User Info
|
|
|
|
Topic Summary
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: June 16, 2012, 10:08:52 pm »
Lee in Kansas City April 28, 2011 at 1:29 am http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-131-in-rainwater-sample-near-san-francisco-is-18100-above-federal-drinking-water-standard/comment-page-2It’s unfortunate that “radiation dose” charts are used for self-calming in regard to the Fukushima disaster. Such linear charts are wrong (mixing measurements which are hardly equal), and are also misleading. Hence, it’s wise to disregard them, for reasons which include the following: a.) The charts make no distinction between “short-term external exposure” and “ingested radiation” (despite there being a world of difference between the two). That it, they’ll cite measurements of short-term exposure from an external source (such exposure during an airplane flight), but will then compare that to food ingestion measurements (such as eating bananas), thus implying the two exposures are equivalent. They are not. Ingested radiation is thousands of times more serious than an external exposure equivalent, because the radiation is dangerously close to the organs, and also because the effects endure as long as the radiation is active. http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=671In addition, the radioactivity of a food like a banana on a chart refers to natural earth radiation (rather than to Fukushima fall-out). Gosh, those were the good old days. Within a year, radiation will cover the southern hemisphere, just as it’s already covered the northern hemisphere. How to keep bananas (all foods) free of Fukushima radiation is becoming the world’s great question. b.) The charts don’t measure bio-accumulation of radiation (the total exposure which determines cumulative health effects). Because the charts are vertical (charting lowest exposure to highest), the charts mask the effects of continuous low dose exposure. For example, continuous low-dose exposure to Iodine-131 can destroy the thyroid gland’s function. The Petkau Effect indicates that “A long term exposure of extremely low radiation (i.e., one-ten millionth of a rad per minute) was found to be 100 BILLION times MORE lethal than a short term exposure to exceedingly high level radiation (i.e., 10,000 rads per minute). http://doctorapsley.com/RadiationTherapy.aspxWe’re now facing continuous low exposure (via water and food), which increases bio-accumulation. Due to bio-accumulation, every exposure adds to the probability of contracting cancer, but of course, the charts don’t indicate this. c.) The charts don’t factor in concentrated levels of food radiation. Because the Fukushima radiation continues to be deposited on earth, radiation levels tend to concentrate inside the food chain. The result can be that one serving can end up being unusually radioactive. For example, krill get eaten by small fish, which are eaten by bigger fish, which can then be eaten by us–and at each level, radiation builds and accumulates. Similarly, toxic rainwater is ingested into plants, and cows (who’ve grazed while standing in that same radiation-carrying rainwater) then eat the plants. When we consume cow milk or beef, we’re getting concentrated levels of radiation as accumulated from those sources. Regardless of some media reports, there is no safe level of radiation http://www.sott.net/articles/show/227254–There-is-no-safe-dose-of-radiation-#comments. News reports which mention the low levels of Iodine-131 and its short life fail to mention the presence of strontium 90, which is bone-seeking (and hence, hard to get rid of) http://gigswwa.blogspot.com/2011/04/got-milk.html. Media reports are also also ominously silent about the presence of plutonium, a deficiency of reporting which Helen Caldicott has questioned. News reports which focus only on the least deadly elements can be deadly to our health: http://rense.com/general93/disv.htmAccurate radiation information from Japan is also elusive, due to how the Japanese government has issued an official order to telecommunicat ions companies and web masters to censor reports which contradict the state media reports that the Fukushima nuclear radiation disaster is over. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/19/japan-officially-orders-censorship-of-truth-about-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-disaster-18502/For the sake of one’s health, doing one’s own research matters (rather being spoon-fed by the media). For precautionary health measures, Natural News offers some recommendation s: http://www.naturalnews.com/032179_Fukushima_zeolites.html
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: May 19, 2012, 02:12:57 am »
May 18, 2012 Jebus Food for thought… Donna Summer: One of thousands of nonsmokers killed annually by lung cancer Some frightening context: If lung cancer in “never smokers” had its own category separate from lung cancer in smokers, “it would rank among the top 10 fatal cancers in the United States,” reports the American Cancer Society. Workplace exposure to cancer-causing agents (including chemicals and gases) — as well as pedestrians, bikers and joggers sucking in small particles of air pollution — are also believed to prompt some lung cancers in non-smokers. But it is radon gas – an odorless, radioactive, element rising from uranium deposits and collecting inside homes – that leads to most of the lung cancers that strike down nonsmokers. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, radon kills 20,000 Americans annually. http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11759180-donna-summer-one-of-thousands-of-nonsmokers-killed-annually-by-lung-cancerIn a perfect world, It would be interesting see every lung cancer victim have a screening for radionuclides. After all, if they died from radioactive particles in their lungs, they are still there. http://enenews.com/forum-general-discussion-thread-nuclear-issues-2012/comment-page-7#comment-250821
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:48:44 pm »
Children of the Atomic Bomb This website provides the who, what, and why of UCLA's involvement with the development of the atomic bomb and nuclear issue for over six decades. The consequences of the nuclear age — and nuclear weapons — on human beings and their environment is perhaps the greatest single threat to all of us today. The nuclear threat affects all nations — among them, the U.S. and Russia, the two nations who possess the most weapons of mass destruction — as well as those nations who do not http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/index.html
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: January 07, 2012, 08:27:33 pm »
Jeff Rense Radiation Updates, Radiation Monitoring, Interviews Archived News and Rad Remedies Archived news from multiple sources 3/11/11 to present into 2012 - hope they add more links soon. Start on bottom of archive 2 and work your way up and through to page for archive 1 to Mr. Rense's amazing awareness of Fukushima and the nuclear industry on his home page. 3/2011 - 8/2011 http://www.rense.com/Datapages/japdat2.htm8/2011-10/2011 http://www.rense.com/Datapages/japanquakedat.htm10/2011 into 2012 with free mp3 Fukushima and radiation radio interviews - must listen to's Mr. Rense seems to now do a radiation update every Monday now on his show http://www.rense.com/More news and many radiation monitoring, exposure and protection links with an AMAZING MUST LISTEN TO CURRENT FUKUSIMA GLOBALLY MP3 Radiation/Japan & The US http://www.rense.com/Datapages/radiationdat.htmJeff Rense Fukushima Radio interviews archived on http://www.archive.org/index.phpwhen you link to this page please refresh for new shows http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Jeff%20Rense%20fukushimastill searching for a more up to date Fukushima radiation Rense radio archives. if any one knows please email Thank you, Mr. Rense for your dedicated and informative work to get the rad word out
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 29, 2011, 06:36:11 pm »
7/6/2011 Lies Fukushima Radiation Health Risk Advisor Prof. Dr. Yamashita Of Nagasaki University On Fukushima And Radiation “Internal exposure has 10 times less health risk than external exposure” “If you are smiling, you will not have any radiation effect.“ “If you are not smiling, you will have radiation effect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunichi_YamashitaMr. Nakate refutes these lies and explains WHY/HOW why, due to Yamashita's statements doctors in Fukushima won't help children
Please visit the Radiation Exposure, Guides, Manuals and Protection Remedies Forum to find out furthur information concerning the Effects of Radiation on Women, Pregnancy, Children and Other Living Things http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php/topic,9.msg27.html#msg27Infinite Unknown also has a long list of source that completely deny these "radiation is harmless" lies Please click on bottom link to access Fukushima City is about 60 km from the Fukushima I nuclear plant: - Kobe University Radiation Expert Prof. Tomoya Yamauchi On Fukushima City (290,000 People): ‘Evacuation Must Be Conducted As Soon As Possible’ - Alert: Greenpeace Radiation Measurements In Fukushima City: Hot Spots At 500-700 Times Normal!!! (Video) - Fukushima City (Over 290,000 People) Is In Danger: Greenpeace Detects Cobalt-60 And High Radiation ‘Hot Spots’ – Children Should Be Evacuated Immediately There are no safe levels of radiation: - AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) President Carmelo Iacono: ‘Nuclear Radiation Is The Most Carcinogenic Thing That Exists’ - IAEA Admits: There Is No Such Thing As ‘Safe’ Levels Of Radiation - Prof. Chris Busby: ‘There’s No Doubt Fukushima Dwarfs Chernobyl’ – ‘There Has Been A Massive Cover-Up And That Cover-Up Is Still Going On (The Negative Health Effects Of Low-Dose Radiation From Fukushima!!!) - Fairewinds’ Founder Maggie Gundersen Interviews Environmental Scientist Marco Kaltofen: Radiation In Food Is Going To Be A Nationwide Problem In The US! - ‘Fukushima: Gross Miscarriage Of Radiation Science’ – Childrens Cancer Risk From Radiation Is 10 To 100 Times Higher For The Same Exposure To Adults - Physicians For Social Responsibility Press Conference (04/26/2011): Chernobyl, Fukushima And Nuclear Power – Disturbing Facts! - Dr. Helen Caldicott On The Japan Nuclear Disaster – The Truth MSM Won’t Tell You! (Video) - Dr. Steven Wing And Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen Discuss Global Radiation Exposure and Consequences: There Is No Safe Dose of Radiation - UC Santa Cruz Nuclear Expert Daniel Hirsch: ‘Every Amount of Radiation Exposure Increases Your Risk of Cancer.’ ‘There Is No Safe Level of Radiation.’ - Dr. Helen Caldicott: How Nuclear Apologists Mislead The World Over Radiation - Dr. Brian Moench: There Is No ‘Safe’ Exposure To Radiation - Dr. Peter Karamoskos: Don’t Be Fooled By A Never-Ending Cabal Of Paid Industry Scientific ”Consultants’ – Radiation Is Bad And Causes Cancer - Are There Safe Levels of Radiation? How Much Radiation Is Safe? (Must-read!!!!!) Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger. Yo: So making comparisons with X-rays and CT scans has no meaning. Because you can breathe in radioactive material. Hirose: That’s right. When it enters your body, there’s no telling where it will go. The biggest danger is women, especially pregnant women, and little children. Now they’re talking about iodine and cesium, but that’s only part of it, they’re not using the proper detection instruments. What they call monitoring means only measuring the amount of radiation in the air. Their instruments don’t eat. What they measure has no connection with the amount of radioactive material. Dr. Helen Caldicott (Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility): - The Propaganda From The Government And The Nuclear Industry About Low-Level Radiation Is Absolute Rubbish: You’ve bought the propaganda from the nuclear industry. They say it’s low-level radiation. That’s absolute rubbish. If you inhale a millionth of a gram of plutonium, the surrounding cells receive a very, very high dose. Most die within that area, because it’s an alpha emitter. The cells on the periphery remain viable. They mutate, and the regulatory genes are damaged. Years later, that person develops cancer. Now, that’s true for radioactive iodine, that goes to the thyroid; cesium-137, that goes to the brain and muscles; strontium-90 goes to bone, causing bone cancer and leukemia. It’s imperative … that you understand internal emitters and radiation, and it’s not low level to the cells that are exposed. Radiobiology is imperative to understand these days.” http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/07/06/friggin-unbelievable-fukushima-radiation-health-risk-advisor-prof-dr-yamashita-of-nagasaki-university-on-fukushima-and-radiation-must-see/
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 29, 2011, 03:37:53 am »
HIGH RADIATION CLUES IN NATURE pt1
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 28, 2011, 08:49:25 pm »
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 25, 2011, 02:44:27 am »
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:40:18 pm »
Bones December 21, 2011 at 7:06 am http://enenews.com/forum-effects-of-low-level-radiation/comment-page-1#comment-174776“New Take on Impacts of Low Dose Radiation” http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-impacts-dose.html“Time-lapse imaging of DNA damage response to radiation shows that 1.5 minutes after irradiation, the sizes and intensities of radiation induced foci are comparable throughout the nucleus, but 30 minutes later RIF have clustered into larger and brighter regions called DNA repair centers. Courtesy of Berkeley Lab
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:35:08 pm »
THE POTENTIAL RADIATION EFFECTS ON OUR SOIL FROM JAPANS MELTDOWN!! http://www.urbanreliancestore.com/JAPANSREACTOR.html
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:27:17 pm »
etwas seltsam December 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm · Reply My Mom’s hypothyroidism has worsened, a lot, suddenly. I’m having similar symptoms, a lot of them, suddenly… Found these sites below, and a list of links: http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nuclearexposure/(some of which are “Not Found”, of course) https://www.aace.com/sites/alt.aace.com/files/pdfs/neck_check.pdf“Take the Neck Check” http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/HanfToChern.html“Radio-Iodine: From Hanford To Chernobyl . . . And Beyond? John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Spring 1993 Part 1 — Introduction Part 2 — What Are the Consequences of Hypothyroidism? Part 3 — How Much Radio-Iodine Is Required to Produce Hypo-Thyroidism? Part 4 — Summary on Radiation-Induced Hypo-Thyroidism
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:21:26 pm »
anne December 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm · Reply Copied from: http://enenews.com/report-famous-japanese-women-writing-about-mysterious-bruises-photos#comment-168819Caveat Emptor December 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm repost fukushima-diary comments: Easy bruising or a nosebleed can be caused by a number of medical conditions including: Low platelet count http://www.raysahelian.com/bruising.htmlRadiation reduces production of blood platelets. http://www.tirgan.com/thrpenia.htmIn other words, you may bruise more easily because the number of your platelets is reduced due to radiation exposure. Radiation Side Effects and Ways to Manage Them: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-and-you/page8Since “blood counts may be fine” after a visit to the doctor [hands clasped in prayer]… Don’t forget earlier articles in which deformation of cells, changes in cell membrane structures, changes in metabolites and in hormones, increased markers of inflammation, and changes in blood viscosity were noted due to the effects of radiation exposure. Besides cell necrosis it affects everything. Phenomena: “Sickle Cell Pains”, bruising, itchy skin, red skin. Just a few: Rheological properties of blood after whole body gamma-irradiation: http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/92620090102.pdfEffects of X-ray radiation on the rheologic properties of platelets and lymphocytes http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12662284A Model of Cardiovascular Disease Giving a Plausible Mechanism for the Effect of Fractionated Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/08/background-info/“…elevated levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6, CRP, TNF-α and INF-γ… have been observed in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors [18],[19]. There was also dose-related elevation in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and in levels of IgG, IgA and total immunoglobulin s in this cohort, all markers of systemic inflammation [19].” Report Comment anne anne December 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm · Reply [cont.] Radioactive Cesium and the Heart http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/Radioactive_caesium_and_heart_eng.pdf Report Comment anne anne December 13, 2011 at 11:17 pm · Reply Copied from: http://enenews.com/report-famous-japanese-women-writing-about-mysterious-bruises-photos#comment-168829AGreenRoad December 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm Here is a scary story about radiation and bruising.. I hope for her sake that this is not what is coming… http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2011/04/tiny_nukes.htmlHere is another thing that MD types should be looking for. A blood test will tell her pretty much everything. “Plasma cell tumors in the bone marrow crowd out the normal components of the marrow, resulting thereby in decreased numbers of red blood cells, platelets, and other white blood cells. This problem then results in fatigue and shortness of breath (decreased red cell count), bleeding or easy bruising (low platelet count), and increased susceptibility to infections (low white blood cell count).” http://www.emedicinehealth.com/myeloma/article_em.htmReport Comment Caveat Emptor December 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm · Reply Bruising easily, or even spontaneously without trauma, could signify a medical problem that needs attention. It could mean that bone marrow isn’t producing enough platelets, components of blood that literally plug leaks in the walls of injured blood vessels. This disorder, thrombocytopen ia, may be symptomatic of alcohol abuse, autoimmune disorders, infections, illness, medications, chemotherapy, radiation or of one of several diseases such as anemia or leukemia. A complete blood count and blood testing can help rule out these possibilities. Radiation Contamination: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/contamimage_top1.htmRadiation Exposure: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/exposureimage_top1.htmCutaneous Radiation Syndrome: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/cutaneoussyndrome.htm#radphysicsRadiation to any part of the body can cause Thrombocytopen ia (Low platelet count). Not a Doctor … consult a Health Care Practitioner.
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:18:11 pm »
http://enenews.com/forum-effects-of-low-level-radiation/comment-page-1#comment-174776anne December 12, 2011 at 10:58 pm · Reply Moved from: http://enenews.com/report-fukushima-safety-levels-safe-videomajia December 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm Here is your answer for risks for adults: For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction. By Mark J. Eisenberg MD MPH, Jonathan Afilalo MD MSc, Patrick R. Lawler MD, Michal Abrahamowicz PhD, Hugues Richard MSc, Louise Pilote MD MPH PhD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050947/pdf/1830430.pdf[Excerpted] The cumulative exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures was 5.3 milli Sieverts (mSv) per patient year, of which 84% occurred during the first year after acute myocardial infarction. A total of 12 020 incident cancers were diagnosed during the follow-up period. There was a dose dependent relation between exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures and subsequent risk of cancer. For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years (hazard ratio 1.003 per milliSievert, 95% confidence interval 1.002–1.004). Report Comment anne anne December 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm · Reply Moved from: http://enenews.com/report-fukushima-safety-levels-safe-video majia December 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm • Dietrich Averbeck, a, Towards a New Paradigm for Evaluating the Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis Volume 687, Issues 1-2, 1 May 2010 pages 7-12 Old model assumed only cells directly subject to radiation were damaged New model emphasizes how low-dose radiation can cause indirect damage to cells through the bystander effect and through genomic instability. The effects of low-dose ionizing radiation are variable and can reduce DNA repair mechanisms, operate lethally on cells or some instances activate them depending upon type of radiation, chemical environment, etc. “In recent years, several lines of evidence have been accumulating that low-dose effects of ionizing radiation involve formerly unexpected cellular phenomena such as non-targeted and delayed radiation effects. These effects clearly contradict the classical paradigm of radiation biology saying that all radiation effects on cells, tissues and organisms are due to the direct action of radiation on DNA…. As another low-dose non-linear radiation response can be added the phenomenon of low-dose radiation hypersensitivi ty (LDRH) [68] and [69] that has been observed in many cell types. It manifests itself by high lethality” Report Comment anne anne December 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm · Reply Applications of paradigm breaking non-targeted effects for radiation protection and risk estimates Oleg V. Belyakov http://www.dsls.usra.edu/20100218.pdf Non-targeted effects as a paradigm breaking evidence. Averbeck D. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20080109 Report Comment anne anne December 12, 2011 at 11:01 pm · Reply Non-targeted and Delayed Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: I. Radiation-Induced Genomic Instability and Bystander Effects In Vitro William F. Morgan1 IMPLICATIONS OF NON-TARGETED, DELAYED EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION “Radiation-induced instability and the existence of bystander effects are well established and incontrovertib le. In addition to damage directly induced by the deposition of energy in the nucleus of the irradiated cell, consideration must now be given to these indirect effects of radiation. An irradiated cell can send out a signal and induce a response in a cell whose nucleus was not hit by radiation. This might result in genetic damage or genomic instability or might be lethal to nonirradiated cells. These non-targeted effects in essence ‘‘amplify’’ the biological effectiveness of a given radiation dose. This occurs by effectively increasing the number of cells that experience effects over that directly exposed to the radiation. “Bystander effects include a family of cellular responses in cells not hit by radiation and indicate that the relevant target for radiation effects is greater than the cell nucleus. Obviously this could have significant implications for evaluating the consequences of radiation exposure, particularly at low doses (for discussion, see ref. 77). Our understanding of these non-targeted effects is still in its infancy, and much of the data to date has been obtained from in vitro studies. While the significance of these indirect effects on human health remain to be elucidated, it would seem prudent to consider the implications of non-targeted delayed effects of radiation exposure when considering models of radiation carcinogenesis, particularly at low doses.” http://nuclear.tamu.edu/~aredd/Carcinogenesis/NUEN%20689/Morgan%20-%20Non-targeted%20-%20in%20vitro%20-%20I.pdf Report Comment anne anne December 13, 2011 at 8:52 pm · Reply Repost from: http://enenews.com/report-famous-japanese-women-writing-about-mysterious-bruises-photos#comment-168700•AGreenRoad December 13, 2011 at 7:58 pm A medical doctor discussing radiation and bruising… interesting read…he gets into low dose radiation and long term effects of it. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-news/radiation-particles-in-food-are-a-slow-release-health-threat/article1959891/?service=mobile
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:12:21 pm »
THE LOW LEVEL RADIATION CAMPAIGN http://www.llrc.org/Pr C. Busby: Fallujah health effects, new U weapons. Nov 2011
“Prof Chris Busby was invited to Stockholm on Nov 19th 2011 to present the results of the studies he made with his colleagues into the health effects in and contamination of Fallujah Iraq. He begins by showing a video of a small modern ground based missile that is capable of atomising a tank, and asks what kind of explosive warhead could have such power? The studies, carried out with Malak Hamdan , Samira Alaani, Eleonore Blaurock Busch and others showed unbelieveable levels of cancer and congenital malformation which appeared after the 2004 US led attack of the city. Leukemia and other cancer increases were greater than those produced by Hiroshima. For the first time, Busby presents specific data on congenital malformations in Fallujah from a yet unpublished study. The cause of these effects was found by analysing the hair of the parents of the children with congenital malformations. It was Enriched Uranium which, Busby argues, must be some component of a new type of weapon. He believes that this discovery is what is behind the recent global operation to destroy his scientific credibility, as this is a secret that was not meant to become
Posted by: Monkey99
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:11:26 pm »
When a Cancer Therapy Puts Others at Risk “…Scientists have estimated that, depending on the amount of radioactive drug given to a thyroid patient, a secondhand dose could exceed an average American’s annual level from all natural sources, and three or four times the safe level recommended for a pregnant woman….” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/health/policy/25radiation.html?adxnnl=1&ref=radiation&adxnnlx=1323320831-B9QXXID24Swwnwb1Zdk+rw
|
Guests: 1
Hidden: 0
Users: 0