BEFORE WE DIVE INTO RADIOACTIVE BANANAS, LET US LOOK AT OTHERS WHO AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT.
SURELY ONLY A BUNCH OF NUTCASES OR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WOULD AGREE WITH THE NAS, RIGHT?
WHO ARE THESE WEIRDOS?
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress). endorsed the LINEAR NO THRESHOLD [LNT] model in a 2001 report that attempted to survey existing literature critical of the model.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report:
"Until the uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it [LNT] remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response."
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA] also endorses the LNT model in its 2011 report on radiogenic cancer risk:[29]
"Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with a linear, no-threshold dose (LNT) response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of radiation is proportional to the dose to that tissue."
2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk [ECRR]:
"The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes". Regulators' Edition.
The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.
Thus the 100-fold discrepancy between the ICRP *** [International Commission on Radiological Protection, a non-governmental, non-profit group] model's predictions and the observed cases in the Sellafield childhood leukemia cluster becomes an estimator of risk for childhood leukemia following such exposure.
The factor is thus incorporated by the committee into the calculation of harm from internal exposure of specific types through its inclusion in the weighting factors used to calculate the 'effective dose' to the children in Sieverts.
Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945.
The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer.
The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths.
In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.
The committee lists its recommendations.
The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers.
This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment."
In other words, radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure (which is termed "response linearity").
The National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”
The Environmental Protection Agency says, “… ANY exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.”
The Department of Energy (DOE) says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the MAJOR effect IS a very slight increase in cancer risk.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says, “ANY amount of radiation may pose SOME risk for causing cancer … ANY INCREASE IN DOSE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, RESULTS IN AN INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN RISK."
The National Academy of Sciences, in its “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,” says, “… it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ….”
Long story short, “One can no longer speak of a ‘safe’ dose level” , because it has been proven since it all began that one "hot particle", ONE radionuclide, i.e., ionizing radiation inside a human body can cause and has caused and will cause cancer.
No "safe level" can ever exist.
BEFORE WE GO ON, LET'S HAVE AN HONEST SHOW OF HANDS OF ALL WHO WOULD MOVE NEXT DOOR TO HANFORD NUCLEAR SITE, THREE MILE ISLAND REACTORS, THE SARCOPHAGUS COVERED CHERNOBYL SITE, OR BUY A HOME OVERLOOKING FUKUSHIMA'S DAIICHI NUCLEAR PLANT.
I'LL WAIT A FULL MINUTE FOR HANDS TO GO UP.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT WHY THOSE WHO DID NOT RAISE A HAND ARE GOING TO LIVE A SAFER LIFE THAN THOSE WHO DID RAISE A HAND.
HOW OFTEN WE READ ABOUT THE HARMLESSNESS OF RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES, FROM XRAYS, MAMMOGRAMS AND EVEN BANANAS.
HOW OFTEN, ALSO, DO WE HEAR ABOUT "BACKGROUND RADIATION" AND WHAT WE MIGHT ABSORB ON A TRANSCONTINENTAL FLIGHT OR OUT PICKING DAISIES.?
[WE NOW KNOW THAT OUR CURRENT BACKGROUND RADIATION WAS MAN-CREATED... BEFORE THE BOMBS, FALLOUT, REACTOR LEAKS, BEFORE MAN BEGAN TO DIG UP URANIUM AND PLAY WITH NUCLEAR FISSION, WE HAD THE SUN'S RAYS TO WORRY ABOUT WHEN IT CAME TO IONIZING RADIATION.
MAN CREATED PLUTONIUM, THE REST IS SAD HISTORY.
TO BE FAIR, PLUTONIUM does occur naturally in MINISCULE amounts in a type of ore called pitchblende. Once the main source of uranium and radium, pitchblende contains one part per trillion of "natural" plutonium.
ONE PART PER TRILLION.]
JAPAN HAS ALREADY AND THE U.S. IS IN THE PROCESS OF, ALLOWING HIGHER LEVELS OF RADIATION FOR ALL CITIZENS, BECAUSE "BACKGROUND LEVELS HAVE INCREASED SINCE THE 1960s".
ALL OF THIS IS REPEATED AND THEN REPEATED AND, OFTEN, REPEATED YET AGAIN.
"OH, TUT-TUT! RADIATION IS IN EVERYTHING. IT'S NO BIG DEAL, A LITTLE RADIATION!"
LET'S EXAMINE THESE MISCONCEPTIONS.
STARTING WITH BANANAS AND THEIR RADIOACTIVE CONTENT, GEOFF MEGGITT, RETIRED PHYSICIST AND FORMER EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION (NOTE THAT "LOGICAL" IN THE NAME, PLEASE), AND 25-YEAR VETERAN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM'S ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY HAS THIS TO SAY:
"There’s an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.
It all depends on two factors:
1) The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What’s its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?
2) The way the the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?"
"The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use," Meggitt says, "because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control.
When you eat a banana, your body’s level of Potassium-40 doesn’t increase.
You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40.
You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40.
The net dose of a banana is ZERO."
SHOULD WE TRUST THIS MAN?
DOES HE HAVE "PROPER CREDENTIALS"?
IS HE WEARING A TINFOIL HAT?
ANOTHER THING ABOUT THOSE BANANAS NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IS THAT, UNLIKE NUCLEAR REACTORS AND PARTICLE ACCELERATORS, THE LOWLY BANANA IS NOT SITTING THERE CREATING HIGH ENERGY NEUTRONS AND OTHER WEE NASTIES BY THE PROCESS WE CALL FISSION.
THAT'S WHY HUMANS DON'T DIE WITHIN MINUTES OF APPROACHING A BANANA, ROBOTS DON'T SHORT-CIRCUIT IF THEY HANG OUT WITH BANANAS LONGER THAN 15 MINUTES, AND, EVEN IF YOU LEAVE A BANANA ALONE FOR DAYS, IT NEVER GLOWS IN THE DARK.
COULD WE AGREE THAT THE OLD "RADIOACTIVE BANANA" IS JUST A REALLY DUMB COMPARISON BETWEEN POTASSIUM-40 AND SOMETHING LIKE, OH, MAYBE POLONIUM, OR PLUTONIUM, OR CESIUM, OR AMERICIUM?
LET'S LOOK AT POLONIUM FOR A BIT.
Weight for weight polonium-210 is 250,000 times more toxic than cyanide.
SHOULD WE TRUST THIS MAN?
DOES HE HAVE "PROPER CREDENTIALS"?
IS HE WEARING A TINFOIL HAT?
ANOTHER THING ABOUT THOSE BANANAS NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IS THAT, UNLIKE NUCLEAR REACTORS AND PARTICLE ACCELERATORS, THE LOWLY BANANA IS NOT SITTING THERE CREATING HIGH ENERGY NEUTRONS AND OTHER WEE NASTIES BY THE PROCESS WE CALL FISSION.
THAT'S WHY HUMANS DON'T DIE WITHIN MINUTES OF APPROACHING A BANANA, ROBOTS DON'T SHORT-CIRCUIT IF THEY HANG OUT WITH BANANAS LONGER THAN 15 MINUTES, AND, EVEN IF YOU LEAVE A BANANA ALONE FOR DAYS, IT NEVER GLOWS IN THE DARK.
COULD WE AGREE THAT THE OLD "RADIOACTIVE BANANA" IS JUST A REALLY DUMB COMPARISON BETWEEN POTASSIUM-40 AND SOMETHING LIKE, OH, MAYBE POLONIUM, OR PLUTONIUM, OR CESIUM, OR AMERICIUM?
LET'S LOOK AT POLONIUM FOR A BIT.
Weight for weight polonium-210 is 250,000 times more toxic than cyanide.
This toxicity is radioactive in nature and caused by the release of alpha particles which damage organic tissue.
Alpha particles cannot penetrate the skin, as we know, BUT if INGESTED OR INHALED OR INJECTED, JUST ONE GRAM WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO KILL 10 MILLION HUMANS.
Alpha particles cannot penetrate the skin, as we know, BUT if INGESTED OR INHALED OR INJECTED, JUST ONE GRAM WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO KILL 10 MILLION HUMANS.
FOR MY AMERICAN READERS, ONE GRAM IS EQUIVALENT TO 0.035274 OF ONE OUNCE....AND EVEN IF WE ROUND THAT UP TO 0.04 OF AN OUNCE, THAT'S AWESOME THAT SO TINY AN AMOUNT CAN KILL THAT MANY HUMANS, YES?
IF POLONIUM COULD PENETRATE SKIN, IT WOULD BE THE TOP LETHAL ELEMENT INSTEAD OF COMING IN SECOND.
BANANAS JUST CAN'T COMPETE.
ON TO PLUTONIUM.
PLUTONIUM IS RANKED AS THE DEADLIEST ELEMENT ON PLANET EARTH.
PLUTONIUM EMITS ALPHA, BETA, AND GAMMA RADIATION.
NOTHING IN A HUMAN BODY STOPS PLUTONIUM FROM GETTING IN.
IF POLONIUM COULD PENETRATE SKIN, IT WOULD BE THE TOP LETHAL ELEMENT INSTEAD OF COMING IN SECOND.
BANANAS JUST CAN'T COMPETE.
ON TO PLUTONIUM.
PLUTONIUM IS RANKED AS THE DEADLIEST ELEMENT ON PLANET EARTH.
PLUTONIUM EMITS ALPHA, BETA, AND GAMMA RADIATION.
NOTHING IN A HUMAN BODY STOPS PLUTONIUM FROM GETTING IN.
IT CAN PENETRATE SKIN, IT DOES PLOW RIGHT THROUGH ALL HUMAN TISSUE, INCLUDING BONE, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LOT "OUT THERE OR UP THERE" FOR US TO INHALE.
PLUTONIUM IS ALSO JUST LIKE OTHER "HEAVY METALS" WHEN IT COMES TO TOXICITY.
IF WE JUST COLLECTED PLUTONIUM DUST AND TOSSED IT INTO THE AIR, JUST 500 GRAMS WOULD BE PLENTY TO WIPE OUT ABOUT 2 MILLION PEOPLE FAIRLY QUICKLY.
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS AS OUR SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS' TESTING OF "THE BOMB" FROM THE 1940s TO 1960s IN THE ATMOSPHERE SENT UP MANY "MEGA-TONS" OF THAT.
PLUTONIUM IS ALSO JUST LIKE OTHER "HEAVY METALS" WHEN IT COMES TO TOXICITY.
IF WE JUST COLLECTED PLUTONIUM DUST AND TOSSED IT INTO THE AIR, JUST 500 GRAMS WOULD BE PLENTY TO WIPE OUT ABOUT 2 MILLION PEOPLE FAIRLY QUICKLY.
THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS AS OUR SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS' TESTING OF "THE BOMB" FROM THE 1940s TO 1960s IN THE ATMOSPHERE SENT UP MANY "MEGA-TONS" OF THAT.
LEAKS AND ALL OOZE FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS AND NUCLEAR "ACCIDENTS" HAVE SENT UP MORE PLUTONIUM THAN WE'D EVER WISH FOR.
WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN, RIGHT?
IT IS JUST AN INCREDIBLE ELEMENT IN THAT THE ENERGY RELEASED FROM ONE KILOGRAM COULD POWER A LARGE CITY FOR SEVERAL HOURS.
[1 KILOGRAM EQUALS OUR AMERICAN 2 POUNDS AND 3.273965 OUNCES]
AND CESIUM?
CESIUM ONLY RANKS AT NUMBER 3 IN THE DEADLIEST ELEMENTS ON EARTH LIST, BUT IT HAS SOME REALLY ODD QUALITIES.
~IT EXPLODES SO EASILY IN WATER.
~ IT BURSTS INTO FLAME AT A VERY LOW TEMPERATURE, UNDER 85 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, ABOUT 28 DEGREES CELSIUS.
~ THE HEAT FROM A HUMAN BODY WILL MELT IT .
~ MOST ALKALINE OF ALL ELEMENTS, CESIUM CORRODES GLASS VERY QUICKLY WHEN IT BECOMES CESIUM HYDROXIDE IN WATER.
~ CESIUM HAS BUT ONE STABLE ISOTOPE AND ALL THE REST ARE MAN-MADE AND RADIOACTIVE.
ONLY CESIUM-133 CAN BE ISOLATED "IN NATURE".
~ IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 30 YEARS.
WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN, RIGHT?
IT IS JUST AN INCREDIBLE ELEMENT IN THAT THE ENERGY RELEASED FROM ONE KILOGRAM COULD POWER A LARGE CITY FOR SEVERAL HOURS.
[1 KILOGRAM EQUALS OUR AMERICAN 2 POUNDS AND 3.273965 OUNCES]
AND CESIUM?
CESIUM ONLY RANKS AT NUMBER 3 IN THE DEADLIEST ELEMENTS ON EARTH LIST, BUT IT HAS SOME REALLY ODD QUALITIES.
~IT EXPLODES SO EASILY IN WATER.
~ IT BURSTS INTO FLAME AT A VERY LOW TEMPERATURE, UNDER 85 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, ABOUT 28 DEGREES CELSIUS.
~ THE HEAT FROM A HUMAN BODY WILL MELT IT .
~ MOST ALKALINE OF ALL ELEMENTS, CESIUM CORRODES GLASS VERY QUICKLY WHEN IT BECOMES CESIUM HYDROXIDE IN WATER.
~ CESIUM HAS BUT ONE STABLE ISOTOPE AND ALL THE REST ARE MAN-MADE AND RADIOACTIVE.
ONLY CESIUM-133 CAN BE ISOLATED "IN NATURE".
~ IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 30 YEARS.
THE EPA TELLS US:
Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment.
This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult.
Walking on cesium-137 contaminated soil could result in external exposure to gamma radiation.
Leaving the contaminated area would prevent additional exposure.
[QUESTIONS: WHAT IF OCEAN SEDIMENT IS CONTAMINATED?
WHAT IF PLANKTON THROUGHOUT AN OCEAN IS ALSO CONTAMINATED?
WHAT THE HELL DOES ONE DO IF ONE CANNOT "LEAVE THE AREA", AS IS
THE CASE WITH ALL MARINE LIFE?]
If cesium-137 contaminated soil becomes airborne as dust, breathing the dust would result in internal exposure.
Because the radiation emitting material is then in the body, leaving the site would not end the exposure.
Drinking cesium-137 contaminated water, would also place the cesium-137 inside
the body, where it would expose living tissue to gamma and beta radiation.
Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer.
Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout.
[STOP RIGHT THERE!
THESE TWO STATEMENTS, LET'S PUT THEM TOGETHER...
"EXPOSURE TO CESIUM RESULTS IN INCREASED RISK OF CANCER AND EVERYONE IS EXPOSED TO CESIUM."
WHAT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS THAT?
THE HINDU TIMES REPORTED MAY 29, 2015 "Cancer cases on the rise but death rate is falling"
AND THAT;S WHAT THE EXPERTS LIKE TO POINT TO!
"SURE, WE'RE GETTING MORE CANCER, BUT MORE ARE SURVIVING IT!"
THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUG. 2015, "The Rising Incidence of Thyroid Cancer
CONTINUING WITH THE EPA ON CESIUM:
"Exposure to waste materials, from contaminated sites, or from nuclear accidents can result in cancer risks much higher than typical environmental exposures."
FEW HAVE READ WHAT THE EPA SAYS ABOUT THAT CANCER RISK FROM ALL RADIONUCLIDES. ALL, AS IN EVERY SINGLE ONE,
Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment.
This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult.
Walking on cesium-137 contaminated soil could result in external exposure to gamma radiation.
Leaving the contaminated area would prevent additional exposure.
[QUESTIONS: WHAT IF OCEAN SEDIMENT IS CONTAMINATED?
WHAT IF PLANKTON THROUGHOUT AN OCEAN IS ALSO CONTAMINATED?
WHAT THE HELL DOES ONE DO IF ONE CANNOT "LEAVE THE AREA", AS IS
THE CASE WITH ALL MARINE LIFE?]
If cesium-137 contaminated soil becomes airborne as dust, breathing the dust would result in internal exposure.
Because the radiation emitting material is then in the body, leaving the site would not end the exposure.
Drinking cesium-137 contaminated water, would also place the cesium-137 inside
the body, where it would expose living tissue to gamma and beta radiation.
Like all radionuclides, exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer.
Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout.
[STOP RIGHT THERE!
THESE TWO STATEMENTS, LET'S PUT THEM TOGETHER...
"EXPOSURE TO CESIUM RESULTS IN INCREASED RISK OF CANCER AND EVERYONE IS EXPOSED TO CESIUM."
WHAT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS THAT?
THE HINDU TIMES REPORTED MAY 29, 2015 "Cancer cases on the rise but death rate is falling"
AND THAT;S WHAT THE EXPERTS LIKE TO POINT TO!
"SURE, WE'RE GETTING MORE CANCER, BUT MORE ARE SURVIVING IT!"
THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUG. 2015, "The Rising Incidence of Thyroid Cancer
It’s easy to crunch the numbers on thyroid cancer and assume it is a disease fast on the rise. Incidence has more than doubled since the early 1970s, and for women, it is the cancer with the fastest-growing number of new cases.
“I don’t think there is any question that there is an increasing incidence of thyroid cancer,” said Dr. Kenneth Burman, chief of the endocrine section in the department of medicine at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.
87 percent of the increase was from small papillary thyroid cancer tumors — the most common and treatable type of thyroid cancer — that were less than two centimeters in size."
THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE THE EXPERTS LOVE TO TOSS OUT TO US.
"IT ISN'T NEW RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT, OH, NO! WE ARE SIMPLY CATCHING MORE CANCERS EARLIER BY DIAGNOSTIC SCREENING!"
HELLO?
CANCER IS STILL ON THE RISE AND THERE IS NO OTHER KNOWN REASON WHY SO DAMNED MANY MORE CASES OF THYROID CANCER ARE TURNING UP, IS THERE, BOYS?]
THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE THE EXPERTS LOVE TO TOSS OUT TO US.
"IT ISN'T NEW RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT, OH, NO! WE ARE SIMPLY CATCHING MORE CANCERS EARLIER BY DIAGNOSTIC SCREENING!"
HELLO?
CANCER IS STILL ON THE RISE AND THERE IS NO OTHER KNOWN REASON WHY SO DAMNED MANY MORE CASES OF THYROID CANCER ARE TURNING UP, IS THERE, BOYS?]
"Exposure to waste materials, from contaminated sites, or from nuclear accidents can result in cancer risks much higher than typical environmental exposures."
FEW HAVE READ WHAT THE EPA SAYS ABOUT THAT CANCER RISK FROM ALL RADIONUCLIDES. ALL, AS IN EVERY SINGLE ONE,
THERE IS NO LEVEL LOW ENOUGH THAT THE EPA OR THE NRC CALLS IT ABSOLUTELY NON-HAZARDOUS TO HUMAN TISSUE.
"SAFE LEVELS" IS PERHAPS THE MOST MISLEADING, OVERUSED CALMING PHRASE USED BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.
HAVING A RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE ENTER A HUMAN BODY IS AS SAFE AS PLAYING A GAME OF RUSSIAN ROULETTE.
AS ONE WHO LEFT A COMMENT ON A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE PUT IT:
March 18, 2011: "NO amount of monitoring is going to tell ANYONE if he/she just inhaled that 1 Plutonium isotope that is going to cause cancer, or if that 1 stray isotope was on that head of lettuce that created the salad you ate at lunch , or in the glass of water you just drank.
HAVING A RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE ENTER A HUMAN BODY IS AS SAFE AS PLAYING A GAME OF RUSSIAN ROULETTE.
AS ONE WHO LEFT A COMMENT ON A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE PUT IT:
March 18, 2011: "NO amount of monitoring is going to tell ANYONE if he/she just inhaled that 1 Plutonium isotope that is going to cause cancer, or if that 1 stray isotope was on that head of lettuce that created the salad you ate at lunch , or in the glass of water you just drank.
You can't wash off a radioactive isotope that lodges itself in your lungs after inhaling it or wash it off internal organs after ingestion.
So while the odds of coming in contact with the contamination may be much lower the further away you are - the effects are still the same, so now it's really just a game of Russian roulette every time you eat, drink, breathe or otherwise come in contact with this fallout - and good luck!
Levels "measurable but minuscule" is a complete contradiction of terms as there is no "safe" level of Plutonium - just 1 isotope can kill you."
YUP.
AND AMERICIUM?
THERE IS NO NATURALLY OCCURRING AMERICIUM.
IT IS COMPLETELY MAN MADE.
THE (PERHAPS) DEADLIEST ISOTOPE IS AMERICIUM-241.
IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 432.7 YEARS.
BACK TO THE EPA (ONLY BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE SEES THE EPA DATA AS "LAW AND GOSPEL", WHICH IT BY NO MEANS IS, SINCE IT "PROTECTS" VERY DAMNED LITTLE EXCEPT INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS.):,
THERE IS NO NATURALLY OCCURRING AMERICIUM.
IT IS COMPLETELY MAN MADE.
THE (PERHAPS) DEADLIEST ISOTOPE IS AMERICIUM-241.
IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 432.7 YEARS.
BACK TO THE EPA (ONLY BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE SEES THE EPA DATA AS "LAW AND GOSPEL", WHICH IT BY NO MEANS IS, SINCE IT "PROTECTS" VERY DAMNED LITTLE EXCEPT INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS.):,
Smoke detectors containing Am-241 also provide some radiation exposure. However, the radiation exposure people receive from a smoke detector is very low. The health risk reduction from the fire protection vastly outweighs the health risk from the radiation. That said, you should still handle smoke detectors containing americium with care. To avoid exposure:
- never dismantle a smoke detector
- never burn a smoke detector in your fireplace
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the radioactive material in smoke detectors, permits their disposal as ordinary trash.
People who live or work near a contaminated site, such as a former weapons production facility, may ingest americium-241 with food and water, or may inhale it as part of resuspended dust.
People who live or work near a contaminated site, such as a former weapons production facility, may ingest americium-241 with food and water, or may inhale it as part of resuspended dust.
Once in the body, americium-241 tends to concentrate in the bone, liver, and muscle. It can stay in the body for decades and continue to expose the surrounding tissues to radiation, and increase your risk of developing cancer.
When inhaled, some Am-241 remains in the lungs, depending upon the particle size and the chemical form of the americium compound.
The chemical forms that dissolve easily may pass into the bloodstream from the lungs.
The chemical forms that dissolve less easily tend to remain in the lungs, or are coughed up through the lung's natural defense system, and swallowed.
From the stomach swallowed americium MAY dissolve and pass into the bloodstream.
However, undissolved material passes from the body through the feces.
[QUESTION: IF WE KNOW "UNDISSOLVED AMERICIUM" IS FOUND IN FECES, WHAT HAPPENS AT "SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS" CAN THEY REMOVE IT THERE? ]
AGAIN, THE SHORT LIST FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH WEBSITE FOR RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED BY DAIICHI, BUT THESE ARE RELEASED AS WELL FROM ALL OTHER NUCLEAR REACTORS AND SPENT FUEL POOLS AND NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS, AND THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEDICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL TEST SITES THAT USE RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES FOR TESTING OR TREATMENT, AND RADIOACTIVE FERTILIZERS, ETC:The radioactive fallout PREDOMINANTLY consisted of :
AGAIN, THE SHORT LIST FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH WEBSITE FOR RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED BY DAIICHI, BUT THESE ARE RELEASED AS WELL FROM ALL OTHER NUCLEAR REACTORS AND SPENT FUEL POOLS AND NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS, AND THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEDICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL TEST SITES THAT USE RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES FOR TESTING OR TREATMENT, AND RADIOACTIVE FERTILIZERS, ETC:The radioactive fallout PREDOMINANTLY consisted of :
iodine-131 (half-life 8.02 days),
caesium-137 (half-life 30 years) and
caesium-134 (half-life 2.06 years), but many other fission products such as
129mTe (half-life 33.6 days),
129Te (half-life 69.6 months),
136Cs (half-life 35 days),
110mAg (half-life 250 days),
96Zr (half-life 64 days),
95Nb (half-life 35 days),
140Ba (half-life 12.7 days) and 1
40La (half-life 1.68 days) have been detected as minor radionuclides within 300 km of FDNP [2].
131Iodine remains the greatest radiation health threat to the public, especially to children and adolescents, owing to its physiological uptake in the thyroid gland.
HOW COULD THEY FORGET STRONTIUM, THALLIUM, XENON, POLONIUM, AMERICIUM, OR ESPECIALLY PLUTONIUM?
HOW COULD THEY IGNORE ALL THESE?
HOW COULD THEY IGNORE ALL THESE?
FROM THE SAME WEBSITE, DIFFERENT "JOURNAL ENTRY":
"The contamination of Japan after the Fukushima accident has been investigated mainly for volatile fission products, but only sparsely for actinides such as plutonium.
Only small releases of actinides were ESTIMATED in Fukushima.
[ESTIMATED, NEVER MEASURED, EVEN AFTER THE 3 EXPLOSIONS!
WE MIGHT UNDERSTAND WHY JAPAN WOULDN'T MONITOR THAT (EVACUATION OF 60 MILLION, TOKYO OLYMPICS 2020, ECONOMY, ETC, WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN "CATASTROPHIC" FOR JAPAN FINANCIALLY), BUT WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE PARK OFF THE COAST AND TAKE MEASUREMENTS?]
By using accelerator mass spectrometry, we clearly demonstrated the release of Pu from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
...isotope ratio (0.381 ± 0.046) evidences that the Pu originates from a nuclear reactor (239+240Pu activity concentration 0.49 Bq/kg).
The release was enhanced by three massive hydrogen explosions that occurred in Units 1, 3 and 4.
Numerous studies revealed these airborne radionuclides in the entire northern hemisphere.
Radioisotopes of refractory elements such as strontium, barium, and lanthanides were monitored only in rare occasions.
Actinides, however, proved to be the most severely understudied group of elements, despite the fact that many of them are long-lived α-emitters: most importantly 239Pu (half-life 24,110 y) and 240Pu (half-life 6,561 y).
Most profound evidence for atmospheric releases of plutonium from Fukushima was presented in the study by Zheng et al.
Previous indications for the release of actinides from Fukushima, in particular environmental abundance of 239Np (the parent nuclide of 239Pu), were presented by Shozugawa et al.
It is remarkable to note that distance alone is no sufficient factor to estimate the findings of refractory elements such as plutonium.
...a release of plutonium-rich hot particles is of potential health concern upon inhalation or incorporation.
Our findings demonstrate the need for more detailed investigations on plutonium distribution and speciation in order to assess potential radiological consequences for the public."
THE JAPANESE NUCLEAR PLANT DAIICHI HAS EMITTED ALL OF THOSE AND IS STILL EMITTING, LEAKING, SPEWING, OOZING AND DRIBBLING ITS ENTIRE LIST OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS INTO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT , OF WHICH SOME DRIFTS UPWARD INTO THE UPPER LEVELS OF OUR ATMOSPHERE (RETURNS TO EARTH IN RAIN OR SNOW), OTHER REACHES THE SOIL, AND ALMOST THE ENTIRE LIST HAS REACHED BOTH GROUNDWATER AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND WILL CONTINUE TO FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 100 YEARS OR SO, IF WE CAN TRUST TEPCO'S NEWEST ESTIMATE ON WHEN THEY JUST MIGHT GET THAT THING UNDER CONTROL.
LET'S ALL HAVE A BANANA AND THINK ABOUT THAT, SHALL WE?
LET'S ALL HAVE A BANANA AND THINK ABOUT THAT, SHALL WE?
ABOUT THOSE X-RAYS...
EVER NOTICE THE LEAD APRONS AND LEAD SHIELDS AND DOSIMETERS WHEN YOU GO TO GET AN X-RAY?
AND THEN THEY ASK IF YOU'RE STILL FERTILE... IF YOU MAY BE PREGNANT OR INTEND TO BE SOON MAYBE?
IF X-RAYS WERE HARMLESS LITTLE THINGS, WHY THE SHIELDING, WHY BOTHER TO HAND OUT DOSIMETERS TO THE X-RAY TECHS, AND WHY WOULD IT MATTER ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A FETUS BEING AFFECTED...FROM "JUST ONE X-RAY"?
EVEN DENTISTS USE SHIELDING WHEN THEY DO A QUICK SHOT OF THOSE TEETH, RIGHT?
DID YOU KNOW THAT EVEN ONE MISSING 'PILL' USED BY 'NUCLEAR MEDICINE' TO TEST UPTAKE OF A THYROID GLAND MUST BE REPORTED TO NRC?
ONE RADIOACTIVE TOOL, INSTRUMENT, FITTING, GAUGE, BOLT, ETC, MISSING IN A NUCLEAR FACILITY MUST ALSO BE REPORTED.
JUST ONE.
FROM CANCER RESEARCH, UK
EVER NOTICE THE LEAD APRONS AND LEAD SHIELDS AND DOSIMETERS WHEN YOU GO TO GET AN X-RAY?
AND THEN THEY ASK IF YOU'RE STILL FERTILE... IF YOU MAY BE PREGNANT OR INTEND TO BE SOON MAYBE?
IF X-RAYS WERE HARMLESS LITTLE THINGS, WHY THE SHIELDING, WHY BOTHER TO HAND OUT DOSIMETERS TO THE X-RAY TECHS, AND WHY WOULD IT MATTER ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A FETUS BEING AFFECTED...FROM "JUST ONE X-RAY"?
EVEN DENTISTS USE SHIELDING WHEN THEY DO A QUICK SHOT OF THOSE TEETH, RIGHT?
DID YOU KNOW THAT EVEN ONE MISSING 'PILL' USED BY 'NUCLEAR MEDICINE' TO TEST UPTAKE OF A THYROID GLAND MUST BE REPORTED TO NRC?
ONE RADIOACTIVE TOOL, INSTRUMENT, FITTING, GAUGE, BOLT, ETC, MISSING IN A NUCLEAR FACILITY MUST ALSO BE REPORTED.
JUST ONE.
FROM CANCER RESEARCH, UK
"There are different types of ionising radiation, including gamma rays and x-rays. These types of ionising radiation can cause cancer.
These tests all involve different amounts of radiation.
The level of risk from the radiation you receive will also depend on:
The area of the body - for example x-rays of the chest pose a lower risk than x-rays of the pelvis.
Age - young patients are at more risk. Unborn babies are also at higher risk so you should tell your doctor if you are pregnant
Gender - women have a slightly higher lifetime risk of developing radiation-induced cancers than men.
Age - young patients are at more risk. Unborn babies are also at higher risk so you should tell your doctor if you are pregnant
Gender - women have a slightly higher lifetime risk of developing radiation-induced cancers than men.
A ‘full body’ CT scan uses 500 times the amount of radiation of a single chest x-ray.
Body scanners are at use in many airports across the UK and abroad. There are two types of scanner in use in the UK.
One type uses millimetre radio waves that can “see” through clothing.
The second type uses ionising radiation, which in high doses can be harmful. "
RUSSIAN ROULETTE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY?
Perhaps not of monumental importance to this comparison of bananas and nuclear fallout, Energy Splitting/Russian Roulette is mentioned 10 times in this "manual" for nuclear engineers.
I found that a wee bit disconcerting.
That the term "Russian Roulette" is used by anyone in the nuclear energy industry, well, no, that's not comforting, is it?
Body scanners are at use in many airports across the UK and abroad. There are two types of scanner in use in the UK.
One type uses millimetre radio waves that can “see” through clothing.
The second type uses ionising radiation, which in high doses can be harmful. "
CT SCANS ARE HARMLESS?
WRONG!
In 2012 a historical cohort study of >175 000 patients without previous cancer who were examined with CT head scans in UK between 1985 and 2002 was published.
WRONG!
In 2012 a historical cohort study of >175 000 patients without previous cancer who were examined with CT head scans in UK between 1985 and 2002 was published.
The study, which investigated leukemia and brain cancer, indicated a linear dose response in the low dose region and had qualitative estimates of risk that were in agreement with the Life Span Study (Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation).
[de González, Pearce et al. (August 2012). "Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study". The Lancet 380 (9840): 499–505. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0. PMC 3418594. PMID 22681860. ]
In 2013 a data linkage study of 11 million Australians with >680 000 people exposed to CT scans between 1985 and 2005 was published.[22] The study confirmed the results of the 2012 UK study for leukaemia and brain cancer but also investigated other cancer types.
"The authors conclude that their results were generally consistent with the linear no threshold theory."
HOW ABOUT THOSE AIRLINE FLIGHTS?
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, YOU SAY?
ARE YOU A FREQUENT FLYER?
SO, IF YOU DON'T MIND A POSSIBLE MELANOMA OR MAYBE STERILITY, GO FLY A PLANE OR BE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT...OR A FREQUENT FLYER?
FOR A SHORT LIST OF STUDIES ON X-RAYS AND CT DAMAGE TO HUMANS SEE THE LINKS BELOW AT THE MARK ###.
THE UNBORN
"A 2007 study of Swedish children exposed to fallout from Chernobyl while they were fetuses between 8 and 25 weeks gestation has found that the reduction in IQ at very low doses was greater than expected, given a simple LNT model for radiation damage, indicating that the LNT model may be too conservative when it comes to neurological damage."
THE EVIDENCE THAT LOW DOSES OF RADIATION CAN, HAS AND WILL KILL IS ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING AND HAS BEEN WELL KNOWN SINCE THE OLD "MANHATTAN PROJECT".
THERE HAS BEEN A RUSH TO CALM THE MASSES SINCE DAIICHI BLEW, BUT GO VISIT THOSE DOING THOSE "NEW STUDIES" THAT TELL US HOW WONDERFUL A LITTLE RADIATION IS AND SEE IF THEY'RE SITTING ON "MAGIC ROCKS", ADDING RADON TO THEIR DRINKING WATER OR RINSE CYCLE ON LAUNDRY DAY, OR IF THEY LIVE NEXT DOOR OR EVEN CLOSE TO A NUCLEAR FACILITY.
OFFER THEM SOME FUKUSHIMA TUNA, OR A CUP OF GREEN TEA GROWN IN THAT PREFECTURE OF THE SAME NAME.
ARE THEY EATING PACIFIC OYSTERS OR SALMON?
DO THEY SURF OFF OUR WEST COAST?
LIKELY NOT, NONE OF THE ABOVE.
NO, YOU CAN'T COMPARE A DOZEN FLIGHTS A WEEK TO DAILY INCESSANT NUCLEAR FALLOUT FROM THE ONGOING, NEVER-ENDING, "IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP" DAIICHI LEAKS, NOR COMPARE FLYING, X-RAY, OR BANANAS TO THE EFFECTS AN IRRADIATED LARGE BODY OF WATER LIKE THE PACIFIC OCEAN HAS ON HUMAN (AND ALL) POPULATIONS, BY WAY OF FOOD CHAIN BIOACCUMULATION OR JUST THE DRIFT INLAND FROM THAT MUCH NUCLEAR POISON.
LOS ALAMOS REMOVES PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS...
WHY?
WE KNOW WHY, DON'T WE?
"TECHNICAL REPORTS NO MORE"
Even if your search returns entries with links to online documents, those links are restricted to "selected government agencies".
The Lost Alamos web site has also removed historical documents that could have NO conceivable national security implications.
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, YOU SAY?
ARE YOU A FREQUENT FLYER?
If you take a Geiger counter with you on your next flight, you'll notice the dial ratchet up as the plane approaches cruising altitude. Every time you fly, you get zapped by a little extra radiation from space. It goes right through you, in teensy amounts. It's usually nothing to worry about, even if you're pregnant.
But for people who fly a lot — like the plane's crew — that sort of exposure might, in rare instances, amount to something.
Research published Wednesday in JAMA Dermatology shows that pilots and other air crew members have "approximately twice the incidence of melanoma compared to the general population."
The study's authors say that difference might be partially due to in-flight exposure to UV and cosmic radiation.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is using computer models to look into how working as a flight attendant might affect reproductive health.
A recent study in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine looked at data from 2 million flights and found that some flight attendants may exceed recommended radiation limits.
Barbara Grajewski, an epidemiologist with NIOSH, says at the end of the day it's about probability. "The more you're exposed, the higher the probability" that you've somewhat increased your risk of something like cancer or prenatal defects.
Airlines in European Union countries train and monitor their employees as if they were working directly with radioactive materials.
Elsewhere, Canada and Japan have issued similar recommendations.
U.S. airlines tend to be less prescriptive."
[SHHHHH! IT'S A SECRET HERE, NATIONAL SECURITY, ALL THAT...THE POPULACE WOULD PANIC!
FEAR-MONGERING, ETC, CAN'T HAVE THAT!]
FEAR-MONGERING, ETC, CAN'T HAVE THAT!]
FOR A SHORT LIST OF STUDIES ON X-RAYS AND CT DAMAGE TO HUMANS SEE THE LINKS BELOW AT THE MARK ###.
THE UNBORN
Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund, Mårten Palme, "Chernobyl's Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden"
August 2007, NBER working paper 13347
August 2007, NBER working paper 13347
"A 2007 study of Swedish children exposed to fallout from Chernobyl while they were fetuses between 8 and 25 weeks gestation has found that the reduction in IQ at very low doses was greater than expected, given a simple LNT model for radiation damage, indicating that the LNT model may be too conservative when it comes to neurological damage."
THE EVIDENCE THAT LOW DOSES OF RADIATION CAN, HAS AND WILL KILL IS ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING AND HAS BEEN WELL KNOWN SINCE THE OLD "MANHATTAN PROJECT".
THERE HAS BEEN A RUSH TO CALM THE MASSES SINCE DAIICHI BLEW, BUT GO VISIT THOSE DOING THOSE "NEW STUDIES" THAT TELL US HOW WONDERFUL A LITTLE RADIATION IS AND SEE IF THEY'RE SITTING ON "MAGIC ROCKS", ADDING RADON TO THEIR DRINKING WATER OR RINSE CYCLE ON LAUNDRY DAY, OR IF THEY LIVE NEXT DOOR OR EVEN CLOSE TO A NUCLEAR FACILITY.
OFFER THEM SOME FUKUSHIMA TUNA, OR A CUP OF GREEN TEA GROWN IN THAT PREFECTURE OF THE SAME NAME.
ARE THEY EATING PACIFIC OYSTERS OR SALMON?
DO THEY SURF OFF OUR WEST COAST?
LIKELY NOT, NONE OF THE ABOVE.
NO, YOU CAN'T COMPARE A DOZEN FLIGHTS A WEEK TO DAILY INCESSANT NUCLEAR FALLOUT FROM THE ONGOING, NEVER-ENDING, "IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP" DAIICHI LEAKS, NOR COMPARE FLYING, X-RAY, OR BANANAS TO THE EFFECTS AN IRRADIATED LARGE BODY OF WATER LIKE THE PACIFIC OCEAN HAS ON HUMAN (AND ALL) POPULATIONS, BY WAY OF FOOD CHAIN BIOACCUMULATION OR JUST THE DRIFT INLAND FROM THAT MUCH NUCLEAR POISON.
LOS ALAMOS REMOVES PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS...
WHY?
WE KNOW WHY, DON'T WE?
"TECHNICAL REPORTS NO MORE"
In a great loss of public information, the Los Alamos web site has removed virtually all of the technical and historical documents it once made available online.
The public can still search the online catalog by going to the Los Alamos Library web page and clicking on "Library Catalog".
We can only hope that common sense will prevail over time.
NOTE: The following pages organize Los Alamos reports based on subject matter related to Los Alamos history and nuclear weapons.
There are no longer any online versions available, but I have left these lists to show what was available.
Perhaps they are still available through other sources such as the National Technical Information Service.
Perhaps not of monumental importance to this comparison of bananas and nuclear fallout, Energy Splitting/Russian Roulette is mentioned 10 times in this "manual" for nuclear engineers.
I found that a wee bit disconcerting.
That the term "Russian Roulette" is used by anyone in the nuclear energy industry, well, no, that's not comforting, is it?
BUT IT IS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE FACTS.
IT IS RUSSIAN ROULETTE...WHO WANTS TO PLAY?
IT IS RUSSIAN ROULETTE...WHO WANTS TO PLAY?
ETCETERA:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19710483
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20619569
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-dental-x-rays-idUSBRE8390GM20120410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332852
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/abstract/192/4/887
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521093034.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162170.php
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=6615
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0901249
http://esciencenews.com/sources/science.centric/2008/05/22/cumulative.radiation.exposure.shows.increased.cancer.risk.emergency.department.patients
***ICRP is registered as a charity in the United Kingdom and has its scientific secretariat in Ottawa, Canada.
IT IS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY TEPCO AND THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH THE LINEAR NO THRESHOLD THEORY.
HOWEVER....Wednesday 14 March 1990, FROM 'THE HERALD, SCOTLAND':
HOWEVER....Wednesday 14 March 1990, FROM 'THE HERALD, SCOTLAND':
Now it tells us that we absorb much more plutonium, et al., from the environment and consumption of food, water and air, than it used to believe.
In other words, we are much more sensitive to Sellafield, Dounreay, Chernobyl, [FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI???] and nuclear waste than previously thought."
JUST A WEALTH OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7389
MENTIONS THE "CRITICALITY EVENT OF 1956"
"Characterization of Mixed Beta/Gamma Surface Contamination Using Passive Radiation Measurements"R. C. Hochel
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Aiken, SC 29808
http://www.abomb1.org/accident/critical.html
The "Dragon Experiment"
OTHERS FROM 1945 UP TO 1968
http://www.abomb1.org/accident/critical.html
A SCATTERING OF INTERESTING SITES
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/a_radioactive_nightmare/9886/
http://www.wpi.edu/offices/safety/trm.html#A2
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/are-the-levels-of-fukushima-radiation-hitting-north-america-harmless.html
No comments:
Post a Comment