Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite lower radiation exposure than legal limit

Sticky this thread! Rod's blog should preface everyone's excursion down the brawm rabbit hole. Mark, I'm dying to know, do you ever check who posts the anti nuke rants? Sometimes i feel like eighty percent of what is posted on here is from one guy with several aliases spewing propaganda.

Now that the truth is finally coming to light, I guess agencies like the WHO, the IAEA and the WNA/World Nuclear Association ("Representing the people and organizations of the nuclear power profession") will finally have to update their reports claiming there is no evidence of incidents of cancer from exposures of under 100 mSv a year.

Nuclear power plant workers and their families have the right to know this information about the real risks, as do the rest of us.

Here's the erroneous information as stated on the WNA website http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html- (The CAPS are added for emphasis):

"Radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possible risk to human health. However, available scientific evidence DOES NOT INDICATE ANY CANCER RISK or immediate effects at doses below 100 mSv a year. At low levels of exposure, the body's natural repair mechanisms seem to be adequate to repair radiation damage to cells soon after it occurs."

Tell that to these 10 workers at the Japanese nuclear power plants who got cancer at lower doses who were mentioned in the above-referenced article.

Note the article states that the nuclear plant operators in Japan will only recognize leukemia as a work-related illness which they are willing to compensate for. They won't recognize or compensate for most other cancers or illnesses, despite numerous studies proving all kinds of health risks from radiation exposure. This makes you wonder how many other workers got cancer and other illnesses from radiation exposure which we aren't hearing about because of their refusal to admit the truth? (and accept the liability). Shame on them.

Given the ever-increasing evidence of the lies our nuclear fathers told us, the story of these unfortunate men and their cancers from radiation exposure as nuclear power plant workers surely must represent only the tip of the iceberg to be uncovered now that the world's focus is on these issues.

We want the TRUTH. We deserve the TRUTH. We refuse to subsidize an industry that kills, cuts lives short, and lies while doing it, for what? To boil water and put money in their pockets. SHAME ON THEM.

It is unconscionable that the WHO and the IAEA would continue to try to discount/ignore the evidence from the 1500+ peer-reviewed scientific studies on the health effects from Chernobyl fallout conducted by respected scientists and medical professionals in Russia. (see Yablokov's book: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf)

It is unconscionable that they would instead claim that out of the 4,995 deaths of the 61,000 emergency workers at Chernobyl, only 4.6% of those could be attributable to radiation-induced diseases. Only 4.6%??? Do they really think the public is that stupid to believe their obvious cover up of the truth?

But worse than that, their efforts to downplay the fact that after Chernobyl, at LEAST 4,000 children in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (1152 children in Belarus alone between 1986-2002) were diagnosed with thyroid cancer is just SHAMEFUL!!!

After stating those numbers, they quickly brag of a "98.8% survival rate". Pardon my sarcasm, but are they really expecting us to believe that the poor families of the children who got thyroid cancer from radiation exposure from Chernobyl were ok with it, since after all, their children ultimately survived their undeserved, decades-long, post-fallout physical and psychological suffering, even if their doctors had to remove their thyroids first? Do they expect us all to jump for joy and call for more nuclear power plants to be built in our neighborhoods? Give us a break.

And even if you are foolish enough to believe their statistics over those from the peer-reviewed studies done by actual doctors and scientists who lived and worked in the region, anyone can see what an obvious ploy it is, used to deflect criticism from the fact these kids got cancer, and that even just ONE child contracting thyroid cancer from nuclear radiation exposure is ONE TOO MANY!

I repeat:

Even just ONE child contracting thyroid cancer, leukemia or any other type of cancer or illness due to nuclear radiation exposure is ONE TOO MANY. Period.

The children of Chernobyl and now the children of Fukushima didn't ask to be exposed to radiation. Their parents did not sanction it. The public did not agree to be exposed to radiation.

If anything good can come out of Fukushima, it is this: slowly, the public is getting educated about the true and ever-growing dangers we are constantly exposed to by the nuclear industry and their faultily designed, aging nuclear reactors and their ever-growing, ever-lasting piles of radioactive waste which no one seems to know exactly what to do with.("Not in MY backyard!")

How many of us even knew until Fukushima that ALL nuclear power plants release "low levels" of radiation every time they vent steam? Where does that "low level" radiation go? We live in a closed environment. Our atmosphere can only take so much pollution.

What can we do about it? Have the EPA and our governments and international "health" agencies and nuclear regulatory agencies just continue to raise the "background" radiation levels we are "naturally" exposed to, and raise the "acceptable levels" of human radiation exposure??? That is unacceptable. Our lungs and bodies can only take so much radiation exposure. Then what?

How many of us knew until now about the studies showing women within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power plant having a higher rate of breast cancer?

How many of us knew before the recent 3-part expose report by the Associated Press that a majority of U.S. nuclear power plants are leaking tritium?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/radioactive-tritium-leaks-us-nu...

(and most likely they are leaking other radioisotopes, but they aren't telling us...my guess is that they only admit to tritium leaking to again deflect attention away from the fact if one radioisotope is leaking, there is a good likelihood that other, more long-lasting, more dangerous radioisotopes are leaking along with it...)

How many of the parents in Fukushima knew beforehand that their government and the nuclear industry would lie to them and betray them, failing to adequately respond to their desperate requests for help, in effect abandoning them and their children during such a crucial time following the nuclear disaster?

How many of us in other nations can be sure our governments wouldn't do the same, given the impossible task of meeting the needs of millions of affected people after such a large scale nuclear disaster? How many of us can be sure our own governments (with the help of the mainstream media) would not instead try to cover up the truth, lie, or simply pretend everything was ok, simply because the scale of the disaster response needed was too huge and unmanageable and/or they didn't want to create a panic?

It is sheer madness to continue as taxpayers to subsidize any industry which exposes us to such ultimately unmanageable, senseless risks. Why should we continue to agree to allow ourselves to be exposed to the fear and real risks of possible future radiation exposures, or to the headaches of long-term waste clean up and storage problems, simply because we need to find a way to boil water?

The WHO's report goes on to report another lie by saying: "There has been no increase attributable to Chernobyl in congenital abnormalities, adverse pregnancy outcomes or any other radiation-induced disease in the general population either in the contaminated areas or further afield."

Again, read Yablokov's book summarizing the medical reports, and discover the horrible truth for yourself:

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

Finally, I found this choice tidbit on the WNA website about how the international "radiological protection authorities" came up with their radiation protection "standards" (i.e. how much exposure to radiation is ok) (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html):

"The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) set up in 1928 is a respected source of recommendations and guidance on radiation protection, and its recommendations are widely followed by national health authorities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has published international radiation protection standards since 1962. It is the only UN body with specific statutory responsibilities for radiation protection and safety. Its Safety Fundamentals are applied in basic safety standards and consequent Regulations.

"In any country, radiation protection standards are set by government authorities, generally in line with recommendations by the ICRP, and coupled with the requirement to keep exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) - taking into account social and economic factors. The authority of the ICRP comes from the scientific standing of its members and the merit of its recommendations.

"The three key points of the ICRP's recommendations are:
• Justification. No practice should be adopted unless its introduction produces a POSITIVE NET BENEFIT.
• Optimisation. All exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account.
• Limitation. The exposure of individuals should not exceed the limits recommended for the appropriate circumstances."

Let's stop there: Justification? Ask yourselves: Is it justifiable and morally right to allow even just ONE child to develop leukemia or thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure??? All for what? To boil water?

Let us, the PEOPLE decide what is justifiable. Not some commission that is far removed from the best interests of the citizens; but who are, rather, beholden to the best interests of the N industry.

And let us be clear: If, as they state, one needs to "take into account social and economic factors," in coming up with these radiological protection standards, it is the SOCIAL factors which need to TRUMP the economic ones. Our precious lives come first. And if radiation exposure from nuclear power threatens our health and the integrity and sanctity of our very DNA (which it does), we have no other choice than to pull the plug on nuclear before its too late.

It is time for those who work in the nuclear power industry, or those who are considering working in the industry, to examine their consciences. Our children deserve a safe, healthy childhood, free from fear of nuclear radiation exposure and the health risks it brings. And we as adult members of the public deserve the same.

Unless it can be proven that ZERO accidents will happen in the future, which is impossible as we know more accidents certainly would happen if we continued down the nuclear path, then it is time to pull the plug on nuclear, once and for all.

We simply can't afford, on many levels, to continue down this dangerous path.