy from the places underwind and overwind from Chernobyl at the time.
It's all good. You can't see it, smell it, feel it (if dosage low enough). lol @ "dilution",.. sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv-Fk1PwVeU
On a long enough time line we are all dead anyways. At least one knows what will kill one most likely.