Is The Fukushima Radiation Being Blown Out of Proportion?

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
Chernobyl 30 years on and the tragic generation of children blighted by a merciless cancer cloud

Great example article onawah, I'll do some analysis on it later tonight.

This is a very good example of how disinfo can paint a completely different picture from reality.

[onawah]

With respect, Target, it wasn't the emotional nature of the article which prompted me to post it, nor was it because I wanted to provide more grist for your mill, but because of what it brought up for me, which I expressed before copying the article, as follows:

But it also highlights one of the questions this issue continue to bring up for me which is that we still don't really know what effects long term exposure to manmade radiation has on living things, and we don't know that much about the gradual mutation process and how harmful it may be.
Personally, I would rather be exposed to as few manmade toxins as possible, and as many combinations of manmade toxins as possible, which are even worse when combined.
I specify manmade radiation because it seems likely to me that it may prove to have different effects on lifeforms than natural forms of radiation.
I don't think our science is currently advanced enough or the research ongoing long enough to know much for certain as yet.
It certainly seems likely that certain individuals (like Target--who I think is well-meaning and not a shill, btw) are less susceptible to radiation than others, (as well as the matter of individual health, evidently there are lots of different sources of DNA currently evolving on the planet with different strengths and susceptibilities).
But more importantly, that children and especially fetuses are much more susceptible, as are certain other vulnerable life forms.
It's certainly welcome news if the problems of radiation exposure are not as bad as once thought, but the fact that we still have masses of nuclear plants built on the same design as Fukushima that may soon be crippled too, causing more hugely expensive and dangerous problems for the planet still must be the paramount consideration, imho.
To continue planning on nuclear energy as a primary source of energy when so many alternatives are available and more coming soon, hopefully, of a much higher order is madness, and that should not be minimized.
I have friends in San Diego, and while it has been a comfort to me to know that the ongoing problems of radiation migrating from Fukushima to the West Coast MAY not be as bad as I originally thought (though I'm not convinced) and the fact that San Onofre is still likely a disaster in the making continues to be a worry.
And I don't see any solution to that in the near future--in fact, it seems more likely that at least one of those plants in the US is going to blow before any changes can be implemented, and even more likely that more of the plants in Japan are going to blow, as well, before we will see an end to nuclear plants altogether.

[DNA]

Hi Onawah


With respect, most of the damage done by Chernobyl was done by the initial radiation exposure. These top notch experts below had this to say about what happened. I suggest watching the video but the pertinent information is below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAGe18uftmI

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tAGe18uftmI

Narrator: UNSCEAR – the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation – was set up by the UN General Assembly in 1955. For the last 25 years, it has examined in detail the impact to health and the environment of the Chernobyl accident.
UNSCEAR’s principal officer is British scientist, Dr Malcolm Crick.
Malcolm Crick: "After Chernobyl, the only public health impact that we have seen has been the more than 6,000 thyroid cancers amongst those people who were children at the time of the accident, drinking contaminated milk. Of those 6,000 or more cases, perhaps 15 have died. It’s not a very fatal disease – thyroid cancer – if it’s caught early and treated properly. Then when we think about other effects, actually there’s no really good persuasive evidence of any public health impact due to radiation from the accident, other than the thyroid cancers. Most people find that kind of hard to believe, but in fact that’s the case."
Narrator: Professor Gerry Thomas, from London’s Imperial College, is a world authority on molecular pathology. She's also a Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, an international initiative to collect biological samples from those exposed to radioactive iodine in childhood – work that has led Dr Thomas to reassess her views on nuclear energy.
Gerry Thomas: "The health consequences of a nuclear power accident may not be as bad as we first thought. I was anti-nuclear until I started working on Chernobyl. Now, no problem at all."
"The results of the studies that were carried out post-Chernobyl, which were big international studies, have not been what we might have expected from the outset. Those studies have shown that there is only one thing that we can pin down to being due to radiation and that’s the sharp increase of thyroid cancer in those who were very young at exposure to the Chernobyl accident."
Abel Gonzalez: "In the case of Chernobyl, there was a lot of iodine being released, and, very important, nobody told the population that this iodine was there and that the milk was contaminated with this iodine."
Narrator: Professor Abel Gonzalez, from Argentina, is Deputy Chairman of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, a body of the world’s leading scientists and policy makers which, since 1928, has set guidelines for governments around the world.
Abel Gonzalez: "Mothers, who didn’t know that an accident had happened, these mothers were giving contaminated milk to their children; very heavily contaminated milk. Not surprising, the children had a very high dose of radiation in their thyroid, and not surprising, a lot of children – mainly in Belarus, but also in Ukraine and in Russia - got thyroid cancer that can be attributed to Chernobyl."
Malcolm Crick: "If we think of the emergency workers after Chernobyl, there were 134 people who got acute radiation sickness from the first few days of very high exposures after the accident. And 28 of those people died within the first month or so. Then when we look further on in time, those people who've got problems with skin injuries still and they’ve got problems with cataracts, but only about 19 or 20 people have died in the period since the accident and not all of those deaths can be attributed to radiation; In fact, many of them are clearly not due to radiation."
Narrator: So the voice of leading scientific bodies is clear. The only observable public health impact due to radiation after Chernobyl has been the more than 6000 thyroid cancers, of which only around 15 have proven fatal. As for the emergency workers who received the highest doses, fewer than 50 have died.
These numbers – while significant - represent a fraction of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of victims predicted after the accident. Frequently misunderstood by the public, radiation dose is determined by the type and amount of radiation we are exposed to. It’s measured in the International Standard Unit of millisieverts.
Professor Thomas on the doses received by residents living around the Chernobyl plant:
Gerry Thomas: "Now this is the figure that – when I saw it – made me think: that nicely puts it into perspective. The whole-body doses to 6 million residents is about 9 millisieverts. So each person got about 9 millisieverts. And 80% of that lifetime dose was delivered by 2005. Now, 9 millisieverts is about what any of us will get when we go and have a CT scan. Do we sit there and panic about having a CT scan? No, we don’t. And we need to make sure that we keep that in mind when we think about accidents like this. We expose ourselves to radiation voluntarily. We can’t avoid it; we live in a radioactive world."
Narrator: Naturally occurring background radiation is the main exposure to radiation for most people globally. Levels typically range from 1.5 - 3.5 millisieverts per year. However, there are several places in India, Iran and Europe, where doses can be more than 50 millisieverts a year. Medical procedures, such as X-rays, account for most of the remaining 12% of a typical person’s annual dose.

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)

we still don't really know what effects long term exposure to manmade radiation has on living things

But we do, it's a very natural process, radiation damage isn't very different from other damage as far as our chromosones are concerned, either way it involves damage to the DNA structure and shortening of the tolemers.

DNA damage is, dna damage... the source doesn't matter so much, radiation, carcinogen, these can even be damaged just by normal cell division (though that's generally more rare). And after the initial damage is done it's pretty much over (now continued damage is possible if an agent (radiation or carcinogen or what ever) is still present.. this would be the concern with cesium depositing in the body.. though that's still not a great indicator as we can see from Fukushima).

as far as your cells are concerned, you are biologically a brand new person every 7-15 or so years (different cells replace themselves at different rates, this is a semi/myth that holds a lot of truth).

"mutation" is just what happens when damaged dna connects in aberrant ways (other than normal) sort of like putting a puzzle together wrong; nothing magical or scary about it.

[onawah]

I wouldn't trust much of anything in the way of information from the UN, which has proven many times to have a NWO agenda.
I mean, what could any thinking person make of this statement from the UN report: [QUOTE]Gerry Thomas: "The health consequences of a nuclear power accident may not be as bad as we first thought. I was anti-nuclear until I started working on Chernobyl. Now, no problem at all."

Now, no problem at all." !!!!
No problem that the whole nuclear plant idea was never feasible in the first place, that they were designed to operate for a limited number of years and are way past their due date now, are incredibly expensive to operate and even more expensive when they break down or have to be dismantled???!!!
No problem that we have many much safer and cheaper ways to produce energy now?
It's all about vested interests, at this point, and that point keeps getting buried!!
Why continue to take the risks when it's unnecessary?
The controllers are pushing to keep those plants going, even to reactivate the ones that have been turned off.
It's madness!!

There is a website that was created by Arnie Gundersen at http://www.fairewinds.org/ which was designed to educate people about nuclear energy.
Arnie is an experienced expert and as far as I can tell, he has integrity and he's not a shill for anyone.
He also enlists other experts to give their feedback on the site, has a free email newsletter, and subscribers can ask questions.
I would feel much more confident of the information and statistics that were being quoted here were from a source like that.

I don't think enough time has passed for us to know the long term effects of radiation on coming generations, particularly since we are also being bombarded now with so many other dangerous toxins.
I doubt very much if anyone really has any idea about how they are all affecting life on the planet in combination.
The real solution, as far as I am can see,is not to debate how much or how little we are being affected, but to work on simply getting rid of the toxins and cleaning up our world.
And again, some are more vulnerable than others; I'm sure a lot of the statistics that have been quoted here have been based on averages.
No offense or accusation directed at you Target, but perhaps your DNA gives you more resistance than others to radiation.
It seems likely from a lot of whistleblower revelations that there are certain ET groups that would like to kill off a lot of the humans currently on the planet by bombarding them with toxins which are fatal to the latter, but harmless to the former. Maybe some of us have that DNA, without necessarily having that agenda...

The controllers were able to foist off vaccines on the public with claims that the collateral damage was minimal and therefore permissible, and so that made it all worth it, they said, no matter which or how many collateral lives were lost or ruined unnecessarily.
And as with vaccines, how many cases of radiation poisoning have been unreported, or attributed to other causes?
I don't think we have real statistics on that, and chances are we never will.

It's really kind of scary to me that there are conspiracy theorists who are trying to make the dangers of nuclear energy look minimal when what really needs to be done is make more people aware of the fact that we need to convert to much safer and cheaper methods asap and stop relying on what was never a good idea in the first place.

[onawah]

Blind mice and bird brains: the silent spring of Chernobyl and Fukushima

Linda Pentz Gunter

25th April 2016
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...fukushima.html

Evolutionary biologist Timothy Mousseau and his colleagues have published 90 studies that prove beyond all doubt the deleterious genetic and developmental effects on wildlife of exposure to radiation from both the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, writes Linda Pentz Gunter. But all that peer-reviewed science has done little to dampen the 'official' perception of Chernobyl's silent forests as a thriving nature reserve.

Although it's too early to assess the long term impact on abundance and diversity around Fukushima, there are very few butterflies and many birds have declined in the more contaminated areas. If abundance is compressed, biodiversity will follow.
Dr Timothy Mousseau has published more than 90 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, related to the effects of radiation in natural populations (and more than 200 publications in total).

He has spent 16 years looking at the effects on wildlife and the ecosystem of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

He and his colleagues have also spent the last five years studying how non-human biota is faring in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in Japan.

But none of this work has received anything like the high profile publicity afforded the 'findings' in the 2006 Chernobyl Forum report which claimed the Chernobyl zone "has become a wildlife sanctuary", and a subsequent article published in Current Biology in 2015 that said wildlife was "thriving" around Chernobyl.

"I suppose everyone loves a Cinderella story", speculated Mousseau, an evolutionary biologist based at the University of South Carolina. "They want that happy ending." But Mousseau felt sure the moment he read the Forum report, which, he noted, "contained few scientific citations", that the findings "could not possibly be true."

Ninety articles later, Mousseau and his research partners from around the world are able to demonstrate definitively and scientifically that non-human biota in both the Chernobyl zone and around Fukushima, are very far indeed from flourishing.

Far from flourishing around Chernobyl, birds and animals are fading

What Mousseau found was not unexpected given the levels of radiation in these areas and what is already known about the medical effects of such long-term exposures. Birds and rodents had a high frequency of tumors.

"Cancers are the first thing we think about", Mousseau said. "We looked at birds and mice. In areas of higher radiation, the frequency of tumors is higher." The research team has found mainly liver and bladder tumors in the voles and tumors on the head, body and wings of the birds studied, he said.

But Mousseau wanted to look beyond cancers, which is what everyone expects to find and what researchers had looked for, but only in humans. There were few wildlife studies, a fact Mousseau found surprising, given nature's ability to act as a sentinel for likely impending human health impacts.

Mousseau and his fellow researchers found cataracts in birds and rodents. Male birds had a high rate of sterility. And the brains of birds were smaller. All of these are known outcomes from radiation exposure.

"Cataracts in birds is a problem", Mousseau said. "A death sentence."

Mental retardation has been found among children exposed to radiation in utero. Mousseau and colleagues discovered the same pattern in the birds they studied. "Birds already have small brains, so a smaller brain size is a definite disadvantage", he said.

Almost 40% of male birds examined were sterile

There were also just fewer animals in general. "There were many fewer mammals, birds and insects in areas of higher radiation", Mousseau said. And they had their hunch as to why.

He and his colleagues extracted sperm from the male birds they caught and were shocked to find that "up to 40% of male birds in the radiologically hottest areas were sterile."

The birds' sperm were either deformed or dead. None would be able to reproduce. The discovery, he said, was "not at all surprising. These are the levels of radiation known to influence reproduction. At the same time, there is no safe level of radiation below which there aren't detectable effects."

Fewer birds have already been observed in the contaminated areas around Fukushima, said Mousseau. "Although it's too early to assess the long term impact on abundance and diversity around Fukushima, there are very few butterflies and many birds have declined in the more contaminated areas. If abundance is compressed, biodiversity will follow."

Five years into the still on-going Fukushima disaster, Mousseau's research continues to uncover "a dramatic reduction in the number of birds and numbers of species in areas of high radiation", he said.

At least in that region, Japan could be headed toward a Silent Spring.

No doubt that Fukushima and Chernobyl are causing genetic damage

The consequences of radiation exposure, says Mousseau, "will have a tremendous impact on the quality of life of these animals, and the length of quality of life. It need not necessarily be cancers", that cause these damages he said. "There is no doubt that the levels of radiation in Chernobyl and Fukushima generate genetic damage."

A study by Mousseau et al. that did get some attention, most notably from the Smithsonian Institution, found disturbing changes in the decomposition of organic matter in the Chernobyl Zone.

Fungi and other microorganisms are decomposing at half the usual rate. Trees fall but rot unusually slowly. Leaf matter piles up without much decay, creating a tinder-box risk in the event of forest fires, several of which have occurred in the Zone.

"There is an accumulation of highly radioactive organic matter" in these areas, Mousseau said. All of this could be lofted into the air during a forest fire and redistributed as radiological contamination elsewhere, he points out.

Indeed, a map in an April 2006 edition of National Geographic Magazine, shows that this has already happened, expanding the Chernobyl Zone from its original 30km radius. "High-altitude winds swept radioactive smoke and ash across a wider area, which scientists traced from soil levels of cesium 137, a long-lived isotope," read the map's caption. Major forest fires in the Chernobyl Zone in 2010 and 2015 have likely worsened the situation.

While the radiation spread by Chernobyl fell mostly on land, where it is easier to study the medical effects on humans and animals, the initial Fukushima radioactive plume blew mainly out to sea. And since 2011 when the accident began, further dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific has occurred.

A responsibility to protect the environment and wildlife, not just man

This has led to speculation - and some unscientific and alarmist rumors - that sea life in the Pacific is collapsing due to the Fukushima radiation.

"Catastrophic marine events started 40-50 years ago", Mousseau points out. "Bird populations in the Pacific were in decline long before Fukushima."

One important cause, says Mousseau, is "plastics in the environment that are consumed by marine animals which were in downward spirals long before the Fukushima accident." Marine population decline has likely also been "compounded by climate change", he says.

Indeed, Mousseau, who grew up on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, remembers the local harbor encrusted with star fish when he was a child. Recently, when he took his son there, he found none.

Fukushima cannot necessarily be blamed, as some would wish, but the compounding and potentially synergistic effect of radiation in the Pacific could still be taking its toll, Mousseau avowed.

"We don't know how different environmental stresses interact with each other", he said. "They could be synergistic and related. There is almost no research on this even in the Pacific off Fukushima - virtually nothing on the biological consequences in really contaminated areas."

With "little real science" to rely on, Mousseau says, "we will never know" just how much marine damage the Fukushima disaster may do.

He finds the continued lack of other independent animal studies in radioactive zones frustrating. "We have a responsibility to protect the environment and wildlife, not just man", he said. It may be expensive and difficult to conduct these kinds of studies, but, says Mousseau, "that is not an excuse."





Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a Takoma Park, MD environmental advocacy group.

The paper: 'Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas' is by Timothy A. Mousseau, Gennadi Milinevsky, Jane Kenney‑Hunt & Anders Pape Møller, and is published in Global Change Ecology. Full version as PDF.http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl...logia-2014.pdf

[DNA]

Posted by onawah (here)
I wouldn't trust much of anything in the way of information from the UN, which has proven many times to have a NWO agenda.
I mean, what could any thinking person make of this statement from the UN report:

Gerry Thomas: "The health consequences of a nuclear power accident may not be as bad as we first thought. I was anti-nuclear until I started working on Chernobyl. Now, no problem at all."

Greetings Onawah
Look, I'm with you. I really am.
I'm not the analytical logical man's man that TargeT is. Sorry Targe but I'm pretty sure there was a compliment in there for you somewhere.


I'm a lot like you, I have a flagrent distrust for all things with an official stamp.
If the media says one thing, I in turn think there is a hidden agenda and or a flagrant cover up involved.


But here is the thing...
I got to thinking.
I haven't heard any news and or media coverage stating that there was nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation at Fukushima. Nothing.
And get this.
I never once put a search into Youtube for anything Fukushima related. Not once. And yet everytime I open my youtube channel the page is suggesting I click all of these docs or interviews on how there is a massive problem with Fukushima.
The same thing with Facebook. I'm getting all of this information on how there is a massive disaster taking place at Fukushima and how it's all being covered up.
Here is what I have come to thing about that.


We in the alternative community we have come to believe youtube and facebook are our true sources for news. We have come to depend on these sources as good alternatives to the mainstream media. But you know what I think? I think the fix is in here as well.


A buddy of mine told me a story about his nephew. About how his nephew went to work doing computer code for the CIA. This same nephew left the CIA and was offered a job with this start up company called GOOGLE. This nephew was instrumental in putting together G-mail as we know it and my buddy said he still has one of the first G-mail accounts which was part of the beta-testing. So the reason I mention this is because this nephew started noticing familiar faces working at GOOGLE. Folks that he recognized as having worked at the CIA as well. My buddy was left with the impression, that his nephew was hinting that the CIA was responsible for GOOGLE. And just a word about that and how it relates to youtube, GOOGLE bought youtube and they are now the same company.


I say all of this because the alternative media is under attack and it has been compromised in a lot of ways.
And when I started taking a long hard look at this Fukushima thing, I found it very possible that this could be another area where we are being misinformed.

Posted by onawah (here)
The controllers are pushing to keep those plants going, even to reactivate the ones that have been turned off.
It's madness!!

I'm of the opinion that it's actually the opposite. I'm of the opinion that the controllers want to end nuclear energy. Fukushima has quite a bit of information pointing towards an intentionally created event. Was the earthquake that created the tsunami that damaged Fukushiama man made? I think it possible.
The result of attitudes in Japan is very anti-nuclear right now. Most of the reactors in Japan have been shut down as a result of Fukushima and the one plant that was opened back up amongst a myriad of protests from the Japanese people a couple of weeks ago had the big earth quake take place just ten miles from the facility. Almost as a warning.
If TPTB are now against nuclear energy and now wish to create anti-sentiment against using nuclear energy, I would guess we would see more accidents take place at various locations across the world.

Posted by onawah (here)
There is a website that was created by Arnie Gundersen at http://www.fairewinds.org/ which was designed to educate people about nuclear energy.
Arnie is an experienced expert and as far as I can tell, he has integrity and he's not a shill for anyone.
He also enlists other experts to give their feedback on the site, has a free email newsletter, and subscribers can ask questions.
I would feel much more confident of the information and statistics that were being quoted here were from a source like that.

I'm not saying Arnie Gunderson is a paid shill. But there are folks out there who's opinion I respect a lot who say he is.
It makes sense though. If we are going to have disinformation in the alternative community that there would be agents placed who are given a lot of publicity and accolades.

Posted by onawah (here)
I don't think enough time has passed for us to know the long term effects of radiation on coming generations, particularly since we are also being bombarded now with so many other dangerous toxins.
I doubt very much if anyone really has any idea about how they are all affecting life on the planet in combination.
The real solution, as far as I am can see,is not to debate how much or how little we are being affected, but to work on simply getting rid of the toxins and cleaning up our world.
And again, some are more vulnerable than others; I'm sure a lot of the statistics that have been quoted here have been based on averages.
No offense or accusation directed at you Target, but perhaps your DNA gives you more resistance than others to radiation.
It seems likely from a lot of whistleblower revelations that there are certain ET groups that would like to kill off a lot of the humans currently on the planet by bombarding them with toxins which are fatal to the latter, but harmless to the former. Maybe some of us have that DNA, without necessarily having that agenda...

The controllers were able to foist off vaccines on the public with claims that the collateral damage was minimal and therefore permissible, and so that made it all worth it, they said, no matter which or how many collateral lives were lost or ruined unnecessarily.
And as with vaccines, how many cases of radiation poisoning have been unreported, or attributed to other causes?
I don't think we have real statistics on that, and chances are we never will.

It's really kind of scary to me that there are conspiracy theorists who are trying to make the dangers of nuclear energy look minimal when what really needs to be done is make more people aware of the fact that we need to convert to much safer and cheaper methods asap and stop relying on what was never a good idea in the first place.

Notice how TPTB are suppressing anti-vaccine messages coming from the alternative media? They are not suppressing the Fukushima message one bit though. Just saying. And I respect your message here Onawah, I know it comes from a good place. And all in all, I could be absolutely wrong in all of this. But, my warning signs have gone off and I've really learned to trust my gut over the years. So I'm at the very least giving this message a chance. But I thank you for your voice and your thoughts.

[onawah]

I think the earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster was manmade also. DNA, and I appreciate where you are coming from too.
But I don't think it was because TPTB are anti-nuclear, I think it's because they wanted to punish Japan and bring them into line.
There are so many info sources with so many conflicting agendas now, it's a full time job trying to keep up with it all, and I don't have that much time, so I go with my gut too.
And basically, I think what we have now is runaway technology and what we need to do is what I felt all along back in my hippie back-to-Nature days, which is that humankind is not sophisticated or evolved enough to be messing around with things we don't really understand or barely understand, and we need to rethink everything that takes us away from living in harmony with Nature.
I think we've been given science that was too advanced for us, not to help us to advance, but to cause a whole lot of dysfunction because there are ETs who really, really don't want us to evolve, and if we don't get a grip,we are going to go through another huge planet wide extinction event that will include most of humanity.
I still have hope, but I sure don't think the answer is nuclear energy, and I could add a whole lot of other things that science has "blessed" us with.
But the thing about the nuclear question that so frustrates me is that I can't really find any info that really seems to be definitive, or a source that I absolutely trust.
But my gut feeling is that I sure as hell do not want to be living anywhere near a nuclear plant, especially one on a coastline, and I wish that the people I care about most in the world had the same viewpoint.

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
The paper: 'Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas' is by Timothy A. Mousseau, Gennadi Milinevsky, Jane Kenney‑Hunt & Anders Pape Møller, and is published in Global Change Ecology. Full version as PDF.http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl...logia-2014.pdf

So the article about blind mice and bird brains references a study about.................... leaf decomposition rates?!?


I feel like a kid that was promised candy and given a rock


That entire article can be safely labeled "opinion" until a study is done to back up what is being said.... and man o man, are there a LOT of unrelated opinions in there.. why even link to a leaf decomposition study when the article doesn't discuss that?

Out of the

90 studies that prove beyond all doubt the deleterious genetic and developmental effects on wildlife of exposure to radiation from both the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters

was this the most relevant one?

Why do I feel like a used car sales man just pulled a "bait and switch" on me?

I never once put a search into Youtube for anything Fukushima related. Not once. And yet everytime I open my youtube channel the page is suggesting I click all of these docs or interviews on how there is a massive problem with Fukushima.
The same thing with Facebook.

Google = Youtube, your search results in either effects the other (if you are "signed in") not sure about facebook, i dont partake.

Posted by DNA
I say all of this because the alternative media is under attack and it has been compromised in a lot of ways.

You're barking up the right tree my friend, I said screw it all and focus SOLELY on data... works much better that way (remember, the INTERNET was built by DARPA, social media funded by CIA & google... jeebus don't even go there! any company that has a motto of "do no evil" creeps me the hell out).

Posted by onawah (here)
But my gut feeling is that I sure as hell do not want to be living anywhere near a nuclear plant, especially one on a coastline, and I wish that the people I care about most in the world had the same viewpoint.

no reason NOT to follow that advice IMO... regardless of the motivation behind it when given.

[onawah]

The study is about what radiation does to wildlife and the environment, which appears to have quite an impact, and not a positive one.
The one study of leaves and birds (and microbes, which are extremely important to human health) is a small part of the 90 studies, so I don't think you can make a sound judgement after looking at only one.
In any case, that one looks to me like a well documented study, and it was contributed to by many scientists from different countries.
The list of references don't indicate it is an opinion piece at all:

References
Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition
in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos
79:439–449
Albers D, Migge S, Schaefer M, Scheu S (2004) Decomposition of
beech leaves (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce needles (Picea abies)
in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Soil Biol Biochem
36:155–164
Arkhipov NP, Kuchma ND, Askbrant S, Pasternak PS, Musica VV
(1994) Acute and long-term effects of irradiation on pine (Pinus
silvestris) stands post-Chernobyl. Sci Total Environ 157:383–386
Attiwill PM, Adams MA (1993) Nutrient cycling in forests. New Phytol
124:561–582
Berg B, Ekbohm G (1991) Litter mass-loss rates and decomposition
patterns in some needle and leaf litter types: long-term decomposition
in a Scots pine forest. Can J Bot 69:1449–1456
Berg B, Berg MP, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Calvo de Anta
R, Coueaux M, Escudero A, Gallardo A, Kratz W, Madeira
M, Mälkönen E, McClaugherty C, Meentemeyer V, Muñoz F,
Piussi P, Remacle J, Virzo de Santo A (1993) Litter mass loss
rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States: some
relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry
20:127–159
Brown GG (1995) How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal
community diversity? Plant Soil 170:209–231
Oecologia
1 3
Cornelissen JHC, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Grime JP, Marzano
B, Cabido M, Vendramini F, Cerabolini B (1999) Leaf structure
and defence control litter decomposition rate across species
and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytol
143:191–200
Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixedspecies
leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246
Gillon D, Joffre R, Ibrahima A (1994) Initial litter properties and
decay rate: a microcosm experiment on Mediterranean species.
Can J Bot 72:946–954
Gonzalez G, Seastedt TR (2001) Soil fauna and plant litter decomposition
in tropical and subtropical forests. Ecology 82:955–964
Howard PJA, Howard DM (1974) Microbial decomposition of three
and shrub leaf litter. Oikos 25:341–352
Howard PJA, Howard DM (1980) Effect of species, source of litter,
type of soil, and climate on litter decomposition: microbial
decomposition of three and shrub leaf litter. Oikos 34:115–124
JMP (2012) JMP version 10.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NC
Kalbitz K, Solinger S, Park JH, Michalzik B, Matzner E (2000)
Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: a
review. Soil Sci 165:277–304
Kashparov VA, Lundina SM, Kadygriba AM, Protsaka VP, Levtchuka
SE, Yoschenkoa VI, Kashpurb VA, Talerko NM (2000) Forest
fires in the territory contaminated as a result of the Chernobyl
accident: radioactive aerosol resuspension and exposure of firefighters.
J Environ Radioact 51:281–298
Krivolutski DA (2000) Problems of sustainable development and
ecological indication in radioactively contaminated areas. Russ J
Ecol 31:233–237
Krivolutski DA, Pokarzhevsky AD (1992) Effect of radioactive fallout
on soil animal populations in the 30 km zone of the Chernobyl
NPP. Sci Total Environ 112:69–77
Krivolutski D, Martushov V, Ryabtsev I (1999) Influence of radioactive
contamination on fauna in the area of the Chernobyl NPP
during first years after the accident (1986–1988). Bioindicators of
radioactive contamination. Nauka, Moscow, pp 106–122
Lousier JD, Parkinson D (1976) Litter decomposition in a cool temperate
deciduous forest. Can J Bot 54:419–436
Maksimova S (2005) Radiation effects on the populations of soil
invertebrates. In: Brechignac F, Desmet G (eds) Equidosimetry.
Springer, Berlin, pp 155–161
Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2006) Biological consequences of Chernobyl:
20 years after the disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 21:200–207
Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2007) Species richness and abundance of
birds in relation to radiation at Chernobyl. Biol Lett 3:483–486
Mousseau TA, Welch SM, Chizhevsky I, Bondarenko O, Milinevsky
G, Tedeschi DJ, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Møller AP (2013) Tree rings
reveal extent of exposure to ionizing radiation in Scots pine Pinus
sylvestris. Trees 27:1443–1453
Niedree B, Vereecken H, Burauel P (2012) Effects of low-level radioactive
soil contamination and sterilization on the degradation of
radiolabeled wheat straw. J Environ Radioact 109:29–35
Osono T (2007) Ecology of ligninolytic fungi associated with leaf litter
decomposition. Ecol Res 22:955–974
Pigeon RF, Odum HT (eds)(1970) A tropical rain forest; a study of
irradiation and ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. United States
Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information
Service
Pouyat RV, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM (1994) Environmental effects
of forest soil invertebrates and fungal densities in oak stands
along an urban-rural land-use gradient. Pedobiologia 38:385–399
Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Kabzems R (2000) Decomposition of
broadleaf and needle litter in forests in British Columbia: influence
of litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures. Can J For Res
30:1742–1750
Rafferty B, Dawson D, Kliashtorin A (1997) Decomposition in two
pine forests: the mobilisation of 137Cs and K from forest litter.
Soil Biol Biochem 29:1673–1681
Ragon M, Restoux G, Moreira D, Møller AP, López-García P (2011)
Sunlight-exposed biofilm microbial communities are naturally
resistant to Chernobyl ionizing-radiation levels. PLoS One
6(7):e21764
Robinson CH (2002) Controls on decomposition and soil nitrogen
availability at high latitudes. Plant Soil 242:65–81
Romanovskaya VA, Sokolov IG, Rokitko PV, Chernaya NA (1998)
Ecological consequences of radioactive contamination for soil
bacteria in the 10 km Chernobyl zone. Microbiol 67:274–280
Shestopalov VM (1996) Atlas of Chernobyl exclusion zone. Ukrainian
Academy of Science, Kiev
Staaf H (1980) Influence of chemical composition, addition of raspberry
leaves, and nitrogen supply on decomposition rate and
dynamics of nitrogen and phosphorus in beech leaf litter. Oikos
35:55–62
Taylor BR, Parkinson D (1988) Aspen and pine leaf litter decomposition
in laboratory microcosms: interactions of temperature and
moisture level. Can J Bot 66:1966–1973
van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM (2008) The
unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and
productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296–310
Victorov AG (1993) Radio-sensitivity and radio-pathology of earthworms
and their use as bio-indication of radioactive territories.
Bioindication and radioactive contamination. Nauka, Moscow, pp
213–217
Yoschenko VI, Kashparov VA, Levchuk SE, Glukhovskiy AS, Khomutinin
YV, Protsak VP, Lundin SM, Tschiersch J (2006a) Resuspension
and redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and
forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Part II. Modeling the
transport process. J Environ Radioact 87:260–278
Yoschenko VI, Kashparov VA, Protsak VP, Lundin SM, Levchuk SE,
Kadygib AM, Zvarich SI, Khomutinin YV, Maloshtan IM, Lanshin
VP, Kovtun MV, Tschiersch J (2006b) Resuspension and
redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and forest fires in
the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Part I. Fire experiments. J Environ
Radioact 86:143–163
Zymenko TG, Chernetsova IB, Mokhova SV (1995) Microbiologic
complex in radioactively contaminated sod-potboil soils. Her Nat
Belarus Acad Sci (Biol) 4:69–72x

And there are more links from that article to others that are based on scientific studies, and not opinion, such as:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...950075/?no-ist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-c...951231/?no-ist
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-in-the-trees/

I could list tons more, if I had the time or the inclination.
The point for me is still that we really don't know what long term affects this kind of devastation has on the planet yet, so to assume that it's not a problem is just not realistic.
There are so many agendas and sources of both good and bad information out there, we could discuss it until we're blue in the face and still not get anywhere.
And it makes me just as uncomfortable to have PA forum members saying it's not a problem, as any paid disinfo agent.
Do you question my motivations? I can question yours too. But where does that get us?
I trust in Gaia, and she is no doubt doing her best to repair the undeniable damage that has been done for the sake of all her lifeforms.
What humanity needs to do is stop creating yet more challenges for her and start finding ways to cooperate and cherish her.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Mikhail Gorbachev: 30 years after Chernobyl, time to phase out nuclear power
Linda Pentz Gunter

26th April 2016
http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ear_power.html

Thirty years after Chernobyl former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev remains haunted by the world's greatest ever industrial catastrophe, writes Linda Pentz Gunter. Now 85 and a committed environmentalist, he's still campaigning to bring the failed nuclear experiment to an end before further disasters follow, and encouraging a clean, efficient and renewable global energy economy.

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl were the result of the inability of scientists and engineers to foresee how seemingly small problems can snowball into disasters of almost unimaginable scale. Chernobyl remains one of the most tragic incidents of our time.
"From the moment I was informed - by telephone, at five o'clock in the morning on that fateful April 26, 1986 - that fire had broken out in Block Four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, my life has never been the same."

The author of these words, Mikhail Gorbachev, is 85 now. His health is failing.

He would like to travel the world and deliver this message. But more often than not, he cannot muster the energy. So in March, he sent an eloquent emissary in his stead, to address a gathering in London.

Gorbachev watched the Unit 4 Chernobyl nuclear reactor explode and melt down and the Soviet Union dissolve during his tenure as premier from 1985-1991.

Arguably it was the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe that turned him into an environmentalist. By 1992 he had founded Green Cross International, based in Geneva and from whence came his London emissary - Dr. Alexander Likhotal, the organization's current president.

In a public and parliamentary meeting at Westminster's Portcullis House entitled Fukushima 5 Years On, Chernobyl 30 Years On, Gorbachev's words resonated in a room filled mainly with supporters of the organizers, Kick Nuclear, Japanese Against Nuclear UK and London Region CND.

One of the most tragic incidents of our time

In marking those twin, grim anniversaries, Gorbachev reminded us that both Fukushima and Chernobyl were "the result of the inability of scientists and engineers to foresee how seemingly small problems can snowball into disasters of almost unimaginable scale." Chernobyl, Gorbachev said, "remains one of the most tragic incidents of our time."

Indee it was the biggest nuclear disaster of our time, as Dr. Ian Fairlie reminded us two days later at the Cher30byl and Fuku5hima - Beyond Nuclear meetings in Manchester.

"The collective doses are higher for Chernobyl than Fukushima," said Fairlie, who recently updated his 2006 TORCH report (The Other Report on Chernobyl), which was originally produced to debunk the grossly diluted findings in the official 2003-2005 Chernobyl Forum produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Radiological contamination around Chernobyl was 50 times higher than around Fukushima", said Fairlie, who took pains to point out that this in no way diminishes the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster which occurred in a far more densely populated area than Chernobyl.

Fairlie continues to predict 40,000 fatal cancers as a result of Chernobyl, lower than some estimates but far higher than the 'official' IAEA numbers. He also estimates there have been 6,000 thyroid cases to date, with 16,000 more anticipated.

Deaths from PTSD and other disaster-related traumas should be counted

But Fairlie insists that these are not the only numbers that matter. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima, he says, will contribute to "tens of thousands of deaths from PTSD, stress and trauma" directly related to the nuclear tragedies - which should not be dismissed or discounted.

These troubling statistics, and the prospect of another Chernobyl or Fukushima, says Gorbachev, remind us that "the questions raised by Chernobyl and reiterated by Fukushima are more relevant today than ever before, and they are still unanswered."

Nor, asserts Gorbachev, are the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters the only serious accidents we should be tallying: "Contrary to the statements of nuclear energy advocates that there were only two major accidents, if one refines an accident to include incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or significant loss in property damage, a very different picture emerges."

That picture, said Gorbachev, should in fact include a total of 99 nuclear accidents "totaling more than $20.5 billion in damages" which occurred worldwide between 1953 and 2000 averaging "more than one incident and $300 million in damage every year."

Cost-free conservation and renewables

Such a frightening, not to mention costly, pace can be reduced, Gorbachev said, by simple actions that lie in our individual and collective hands: "Supporting new, more efficient technologies has a huge role in reducing waste, but massive improvements can be achieved just by changing behaviors and choices - which costs nothing to do."

On the international political scale, Gorbachev urges that "it is imperative that members of the international community work together to develop and distribute clean and renewable sources of energy." He favors a gradual, rather than rapid, phase-out of nuclear energy, but notes that nuclear power should not be viewed through a narrow lens:

"It is vital that any discussions about nuclear energy address the issue comprehensively and in all its complexity. Nuclear power systems are not just a security issue, an environmental issue, or an energy issue. They are all of those at once."

Most important to Gorbachev is the lesson of transparency that he himself pioneered through "the process of Perestroika and the policy of Glasnost." Governmental openness is taken for granted in many countries and is being fought for in many others.

"Today, people want to have a say in what direction their countries' economies take. They want to know how it affects the air they breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, and the future they leave to their children. Governments have a responsibility to respond to those concerns."

US regulators claim a major nuclear disaster is too unlikely to be worth preparing for

In the nuclear sector such responsibility is invariably shirked if not suppressed. In highly nuclearized countries such as the US, France and Russia, access to information about nuclear safety is convoluted and opaque, or not available at all.

In the US we have frequently been told by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a major nuclear disaster is effectively too unlikely to be worth preparing for. But these flawed Probabilistic Risk Assessments are designed to protect the nuclear industry from additional expense - not the public from another Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Such a policy is dangerously divorced from reality, as researchers recently found; reseachers that Gorbachev cited when he warned that "the chances are 50:50 that a major nuclear disaster will occur somewhere in the world before 2050."

These are not good odds. Thirty years on, the octogenarian Gorbachev is still haunted by that dawn phone call when he instantly realized "something horrific was happening."

And yet our governments persist in leading us toward the same abyss.

[onawah]

Demystifying Nuclear Power: Chernobyl's Forgotten People/Casualties of Atomic Meltdown
April 26, 2016
by Caroline Phillips, Program Administrator

The article from Arnie Gundersen's Fairewinds today, with lots of live links here:
http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-en...fm03cwf1bcevvx

Thirty years after the atomic meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, government agencies worldwide are no closer to understanding how to handle a radiation release of this magnitude or how to protect the people they serve than they were seventy years ago during the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are reminded of this fact almost daily with the dark comedy that is Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) futile attempts prescribed by the Japanese government to contain the current ongoing nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi (like building an ice wall….really?). Meanwhile, led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s government also continues to push for restart of all its atomic reactors shut down since the triple reactor meltdown that forced at least 160,000 people out of their homes. Abe’s regime proves how governments throughout the world are failing to protect people from the tragedy of atomic calamities and the ensuing radiation fallout.

A valid argument has been made that the atomic catastrophe at Fukushima Daiichi is far worse than what happened at Chernobyl. Fairewinds’ Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen famously called Fukushima “Chernobyl on steroids.” Nonetheless Chernobyl is the closest example of what the world can expect and prepare for during the next three decades as we witness firsthand the unfolding nightmare within the Fukushima Prefecture.

There is a new trend in main stream media to portray the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone as a burgeoning “human free” natural oasis for elks, wolves, bears, and lynxes. This idyllic biodiverse fantasy is perpetuated in documentaries like PBS’ “Radioactive Wolves” and The History Channel’s “Life After People”. These portrayals are not wrong in their assessment that nature will thrive at a more rapid rate without human influence, but there is a stark down-play of the real impact radiation is having on each species’ long-term development and diversity.Tim Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, heads a team that has been conducting long-term research into biodiversity at Chernobyl and now in the area surrounding Fukushima Daiichi. In regards to the large scale fascination and subsequent celebration of flourishing larger animals like wolves and wild horses in Chernobyl, Dr. Mousseau explains, "When you put a fence around an area, it's clear that some animals will have an opportunity to expand, but because they are visible, it doesn't mean that they have increased as much as they should have, or that you have the biodiversity that you would normally have."

Dr. Mousseau further explains his field teams’ hypothesis and current findings on the effects of radiation on wildlife in this recent article for The Conversation, an independent source of news and views from the academic and research community:

Our hypothesis is that species differ in their ability to repair DNA, and this affects both DNA substitution rates and susceptibility to radiation from Chernobyl…In Chernobyl, all major groups of animals that we surveyed were less abundant in more radioactive areas. This includes birds, butterflies, dragonflies, bees, grasshoppers, spiders, and large and small mammals.

When we dig deeper and delve into well researched, peer-reviewed scientific journal entries and reports written by leading scientists in their field, there is significant evidence of the effects that chronic exposure to radiation has on species and biology. Sadly, this level of expertise and scientific authority is not the standard for numerous reports cited by the general media. It’s not often publicized that even the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Chernobyl released 400 times more radioactivity into the atmosphere than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Located approximately 60 miles from Ukraine’s capital city Kiev, and a mere 12 miles from the Ukraine-Belarus border, Chernobyl and its surrounding area were home to roughly 120,000 people before being utterly destroyed by nuclear contamination. Following the atomic meltdown, the most heavily affected areas were divided into four zones. Zones 1-3 were evacuated or allowed to volunteer for resettlement. Zone 4, which includes the village of Zalyshany, only 32 mi. away from the destroyed reactors, is not considered contaminated enough for resettlement but its populace is eligible for health subsidies.

The Associated Press (AP) courageously chose a road less travelled by diverging from the commonly publicized Chernobyl story of growing wolf packs, and instead focused on the heart-breaking circumstances faced daily by the children and mothers of Zalyshany. With Ukraine’s current state of desperate economic depression, critical government health subsidies promised to Zone 4 inhabitants have disappeared. As reported by the AP, the Ukrainian government no longer provides lunches for school children in Zone 4. “Hot meals in the schools were the only clean food, which was tested for radiation, for the children,” teacher Natalya Stepanchuk said. “Now the children have gone over to the local food, over which there is absolutely no control.”According to Ukraine’s Institute of Agricultural Radiology, recent testing in Zone 4 shows radiation levels in wild-grown food such as nuts, berries and mushrooms were two to five times higher than what is considered safe. But that doesn’t deter the starving children of Zalyshany.

AP reports:

Nine-year-old Olesya Petrova’s mother is sick with cancer and can no longer work. Olesya hungrily awaits the coming of warm weather, when she can scour the woodlands for berries and other goodies.

Tragically little Olesya’s story is not uncommon. Viktoria Vetrova, mother of four, feeds her children milk from the family’s cows who graze in surrounding contaminated fields.

“We are aware of the dangers, but what can we do?” said Vetrova, standing in her kitchen after pouring a glass of milk. “There is no other way to survive.”

Vetrova’s 8-year old son already suffers from an enlarged thyroid, a condition with direct links to manmade radioactivity.Hunger and thyroid conditions aren’t the only threats to the children of Zone 4. Yuri Bandazhevsky is a noted Belarusian pediatrician, whose studies on the effect of small doses of radiation on the human body have been widely cited abroad. Dr. Bandazhevsky says that there are “very serious pathological processes” that can lead to defects of the cardiovascular system and cancer as well. In a comment for the AP, Dr. Banazhevsky confesses, “With regret I have to state that nobody cares about this, and those hungry children are another proof of how authorities treat a population which suffers on these territories.” Due to these studies Dr. Bandazhevsky was jailed in Belarus for four years; he now lives in Ukraine.

Government agencies, whose job is to protect the public’s health safety, are not in agreement when it comes to atomic solutions. Currently, Russian President Vladimir Putin is in disagreement with U.S. President Barack Obama concerning an agreement to each dispose of 34 tons of excess plutonium generated by the two countries’ nuclear weapons programs. President Obama has encouraged a dilution process followed by burial in a geological repository (yet to be found…but that discussion is for another Demystify Post). President Putin has objected to this proposal. A Russian spokesperson has clarified Putin’s stance by arguing that the “only way to irreversibly turn plutonium into a material not usable in a nuclear weapon is by changing its isotope composition. Any chemical method is reversible.” This Russian method of dealing with plutonium has been applauded by South Carolina Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott who have translated this proposal into a thumbs-up for MOX reactors, the power plants that allegedly safely use leftover atomic waste.

Dr. Edwin Lyman, colleague of the Union for Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Frank von Hippel, faculty of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and affiliated with the university’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, disclaim both the Russian approach to plutonium “disposal” as well as Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott’s eager rush to use the Russian claim as a reason for MOX reactors in this memo:

This position has little technical merit, because the plutonium that will be produced by Russia’s disposal approach, irradiation in its BN-800 plutonium breeder reactor, may not be weapon- grade but it will be weapon-usable.3 Furthermore, Russia, unlike the United States, intends to separate the plutonium in the irradiated BN-800 fuel and the weapon-grade plutonium produced in the plutonium-breeding blankets around the BN-800 core so that it can be reused, which will also make it susceptible again to diversion by non-state groups.

Lest we forget, in 1986 during the meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. And, it was only a mere seven years prior to the Chernobyl meltdown, that the United States experienced its first commercial atomic meltdown, and by far the largest atomic reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island. While an effort to dispose of excess plutonium turns into a squabble between two of the world’s most powerful leaders, it is savvy for us all not to forget how intimately familiar both the United States and Russia are to the potential for atomic chaos and how both of these nations failed their people when it was time to protect them from massive exposure to radiation.
Thanks to Dr. Mousseau, the Fairewinds Crew presents a collection of scientific reports produced by experts (including Dr. Mousseau) concerning the health effects of radiation on wildlife and biodiversity:

Cataracts:

Elevated frequency of cataracts in birds from Chernobyl

Fitness costs of increased cataract frequency and cumulative radiation dose in natural mammalian populations from Chernobyl

Tumors and developmental abnormalities:

High frequency of albinism and tumours in free-living birds around Chernobyl

Albinism and phenotype of barn swallows from Chernobyl

Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl

Brain size:

Chernobyl birds have smaller brains

Fertility effects:

Aspermy, Sperm Quality and Radiation in Chernobyl Birds

The effects of radiation on sperm swimming behavior depend on plasma oxidative status in the barn swallow

Impaired swimming behavior and morphology of sperm from barn swallows

[bettye198]

Thank you DNA for following up on that San Clemente story with the burning rocks. Did not know it reached mainstream prime news. And to think, Trestles beach is THE beach for surfers. My brother in law surfs there all the time. If the rocks are on the beach, what is in the water there?

[bettye198]

I found where I originally found the info on opium on cigarette papers. Here is the link for TargeT and others: http://health.insights2.org/Opium.html

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
The study is about what radiation does to wildlife and the environment, which appears to have quite an impact, and not a positive one.
The one study of leaves and birds (and microbes, which are extremely important to human health) is a small part of the 90 studies, so I don't think you can make a sound judgement after looking at only one.

I carefully read the entire study, it was about leaf decomposition in bags placed in various locations, it was something like 40% slower in certain low radiation areas (and yes, those numbers were low, mostly at or slightly above background radiation).

I agree that radiation affects microbes greatly... my anidcotal evidence suggest this from my own experience as well (fungal infections finally being over come in the case of my wife etc..)

Posted by onawah (here)
The point for me is still that we really don't know what long term affects this kind of devastation has on the planet yet, so to assume that it's not a problem is just not realistic.

what do you consider long term? is 20 years long? is 1000 years long? we should define that; because in my mind 20 years is "long"... Plus let's talk sample numbers, you have to hit a certain threshold to become significant statistically..

This is a perfect example of a long term (in my mind, 20 years is long) exposure "experiment" (ok, accident.. haha) note.. it's a .4Sv, not Msv or usv... Sv.. (refer to the scale again to see HOW INSANELY HIGH this is compared to any of the chernobyl measurements in the leaf decomposition article which were a 100-1000x less depending on area)

Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/



This study is about studies like the one you posted, and how they skew data by ALWAYS applying the LNT (linear no threshold) model regardless of actual outcome (using a formula instead of observations, sneaky "Scienceism" tactic).

Risks of low doses and low dose rates, such as from elevated natural background radiation exposures, appear not to exist or be lower than such risks that one assumes by applying the LNT model in the evaluation of epidemiological data. This and the unequivocal evidence of experimental findings of adaptive protection speak against the LNT hypothesis, which should be replaced by a model that takes into consideration that low doses can induce alterations in the physiologically individual balance between cancer causation and cancer prevention. This physiological balance determines both detrimental and beneficial effects in the whole body, depending on dose and dose rate. The existing epidemiological and experimental data do not favor low dose-induced detriment but rather agree with low dose being inefficient or inducing benefits by counteracting harm, that is, with the existence of threshold or hormesis.

Claims that elevated natural background radiation levels lead to cancer or early childhood deaths are unjustified and misleading. The risk to the individual and society that is estimated by adhering to the LNT model is greater than the risk from doses and dose rates at which the LNT model cannot be validated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/

Posted by onawah (here)
There are so many agendas and sources of both good and bad information out there, we could discuss it until we're blue in the face and still not get anywhere.

I have not only refuted every point you bring up, but shown you excellent proof via study (of humans, not leafs lol) that what I understand is correct. so I'm not sure how we will get to blue in the face

Posted by onawah (here)
And it makes me just as uncomfortable to have PA forum members saying it's not a problem, as any paid disinfo agent.

Do you think that I am just "saying" things with no follow up? I'm not sure we are having the same conversation.

Posted by onawah (here)
Do you question my motivations? I can question yours too. But where does that get us?

Not your motivations, just your understanding

Posted by onawah (here)
I trust in Gaia, and she is no doubt doing her best to repair the undeniable damage that has been done for the sake of all her lifeforms.

So why do you ignore that low levels of radiation heal? why do you ignore that people living in areas with more radiation than fukushima have on average longer life spans with lower cancer rates? Look into the Colorado plateau... it's got some pretty elevated background levels & corresponding health increases (on average).


I'll look into any article you post if you want, but I'm showing you what to look for and it's data that would show EITHER side's truth, just observational data... no agenda.

[Bill Ryan]

.
Here's Matthew Stein on Fukushima (and the nuclear industry in general), on Coast to Coast 5 days ago (21 April 2016):

http:///projectavalon.net/Matthew_St...016_Hour_1.mp3

[TargeT]

Posted by bettye198 (here)
Thank you DNA for following up on that San Clemente story with the burning rocks. Did not know it reached mainstream prime news. And to think, Trestles beach is THE beach for surfers. My brother in law surfs there all the time. If the rocks are on the beach, what is in the water there?

Phosphorus... White phosphorus is what is now banned from use by the military because it does exactly what it did to that lady (thuough when pure it's FAR worse) that's some nasty stuff, but very naturally occuring.

Posted by bettye198 (here)
I found where I originally found the info on opium on cigarette papers. Here is the link for TargeT and others: http://health.insights2.org/Opium.html

I don't have any studies to back this, but I do get drug tested regularly & also smoke cig.s on occasion (only when I drink... which is , yeah a lot... haha) & opiates are tested for to VERY low levels, the military would know about this almost instantly as soldiers would "pop hot" all the time.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.
Here's Matthew Stein on Fukushima (and the nuclear industry in general), on Coast to Coast 5 days ago (21 April 2016):

http:///projectavalon.net/Matthew_St...016_Hour_1.mp3

I generally admonish other posts for their lack of summary. Though I can guess the summary for this I bet: Fukushima is horrible, the earth will end & frogs have 7 legs now; or something along those lines?

Can you post a summary?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.
Here's Matthew Stein on Fukushima (and the nuclear industry in general), on Coast to Coast 5 days ago (21 April 2016):

http:///projectavalon.net/Matthew_St...016_Hour_1.mp3

I generally admonish other posts for their lack of summary. Though I can guess the summary for this I bet: Fukushima is horrible, the earth will end & frogs have 7 legs now; or something along those lines?

Can you post a summary?

Sarcasm is a sign of low desperation, when in a debate.

Here's the summary from the C2C web page for the show. Simplest for me to copy and paste that.

Author and mechanical engineer, Matthew Stein, is an expert in what individuals can do to prepare for worst case scenarios on all fronts including the economy, global climate change, and unexpected disruptions in central services. In the first half, he discussed the ongoing debacle of Fukushima - including background radiation rising, food chain contamination, and the targeting of whistleblowers. Conditions are far worse in Japan than the media is letting on, and the government there has placed a gag order, such that whistleblowers can go to jail if they reveal information about the dire situation, he reported. Further, doctors who submit a diagnosis of radiation poisoning from Fukushima victims, won't get paid by the government, he added. "The truth of the matter is that the health effects are horrendous, but we'll never know how bad they are because the government is obliterating any long term medical records," he lamented.

America is facing the same dangers that the Fukushima disaster brought to light, as many of its nuclear plants are either in flood zones or on fault lines. Additionally, many of America's nuclear facilities have gone past their life span of 40 years, and need to undergo an expensive decommissioning process, he cited. Stein shared accounts of brave whistleblowers in America's nuclear industry, and the negative consequences that "doing the right thing" had on their lives and careers. He also spoke about the possible effects of an EMP attack, and battling antibiotic resistant viruses and bacteria with the use of homeopathic treatments and colloidal silver.

The second hour Mat Stein was on is here:

http://projectavalon.net/Matthew_Ste...016_Hour_2.mp3

[TargeT]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Sarcasm is a sign of low desperation, when in a debate.

I'm low and desperate all the time!

Dry humor is my life blood, I fantasize about being a standup comedian (no really, I do). My favorite stuff are super dry reference material... I call them "thinking jokes".

I was really poking fun at your lack of summary, I don't consider you in this debate at all until you provide some content (this is not the first time you've posted a link to something with no summary, if you don't have the time to do that I don't have the time to listen to it) I thought I was just chiding you into being a good contributor not being desperate and low, but to each their own

WARNING: Day 9 of my exercise... caffeine levels are far beyond healthy at this point and I've forgotten what it's like to sleep for longer htan a nap!

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by TargeT (here)

this is not the first time you've posted a link to something with no summary, if you don't have the time to do that I don't have the time to listen to it

I was assuming that informed members here know exactly who Matthew Stein is. Maybe in your case I made a misjudgment!

[Mike]

Well, thats the problem with excessive caffeine TargeT. It's like the poor mans cocaine - it heats the brain to a full boil, leaving the mouth to act as a fulminating exhaust. It gives one the false impression that everything one says is brilliant and witty, when in fact it can be more accurately described as relentlessly annoying.

Honestly, this is kind of how youre coming off. I tell you this as someone who hugely admires your contributions when theyre a little less hyper and self righteous. And look, I speak from experience. It takes one to know one, as they say. At least with me, when I get all wired like that, the debate becomes less about sincerely making a sound point and more about my ego and the manic desire to "win". I see this happening with you.

And its not that youre not making good points backed by good science etc, because you are. But its the way youre making them. Have you ever been around a really smart guy who is on coke or overcaffeinated...a smart guy who is determined to demonstrate his smartness until his tongue bleeds and his jaw swells up in protest? As you know, it is profoundly irritating....especially when you yourself are sober. You're not there yet, but youre kind of on the path..

I say this with respect..and as someone who likes reading your stuff. Truly.