Are Helen Caldicott facts 1-6 wrong?

Post navigation? Previous Next ?
Internal Radioactive Emitters – Invisible, Tasteless, and Odorless
Posted on July 14, 2011
Huge quantities of radioactive elements, more than anyone has been able or willing to measure, have been continuously released into the air and water since the multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Complex in Japan on and around March 11, 2011.

This accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer the likes of which the world has only rarely experienced, as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice & meat, and drink radioactive milk & teas.

As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain, radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local.

In 1986, a single meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl covered 40% of the European land mass with radioactive elements. Already, according to a 2010 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences, almost one million people have perished as a direct result of this catastrophe, yet this is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is confusion and misunderstanding in the media, and amongst politicians and the general public, about what nuclear accidents, particularly the accident at Fukushima, will mean medically.

It will be useful to explain how radiation induces disease and what sort of radioactive material is contained in a nuclear power plant.

Fact number one

According to every version of the BIER study by the National Academy of Sciences, up to and including the most recent in 2007 – The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation No. V11 (BIER VII), no dose of radiation is safe. Each dose received by the body is cumulative and adds to the risk of developing malignancy or genetic disease.

Fact number two

Children are ten to twenty times more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Fetuses are thousands of times more so. Immuno-compromised patients, and the elderly, are also extremely sensitive.

Fact number three

Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements, including radiation emitted from X ray machines and CT scanners, damages living cells. This can result in cancer.

How? Simply speaking, there is a gene in every cell called the regulatory gene. It controls the rate of cell division. If this specific DNA sequence is hit by radiation the cell will either be killed or, alternatively, the regulatory gene can be bio-chemically altered. This is called a mutation. It is impossible to know if this damage has taken place in your body. The cell will sit silently for many years until one day, instead of dividing in a controlled fashion, by mitosis, to form two daughter cells, it begins to reproduce uncontrollably, producing trillions of cells. That is a cancer. A single mutation in a single gene can kill you. This process is accelerated in children.

Fact number four

The latent period of carcinogenesis.

The incubation time for leukemia is five to ten years, but for solid cancers (such as breast, lung, thyroid, bone, kidney, and brain) the incubation period ranges from 15 to 70 years. All types of cancer can be induced by radiation.

Fact number five

The reproductive cells in the body, the eggs and sperm, are even more important genetically than normal body cells. Each egg and sperm has only half the number of genes as those in a normal cell so that when they unite, a new normal cell is produced which goes on to form an embryo, then a fetus, then a fully formed baby. Every gene in an egg or sperm cell is precious because these genes control the characteristics of the new individual. Therefore, if normal genes are mutated by radiation the new baby could be born with a genetic disease, or will carry abnormal genes for diseases like cystic fibrosis and diabetes , or inborn errors of metabolism to be passed on to future offspring. There are over 2600 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.

We all carry several hundred genes for genetic disease but unless we mate with someone carrying the same gene (such as cystic fibrosis) the disease will not become manifest. These abnormal genes have been formed over eons by background radiation in the environment.

As we increase the level of background radiation in our environment from medical procedures, X ray scanning machines at airports, or radioactive materials continually escaping from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps, we will inevitably increase the incidence of cancer as well as the incidence of genetic disease in future generations. Mutated, or abnormal genes are passed down from generation to generation in perpetuity.

Fact number six

There are basically five types of ionizing radiation:

X rays (usually electrically generated), which are non-particulate, and only affect you the instant they pass through your body. You do not become radioactive but your genes may be mutated.
Gamma rays, similar to X rays, emitted by radioactive materials generated in nuclear reactors and from some naturally occurring radioactive elements in the soil.
Alpha radiation, which is particulate, and composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, emitted from uranium atoms and from other dangerous elements generated in reactors (such as plutonium, americium, curium, einsteinium, etc- all known as alpha emitters). Alpha particles travel a very short distance in the human body. They cannot even penetrate the layers of dead skin in the epidermis to damage living skin cells. But, if these radioactive elements get into the lung or the liver, bone or other organs, they transfer a large dose of radiation over a long period of time to a very small volume of cells. Most of these cells are killed, but some on the edge of the tiny radiation field will survive. Their genes will be mutated, and cancer may later develop. Alpha emitters are among the most carcinogenic materials known in medicine.
Beta radiation, like alpha also particulate, is a charged electron emitted from radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137, iodine 131 etc. The beta is light in mass, it travels further than an alpha particle but does the same thing, mutates genes.
Neutron radiation is released during the fission process in a reactor or a bomb. Reactor #1 at Fukushima is still periodically emitting neutron radiation as sections of the molten core become intermittently critical. Neutrons are large radioactive particles that travel many kilometers, and they pass through everything including concrete, steel etc. There is no way to hide from them and they are extremely mutagenic.
So, let’s describe just four of the radioactive elements that are continually being released into the air and water at Fukushima. Remember, though, there are over 100 such elements each with its own characteristics and pathways in the human body. All are invisible, tasteless and odorless.

Cesium 137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. That means in 30 years only half of its radioactive energy has decayed, another 30 years to decay again to half, so it is detectable as a radioactive hazard for some 600 years. For the first 300 years (the standard 10 times the half-life calculation) the levels remain of regulatory concern, but for 300 more years the radiation is still detectable. As there is no safe dose, these levels are still significant and still a hazard. When it lands on the soil it bio-concentrates in grass, fruit and vegetables to many times background levels. It then bio-concentrates tens to thousands of times more, in meat and milk, as animals eat the fruit and vegetation. It concentrates the highest in the human body, the top of the food chain. It is very worrying that it is not, in fact, the adult human body, but that of the newborn infant, which is at the very top of this chain. Because cesium resembles potassium, which is ubiquitous in every cell in our body, it tends to concentrate most highly in brain, muscle, ovary and testicles. There it can cause brain cancer, muscle cancers (rhabdomyosarcomas), ovarian or testicular cancer and, most importantly, mutate genes in the eggs and sperm to cause genetic diseases in future generations.

Strontium 90 is a high-energy beta emitter, half-life 28 years, detectably radioactive for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it is known as a bone-seeker. It concentrates in the food chain, specifically milk (including breast milk), and is laid down in bones and teeth in the human body, where it can irradiate a bone forming cell, or osteoblast, causing bone cancer; or mutate a white blood cell in the bone marrow which can initiate leukemia, a cancer of the white blood cells.

Radioactive iodine 131 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 8 days, so it is a hazard for twenty weeks. It bio-concentrates in the food chain, in vegetables and milk, and specifically concentrates in the human thyroid gland where it is a potent carcinogen inducing thyroid disease and thyroid cancer.

Plutonium, one of the most deadly, is an alpha emitter. So toxic that one millionth of a gram will induce cancer if inhaled into the lung. It is transported from the lung by white blood cells, then laid down in thoracic lymph nodes where it can induce Hodgkins disease or lymphoma. Because it is an iron analogue it combines with the iron transporting protein transferring and concentrates in the liver, a cause of liver cancer; the bone marrow in the hemoglobin molecule, a cause of bone cancer, leukemia, or multiple myeloma. It concentrates in the testicles and ovaries where it can induce testicular or ovarian cancer, and/or mutate genes to induce genetic disease in future generations. It is one of the few toxic substances  that can cross the placental barrier which protects the embryo. Once lodged within the embryo, the alpha particle could kill a cell that would form the left side of the brain, or the right arm- like thalidomide, the morning sickness drug, did years ago.

The half-life of plutonium is 24,400 years, so it can cause harm for 500,000 years; inducing cancers, congenital deformities, and genetic diseases for the rest of time. Not only in humans, but in all life forms.

Plutonium is also fuel for atomic bombs. Five to ten pounds will fuel a weapon which would vaporize a city. Each reactor makes 500 pounds of plutonium a year. It is postulated that one pound of plutonium, if adequately distributed, could kill every person on earth from cancer.

Fact number seven

In summary, the radioactive contamination and fallout from nuclear power plant accidents will have medical ramifications that will never cease. It will affect future generations, in human terms, forever; inducing epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease.

A future post will address the medical effects of leaking radioactive waste, which will contaminate the environment for the rest of time.

Last thoughts:

This is a pivotal time in human history. We watch radiation slowly blanket Japan, a country with 4 reactors in trouble, in the midst of the worst industrial accident in history, facing an uncertain future of terrible health effects, and catastrophic environmental damage. We watch, helpless, as Fukushima fallout traverses the Northern Hemisphere, turning up in milk, food, and water; on tourists in airports; and products in shipping bays around the world. We are seeing, and understanding, that all fallout is local.

There is a reactor in the U.S. in the middle of the flooding Missouri River and another just downstream, also in danger should major dams fail. Wildfires recently raged within 2 miles of the Los Alamos National Labs grounds, a storage place for high and low level nuclear waste from the Cold War, an area where miles and miles of burning land is contaminated by legacy fallout from atomic testing. Similar wildfires raged over contaminated land in Russia last summer. With aging nuclear reactors and weapons becoming both more volatile, and more vulnerable, it is time to ask again, this time more forcefully: what is peaceful about nuclear power?

We are staring global warming in the face. Water shortage, famine, rising temperatures, wild weather, and climate refugees in numbers unseen in history are staring back at us.
You can’t stare down climate change as the nuclear industry would like to, instead we need to power down our old, wasteful and expensive, dangerous sources of energy and start plugging in to a renewable, sustainable, energy future. We have the money, we have the technology, and we have the time- just barely. If politicians lack the political will, then now is the time for the will of the people to speak louder. There is no other world suitable for life. We either change, or we see the end of this world as we know it.

Helen Caldicott

http://www.helencaldicott.com/2011/07/internal-radioactive-emitters-invi...

I know she's anti nuke bringing bias into play. so I ask can anyone discredit her facts they are in fact startling.

Concede Facts 1 - 6

:

I concede Caldicott Fact 1 - 6, but reject her fatalistic prognosis. These Malthusians never offer any hope or practical and incremental steps to constructively address the challenges of civilization.

We presently confront a gang of liars, thieves and killers. I think it possible, perhaps likely that we shall prevail over these corporate and governmental looters and the Malthusians.

Upton Sinclair is credited with the expression, “fascism is capitalism plus murder". There appears to be a wide spread rebirth of de facto fascism on the world scene, which again threatens human rights. The threat is directed against our liberties, property, health and lives. The threat eminates from corporate, governmental and pseudo-scientific sources. Fascism and communism have been long discredited in theory and practice. Still, here they come at us again with their Hobson’s Choices.

Ok, I will comment on all

Ok, I will comment on all her points briefly.

1. The reports claim that no dose of radiation is safe. However the reports do not go below 2 REM dose, which is a high dose. So claiming that no radiation is safe when you have no studies of dose below 2 Rem is just an assumption. Most people get around 200 mRem a year. Also, the studies in the BEIR reports are mostly done on animals and then they multiply by a "human factor" to convert to how human bodies will react. That usually does not give accurate results, many animals do worse off than humans when exposed and some do better.

2. True

3. Yes ionizing radiation can cause cancer. She makes it sound like breathing in one radioactive particle will cause cancer. Although theoretically possible, it is unlikely. Our bodies are design very well and there are numerous mutations that must occur to cause cancer. We have evolved in an environment surrounded by radiation. That is one reason why are skin is so good at protecting us.

4. True, this is just a general fact about cancer.

5. There has been no proof of a new generation having genetic issues from radiation. This has always surprised scientists. The most accurate and long running study on the effects of radiation is the atomic bomb study. These people were exposed to huge doses very quickly. There was not one shred of evidence pointing to genetic mutation in offspring, even to the babies who were in the womb when they were exposed.

6. Yes alpha rays are dangerous if you ingest material that produces them. Just a reminder that a good portion of your natural dose is from radon. Radon is gas that you breath in, it decays in your lung and gives off an alpha. The decay product is not a gas and settles in your lung and also decays by alpha.

Here statement on neutrons is false. The reactors are no longer emitting neutrons and are not intermittently going critical. That is just a lie.

Cs does bioaccumlate. It is not being released in the air anymore.

Here statements on Pu are just overblown. Yes, a small amount of Pu in your lung can cause cancer. The amount she quotes is actually a large amount. Pu is dangerous, but one should compare it to other poisons. She states a small amount can cause cancer later in your life. Well compared to some poisons from snakes, which the equal amount will kill you in 5 minutes. Some pesticides will also kill you in that small of quantity. She also says what if a Pu atoms gets lodged near a fetus during development. It can destroy the brain. That is just such an unlikely situation. Why doesn't she tell everyone to live underground because what about the situation of a 100 GeV proton hitting a developing fetus. If you want to know what happens when a 100 GeV proton hits something, just imagine shooting a missile at a glass house. She is a bit off for the minimum Pu needed to make a bomb, but I will let that slide.

7. Yes a lot of these elements will be around for a couple hundred years. However, most are in such low concentrations they are not dangerous. She keeps attacking nuclear power for emitting radioactive materials during accidents, yet she never seems to go after coal plants. Coal plants release far more radioactive materiel into the air, and also that material is all alpha emitters.

8. Only 3 reactors in trouble in Japan, I have no idea how she can just add one more. Not the worst, Chernobyl is still far worse. She shouldn't use a statement about global warming since a lot of her arguments mirror the strategy used by the anti-global warming crowd. Plugging renewables is nice, but I feel like she does not know much about them. Talk about cancer, how much radioactive material do you think gets emitted by blowing up the earth to get the rare metals needed for renewable. Does she know the cancer rates from lithium used in battery power storage. Lithium sites are dead zones. I like renewables, but you have to look at the whole picture. One cannot have a narrow view.

Correction to your claims, & the wisdom of Einstein and mothers

It sounds like you haven't been on this forum for very long. I encourage you to read over the innumerable, intelligent postings on these areas you discuss. There is a lot of excellent information here.

I would start by check out Fairewinds.com to start. Most of us has been following the site from the beginning. Everything Arne Gundersen said about the disaster in Fukushima has come true, despite what the "official" line was from TEPCO and the government. The reports from TEPCO now admit the disaster IS indeed much worse than Chernobyl and the releases are in fact still happening.

Regarding your statement: "Cs does bioaccumulate. It is not being released anymore."

1. Read TEPCO's latest report on ongoing June emissions of Cs-134 and Cs-137 of "upper limit is approximately 1 BILLION Bq/per hour" (yes, that's right: per HOUR, not day...)

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110719e...

2. Then read this insightful analysis of how TEPCO cleverly only mentions levels of Cs being released in air, and not any other radioisotopes, nor what is being released into the sea: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/1-billion-becquerels-per-hour-emissio...

And no mention of I-131, which is incidentally still being found in radioactive sludge in Tokyo as of July 4-5: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/iodine-131-still-detected-in-sewage.html Why???

Also, in all due respect, the old, tired argument of point #7 asking why the coal industry isn't getting more of the blame, seems to be nothing more than an N Industry red herring argument to deflect the much-deserved growing critical attention on the long-lasting dangers and logistical nightmare of an ever-growing nuclear waste problem. Sigh...

To once again to try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes and continue use this argument is to sound like a little boy who tries to draw attention away from the fact that he just smashed the neighbor's window with a baseball by pointing his finger at his friend, blaming him because he was doing "bad things" too. Just because the friend did something bad doesn't take the responsibility of the boy's shoulders who through the ball through the window (even if it was an accident...).

And it certainly doesn't make the bad go away. Two wrongs don't make a right--and blaming other industries won't help us clean up an impossible, exponentially-growing amount of nuclear waste we face ourselves with.

Both boys need to be sent to their rooms, but first, they need to clean up their respective toxic messes and promise NEVER to play with these dirty toys again.

Of course, cleaning up their hazardous nuclear waste toys will take the rest of their lifetimes, so they never will actually make it back to their rooms. In fact, the clean up will sadly also take their children's and grandchildren's lifetimes(who btw NEVER asked for this terrible responsibility put upon their shoulders by their myopic nuclear power cheerleader grandfathers...). A true crime against humanity, pushing this deadly waste of onto future generations to have to "deal with it."

Case in point: Hanford, the largest SUPER FUND site (just one of many) needs over $1 billion a year to clean up a mess that is so huge, there is in reality NO END IN SIGHT of the ongoing clean up. They are asking for over $2 billion from the Fed. govt. for 2012 alone! Who's got the money to pay for this site alone, given our HUGE Federal debt??? (And don't get me started on the Los Alamos fire that threatened the lab there...and burned over areas where lots of old time nuclear waste was dumped into unlined pits. Out of sight, out of mind, right? Another clean up nightmare only now unfolding. )

Given these costly facts (of the cost benefit analysis alone, not even weighing the HUGE risks to human life as we know it), how could anyone come up with a valid argument to even consider continuing nuclear power as a viable option for our future?

These bad little boys need to get started cleaning up their mess immediately, and leave it to the grownups in the room who exhibit wisdom, intelligence and most importantly, a true, deep concern for all of humanity to pull the plug on the entire mess, and shut down their dirty toys NOW, before the problem becomes exponentially worse for generations to come.

How much more environmental stress can our planet take to its ecosystems before they collapse and we collapse with them??? Do we really want to keep pushing our Earth to the limit and find out? I don't.

Even if, as you state, "most of these elements are such low concentrations they are not dangeous" were true, (Ha! That's got to be a joke, right?) the amount of psychological terror being leashed upon the world's citizens is reason enough to stop this madness.

Thanks to a sad new awareness brought to us by the terrible disaster at Fukushima, now one can't help but wonder if their local reactor will be next to blow and their families will be the next to suffer. And thanks to the Internet, the Truth about the dangers of nuclear power is no longer able to be hidden by those whose vested interests depend on it.

You know, I can't help but wonder how very different the situation today would be if there were more mothers who had been decision makers in the upper echelons of the Powers That Be from the start?

No doubt, if more of a gender balance had been struck, there would be more SENSE, HEART, and COMPASSION and a CONSCIENCE brought into the cold, hard "science" of nuclear physics by the life-bearing mothers of this world, who well know the sweet preciousness of life...they would surely help add an important reminder of the value and importance of ALL of humanity. Then surely Albert Einstein's warnings and pleas to those PTB to cease nuclear activities (see below) would have been heeded...

I will close here with a question, and some words of wisdom from Rabelais and Einstein:

Question: Who wants to live the rest of their lives with the fear of being the next victim of a nuclear accident, and even more importantly, who would want this fear to be our legacy we leave to our children?

Answer: Not any person alive with a brain, a heart, a moral compass and a conscience.

"Science without conscience is the soul's perdition."
— François Rabelais (Pantagruel)

And Einstein:

"But we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

"We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

"We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

Albert Einstein, in The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, February 14, 1950 (http://being.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsethics/einstein-russellma...)

I see someone has never

I see someone has never thought of risk analysis. My point on coal was this. What is worse 100 human deaths or 1. Now you can claim that one human death related to a technology is too much, but we live in a world with risks. To argue this vehemently against nuclear but not argue against coal or really any technology that harms is just crazy. Here is my point. We as humans need electricity now. So, how do you suppose we get it. Coal is by far the easiest way, but it kills thousands per year. Oil and natural gas are nice, but they kill hundreds per year too. Hydro is nice, but it is tapped out here in the US and hydro accidents kill thousands. Wind is too weak, you need to build a lot of windmills. They kill more people per year than nuclear. Solar thermal is nice, but hard to transfer energy to the grid. PV is terrible, it is weak and expensive. We live in a dangerous world that has risks. We take these risks, the risks associated with nuclear are far less than other choices. Scientists know that, that is why anyone who knows anything about nuclear power is for it. That is why you don't see any Nobel prize scientists against nuclear.

who let the dog out

you seem to be making the outrageous, mawkish and unsubstantiated claim that nuclear energy is safe. prove this irrational and mostly "both eyes wide shut" inaccurate assertion. the chronic bandwagon fallacy that you employ here is ridiculous, unreasonable and unscientific. and it makes a very poor substitute for industry propaganda.

pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.

"Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power is for it"???

I'm sorry, but I cannot waste my time trying to engage in an intelligent conversation with someone who makes a statement like that.

I will close with this:

We can and must do better in finding sustainable energy sources which do not poison the Earth with their deadly waste that lasts for thousands of years.

NO EXCUSES.

I have faith in the intelligence and unlimited creative potential of man(and woman)kind to come up with a better way.

I believe we can too, but

I believe we can too, but what do you suggest we do in the mean time? We have been 30 years from fusion for the last 50 years.

Arnie Gundersen has been

Arnie Gundersen has been wrong, several times. Including his idea of a prompt criticality at the spent fuel pool of reactor number 3 being the main source of releases, when it was the rupture of the suppression pool in number 2 which originated the major part; his mention of a criticality event on the spent fuel pool at reactor number 4, which was shown to be basically intact later on; the presence of plutonium and uranium from Fukushima in US soil, which was the result of the omission of the detection limits on some third rate blog article; the presence of americium from Fukushima on the East Coast, of which he has not provided a single evidence; the definition of the "hot particles" found in Tokyo and Seattle as "fuel fleas", when in reality what Marco Kaltofen has found in Tokyo is basically Cesium 134 & 137; the amount of those "hot particles" an average person in Tokyo (10) and Seattle (5) would have breathed per day during April, of which there's no base and we have been waiting results for 3 months already; his presentation of the "black rain" in reference to fallout outside of the evacuation zone as it was a new phenomenon, when the official data made public by the Japanese government back in March already showed those results...

And finally we have his conviction that Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl, when a single look at the maps of surface contamination in Europe by Cesium-137 show that the contaminated area was hundreds of times larger and for most territories at much higher concentrations. Not to mention that the estimates of total releases are still between 20-40% of what was released in Chernobyl.

And you say that Fukushima is still releasing 1 BILLION becequerels per hour! Oh my god, one billion, that's a lot of zeros. That must be a lot, right?

You have just proved that you haven't learned a thing during all the time you have spent in this forum.

Who are you going to believe? Arne or the vested interests?

Oh my. No need to get so snippy. I wasn't attacking YOU personally...I don't even know you. ;-)

But I understand. I venture to guess that most nuclear apologists are a bit testy these days, considering all the bad press the N industry is getting.

I do need to clarify a couple of things in response to your post.

To start, the previous poster had said: "Cs does bioaccumlate."

But if this is true (and it indeed is), then your cavalier comment trying to minimize the fact that 1 billion bqs of Cesium are being released per hour into their air is meant to what? Reassure the Japanese people that there is no need to worry about an obvious resulting bio accumulation of cesium in their environment and food supply???

It was a good try...but somehow, I don't think ANYONE feels better or reassured having read your comment. Would YOU want to live near a reactor that was continuing to spew so many Cs into the air? (I guess you might, if you were to hide your head in the sand and pretend that the countless studies that have been done demonstrating the harmful health effects of radiation exposure are just myths.)

And let's clarify something else:

Fukusima's problems are STILL unfolding. Time will tell just how bad it really is. So creating silly arguments about which nuclear disaster was/is worse than the other, in order to obfuscate things is just that: silly.

But you can bet one thing: The entire world is now watching this tragic disaster as it continues to unfold very closely, thanks to the Internet.

With Chernobyl, the Soviet propaganda machine was able to work its magic and squelch much of the facts about its consequences.

And though Western propaganda machines are very much alive and well today, there is a big difference in today's world in the way information gets disseminated today, thanks to the Internet.

This issue is NOT going to go away, or get swept covered under the rug (or dumped into unlined pits, as the case may be). The "genie has been let out of the bottle" indeed.

Bottom line is this:

It all boils down to who you are going to trust:

1. An industry that has EVERYTHING to lose if the public consensus finally once and for all turns its back on nuclear power,

or:

2. Highly-respected scientists like former Manhattan project health physicists John Gofman and Karl Morgan who, after being involved in radiation exposure studies and experiments on humans from the very beginning (see below reference), and after seeing the truth about the dangers to human life, dedicated the rest of their lives trying to warn the public about the dangers of radiation exposure on humans?

Hmmm...who should we believe? The thinking person will no longer allow the smoke and mirrors tactics to cloud their vision.

Here are some good resources to help you get educated on the subject:

Read John Gofman's enlightening book "Poisoned Power" here: http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/

Also, read an Oral History with Karl Morgan done in 1995 by the "Office of Human Radiation Experiments" (lovely title, eh?) at the Department of Energy, about his work helping to conduct radiation exposure experiments on humans.

There were in fact dozens of such oral histories done, all of which appear on the DOE website...however, at the moment, Morgan's history and the others currently seem to be "unavailable" for some strange reason....Perhaps someone can contact their webmaster to request they please fix the links?

As such, I am pasting a cached copy of the Table of Contents here, so you can see what topics he covered.

Here are a few choice chapter headings:

"Plutonium Injection Studies at an Oak Ridge Military Hospital (1945)"

and:

"Studies in Uranium Ingestion, Injection, and Inhalation"

and:

"Influence of Secrecy in Decisions About Radiation Exposure"

Morgan's oral history demonstrates that they very well knew the effects
of radiation exposure as far back as 1945 and that secrecy was indeed part of the equation back then...

Here's the entire cached text of the Table of Contents:

Oral Histories:

Roadmap to the Project

DOE/EH-0475

HUMAN RADIATION STUDIES:
REMEMBERING THE EARLY YEARS

Oral History of Health Physicist Karl Z. Morgan, Ph.D.

Conducted January 7, 1995

United States Department of Energy
Office of Human Radiation Experiments
June 1995

CONTENTS

Foreword
Short Biography
College and Graduate School in North Carolina; Unintentionally Joining the Manhattan Project in Chicago in 1943
Chosen for the New Field of Health Physics (1943)
Determining Safe Doses for Ionizing Radiation at Chicago (1943)
Developing New Dosimetry Instrumentation
Arrival at Oak Ridge (1943)
Creating a Health Physics Division (1943–44)
Concern for the Radiological Safety of Workers and the Nearby Public
Participation in Human Erythema Dose Studies, Using Phosphorus-32 (1943–44)
Human Research Protocols; Informed Consent
Plutonium Injection Studies at an Oak Ridge Military Hospital (1945)
Oak Ridge Committees (Isotope Distribution, Human Use, et al.)
Studies in Uranium Ingestion, Injection, and Inhalation
Struxness and Bernard Go to a Boston Hospital to Assist in Studies in Radioisotope Injection Toxicity (Mid-'50s)
Criticizes Therapy Practiced at ORNL's Total-Body Irradiation Facilities
Hidden Military Funding to Explore Radiological Warfare During the Cold War
Atmospheric Releases of Short-Lived Isotopes Over Grazing Pastures
Developing a Chemical Dissolving Process to Remove Iodine From the Irradiated Uranium Slugs
Plans Laid for Atmospheric Releases of Radioisotopes
Unintentionally Widespread Dispersion From Phosphorus-32 Atmospheric Releases
Influence of Secrecy in Decisions About Radiation Exposure
Advice for Disposing of Tritium Safety Rebuffed by NRC
Chairing the Public Health Fund (1980–92)
Vanderbilt University Study of Pregnant Women and Iron-59
Difficulty Obtaining Historical Information, Despite Freedom of Information Act
Studies on Nuclear Waste Storage Issues

Have fun!

"The most accurate and long

"The most accurate and long running study on the effects of radiation is the atomic bomb study. These people were exposed to huge doses very quickly."

I have a question about this. Didn't the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima get also affected by fallout? Iodine-131, Cesium-137, Strontium-90, Plutonium... The studies may have not taken this into account, but the contamination of air, soil and the food chain should have occurred, or am I completely wrong?

That was taken into account.

That was taken into account. The study is still happening. They have been studying not only the survivors, but the offspring and the offspring of the offspring. It is from this study that they came up with the LNT model. Now the lowest dose for this study is I believe 25 rem, which is still a very high dose. At that level the study shows around a 1% increased risk of cancer. It is a really good study and is really the best study out there on radiation health effects.

Then why is Busby going

Then why is Busby going around the world saying that the effects of internal dose has not been measured?

It is not well studied,

It is not well studied, mainly because you can't give people radioactive materials to eat. Busby is right that the amount of information about internal is very limited, but it has been studied. We have been getting internal doses since we evolved from single celled organisms. Our bodies can deal with it well. Radon is an internal dose.

the above commenter is

the above commenter is lying.

I think we’re all screwed,

I think we’re all screwed, to put it politely.

It could be that even enenews has not grasped the magnitude of this one.

Obviously, those at the top have.

ok

Ok I am not an expert, and I do not qualify to discredit her facts.

I do trust her.

I think she has good reason to be an activist. Being an activist doesn't make her facts false. Did you ever think of why she might spend all of her time acting as an activist ? It might be she is concerned about what she knows !!! And wants to help others.

However, in the case of Ann Coulter, and George Mombiat, I do find they are silly puppets dancing around like sponge heads, while opening up their wallets for the cash flow for what they say from the bad boys. And the couple does not have the credentials, studies, or qualifications to back up their claims.

IMHO.

”Did you ever think of why

”Did you ever think of why she might spend all of her time acting as an activist?"

Well, it's better than working.

What ?

Being an activist in not better than working ! LOL

It is more work, and you get all kinds of people that want to claw at you.

A regular medical practice say 9 to 5 three days a week and one day week of being on call is way better.

I know she does not enjoy all the travel. First the extra rads on the plane trips from Australia to Europe, to Canada ect. Next she does not eat food in Europe because of fall out.

So I think your answer is not adding up. The real reason she is an activist is because she knows the risks and wants us to understand she wants to change the system that is in place now for a better world tomorrow.

> Next she does not eat food

> Next she does not eat food in Europe because of fall out.

I noted that remark in a youtube video. So what does she do, because she was there for several days if not a week or more earlier this year? More to the point, what the blazes do those who want, or choose, to live there do? !

who let the dog out

hard to imagine.

pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.