Archive for August, 2013

Thorium, Polonium, Radon, Radium, Plutonium, Uranium

August 30, 2013

Fukushima: Alpha Radiation Dangers — Thorium, Polonium, Radon, Radium, Plutonium, Uranium…UKIAH BLOG

In Around the web on August 29, 2013  From A Green Road Magazine

A few people today have the power to create millions of ways to kill billions of people, using invisible poisons that are very difficult to detect. Poisons are the natural way to kill people without leaving a trace or a trail back to the killer.

For example, radioactive Polonium is 250 billion times more toxic than cyanide.  All nuclear reactors produce 1,200 toxic, deadly and radioactive substances, even when they are operating normally. This is where radioactive Polonium comes from for example. When these nuclear reactors have accidents, which they often do, they release huge quantities of 1,200 invisible death and suffering creating substances, which then hang round for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Is this something that we want around our children and families?

Let’s dive into just alpha radiation and find out more about it, shall we?

Alpha Particle Toxicity

 According to Wikipedia; “Being relatively heavy and positively charged, alpha particles tend to have a very short mean free path, and quickly lose kinetic energy within a short distance of their source. This results in several MeV being deposited in a relatively small volume of material. This increases the chance of cellular damage in cases of internal contamination.

“In general, external alpha radiation is not harmful since alpha particles are effectively shielded by a few centimeters of air, a piece of paper, or the thin layer of dead skin cells. Even touching an alpha source is usually not harmful, though many alpha sources also are accompanied by beta-emitting radio daughters, and alpha emission is also accompanied by gamma photon emission.If substances emitting alpha particles are ingested, inhaled, injected or introduced through the skin, then it could result in a measurable dose, (or even death, as the video  and article about radioactive polonium above so clearly point out.)

 “The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of alpha radiation is higher than that of beta or gamma radiation. RBE quantifies the ability of radiation to cause certain biological effects, notably eithercancer or cell-death, for equivalent radiation exposure.

“However, another component of alpha radiation is the recoil of the parent nucleus, termed alpha recoil.   By some estimates, this might account for most of the internal radiation damage, as the recoil nuclei are typically heavy metals which preferentially collect on the chromosomes. In some studies,[3] this has resulted in a RBE approaching 1,000 instead of the much lower value used in governmental regulations.


“The largest natural contributor to public radiation dose is radon, a naturally occurring, radioactive gas found in soil and rock.[4] If the gas is inhaled, some of the radon particles may attach to the inner lining of the lung. These particles continue to decay, emitting alpha particles which can damage cells in the lung tissue.[5]

 Electron relaxation and X-rays
 Immediately after a nuclear decay we will find that what had been a neutral atom of the mother species has become an ion of the daughter species; because the nuclear charge has changed, the number of electrons in orbit about the nucleus no longer matches the number of protons inside the nucleus. This has two consequences: first, the ion will neutralize itself by stealing an available electron from a neighboring atom or by shedding an excess electron. Second, the resulting new neutral atom is likely to be in a highly excited state: the wave functions for the electrons of the mother atom in its ground state have significant probabilities to be ground or excited states of the daughter nucleus. When, typically quite promptly, the daughter atom’s electrons relax into their ground state, the excess energy is radiated away as one or more photons. Since the transition is between states of the daughter atom, the energy spectrum of these X-rays is characteristic of the daughter species, not of the mother species. The health hazard from these X-rays is sometimes far more acute than the hazard from the alpha or beta radiation of the nuclear transformation itself.

 What the scientist is saying is that radon decays, and when it does, it releases X-rays into the surrounding areas. So alpha radiation is not just harmless stuff that a piece of paper can stop, as the pro nuclear apologists like to claim, it is deadly dangerous. All radiation exposure is cumulative, and every increase in radiation exposure generates more risk of cancer. This is why the EPA requires radon mitigation in homes that have excessive radon gas, over a certain amount.
 For more information, see;


“The death of Marie Curie at age 66 from leukemia was probably caused by prolonged exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation, but it is not clear if this was due to alpha radiation or X-rays. Curie worked extensively with radium, which decays into radon,[6] along with other radioactive materials that emit beta and gamma rays. However, Curie also worked with unshielded X-ray tubes during World War I, and an analysis of her skeleton during a reburial showed a level of radioisotope burden. (It only takes a low level or ‘dose’ of radiation to kill someone, as in the case of the Polonium poisoning above.)

 For more information, see;


“Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko‘s 2006 murder by radiation poisoning is thought to have been carried out with polonium-210, an alpha emitter.”Static eliminators typically use polonium-210, an alpha emitter, to ionize air, allowing the ‘static cling’ to more rapidly dissipate.”

Polonium Poisoning Caused Arafat’s Death, By Al Jazeera

Tests reveal that Arafat’s final personal belongings – his clothes, his toothbrush, even his iconic kaffiyeh – contained abnormal levels of polonium, a rare, highly radioactive element. Those personal effects, which were analyzed at the Institut de Radiophysique in Lausanne, Switzerland, were variously stained with Arafat’s blood, sweat, saliva and urine. The tests carried out on those samples suggested that there was a high level of polonium inside his body when he died.

Polonium is produced by nuclear reactors. The PRIMARY use of nuclear reactors is to produce fuel that will make nuclear weapons. Any nation that has a nuclear reactor has the capability to make multiple nuclear bombs very quickly. Electricity generation is just an excuse designed to get the public to ‘buy into’ the idea of a nuclear reactor, because that seems like a positive idea. But why would a town pay for electricity for 30 years, and then agree to the risk of contaminating the whole area for 250,000 years, plus pay for guarding the waste for 1 million years? It does not make any sense.


Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances on the planet. According to some experts, just 9 pounds of this substance can poison everyone on Earth, if distributed equally. Plutonium is made by nuclear reactors and is one of those things that the military greatly desires in order to make nuclear bombs. Plutonium forms the basis for killing millions of people. Much like polonium, a VERY SMALL amount that cannot be seen, felt, or measured with a Geiger Counter is enough to kill you. One nano particle inhaled and stuck in the lungs is enough to give anyone lung cancer.In experiments with dogs, there was no dose low enough to NOT cause the death of these animals. Just 1 nano particle size of dust (1 microgram) that could not even be seen, was enough to kill every dog tested.

Radioactive and toxic plutonium have been found all around the world after the Fukushima accident. The above video is just ONE example of this substance being found, out of many independent researchers who tracked this hard to detect, but deadly substance.

For more information about plutonium, read;

How Dangerous Is 400-600 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima? Via A Green Road Blog


Pro nuclear apologists like to talk about how alpha radiation cannot harm anyone, because this type of radiation is blocked by the skin. This all sounds good for a 30 second sound bite for the consumption of mass media viewers, but this factoid ignores the DANGER of alpha radiation particles, namely; what happens when you INHALE or absorb this radioactive heavy metal internally through food, water or air? In the following short video, nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson explains how deadly just ONE alpha particle can be, if it is inhaled.

Of course, alpha particles do not just float around and land on your skin. They get into your lungs, intestines, and even into your organs and glands. But the nuclear apologists do not like to focus on that, because it makes nuclear power look like what it is, a deadly game that only lunatics and mass murderers would pursue.See the picture of what a radioactive ‘hot particle’ does to lung tissue below… Due to Fukushima, every person on Earth inhaled thousands of these hot particles. Did any of them lodge in your lungs or sinuses? Did you ingest some with food or water?


Uranium Mining Legacy; Toxic Waste For 1,000,000 Years; via A Green Road Blog

Uranium Mining; Broken Promises, Broken Rainbow; via A Green Road Blog

Uranium Mines Dot Navajo Land, Neglected and Still Perilous; via A Green Road Blog


Paducah Kentucky Nuclear Enrichment Plant Dirty Global Warming Secrets; via A Green Road Blog

Nuclear Plants And Radioactive Water Contamination; via A Green Road Blog

Depleted Uranium Effects In The Human Body; via A Green Road Blog

Bottom line, there are over 100 ALPHA radiation emitting radioactive substances created, and most of these deadly substances are man made, created inside nuclear reactors. We have only discussed a few of them here. To discuss all of them, would take a very thick book. To discuss the dangers of all 1,200 deadly, toxic and radioactive substances would take a lifetime.


Is this what our communities want to spend taxpayer money on? Do we really want to make the choice to spend time producing more death and suffering instead of more life and living? Do we really want more death and suffering producing agents in our air, our food, our water, and our children and seven future generations of our children’s children?

Alpha Radiation Dangers; Thorium, Polonium, Radon, Radium, Plutonium, Uranium….via @AGreenRoad

The $90 billion nuclear gamble – Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

August 18, 2013

IEER Report: Small Modular Reactors a “Poor Bet” To Revive Failed Nuclear Renaissance in U.S.

SMRs will still present enormous financial risks, but that risk would be shifted from the reactor site to the supply chain and the assembly lines. Shifting from the present behemoths to smaller unit sizes is a financial risk shell game, not a reduction in risk.”

PR Newswire

$90 Billion in Initial Manufacturing Order Book Needed, Requiring Massive Involvement by the Chinese or Taxpayer-Backed Federal Subsidies; Major Implications Seen for Companies and SMR Test Sites in FL, MO, NC, OR, PA, SC, and TN.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – A shift to “small module reactors” (SMRs) is unlikely to breathe new life into the increasingly moribund U.S. nuclear power industry, since SMRs will likely require tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies or government purchase orders, create new reliability vulnerabilities, as well as serious concerns in relation to both safety and proliferation, according a report issued today by the nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) think tank .

The IEER report has implications for SMR companies headquartered or with planned test sites inFlorida, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Titled “Light Water Designs of Small Modular Reactors: Facts and Analysis,” the IEER report focuses on light water reactor (LWR) SMR designs, the development and certification of which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is already subsidizing at taxpayer expense.  The four leading SMR designs are: mPower Reactor by Charlotte, NC-headquartered Babcock & Wilcox Company, which, in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority, could get from the DOE up to $226 million in federal funding, of which $79 million has been secured; Westinghouse Electric, headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA., and now working with Missouri-based utility Ameren to secure DOE funding for design and certification of the Westinghouse SMR; Jupiter, FL-based Holtec, the subject of a DOE agreement for the construction of  a Holtec SMR test unit at the Savannah River Site, a nuclear-weapon materials facility near Aiken, S.C. and NuScale Power, a Corvallis, OR. Company, which has signed an agreement with the DOE to build a NuScale Power SMR demonstration unit at the Savannah River Site.

Key conclusions of the IEER report include the following:

  • $90 billion manufacturing order book could be required for mass production of SMRs.   As the report notes: ”SMR proponents claim that small size will enable mass manufacturing in a factory and shipment to the site as an assembled unit, which will enable considerable savings in two ways. First, it would reduce onsite construction cost and time; second, mass manufacturing will make up in economies of volume production what is lost in economies of scale. In other words, modular reactors will be economical because they will be more like assembly-line cars than hand-made Lamborghinis ?¦ A hundred [mPower] reactors, each costing about $900 million, including construction costs ?¦ would amount to an order book of $90 billion, leaving aside the industry’s record of huge cost escalations. This would make the SMR assembly- line launch something like creating a new commercial airliner, say like Dreamliner or the Airbus 350 ?¦ SMRs will still present enormous financial risks, but that risk would be shifted from the reactor site to the supply chain and the assembly lines. Shifting from the present behemoths to smaller unit sizes is a financial risk shell game, not a reduction in risk.”
  • Who pays?:  China or massive federal subsidies … or both.  As the report notes, the industry’s forecast of relatively inexpensive individual SMRs is predicated on major orders and assembly line production. However, “China, where 28 reactors are under construction, already has a much better supply chain than the United States. So the U.S. government subsidies to B&W, TVA, and Westinghouse and others may pave the way for an assembly line in China! In fact, Westinghouse has already signed a memorandum of understanding with China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation ‘to develop an SMR based on Westinghouse SMR technology.’ … The alternative to Chinese manufacture would be federal government subsidies to set up manufacturing in the United States.”  Westinghouse has claimed that U.S. reactor orders would be sourced in the U.S. ?? but would require two supply chains. Already, there is discussion of billions of dollars in additional federal subsidies for SMRs to do what the private marketplace will not.
  • SMRs will lose the economies of scale of large reactors.  As the report notes: ”Nuclear reactors are strongly sensitive to economies of scale: the cost per unit of capacity goes up as the size goes down. This is because the surface area per kilowatt of capacity, which dominates materials cost and much of the labor cost, goes up as reactor size is decreased. Similarly, the cost per kilowatt of secondary containment, as well as independent systems for control, instrumentation, and emergency management, increases as size decreases ?¦ For these reasons, the nuclear industry has historically built larger and larger reactors in an effort to benefit from economies of scale. The four designs would reduce the size of each reactor considerably: by a factor of five (Westinghouse) to a factor of 25 (NuScale) relative to the reactors now being built inGeorgia and South Carolina. Such large size reductions imply significant increases in unit cost due to loss of economies of scale.”  It is highly questionable whether mass manufacturing cost reduction can make up for the cost escalation caused by loss of economies of scale.

Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., nuclear engineer and president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and author of the SMR report, said: “SMRs are a poor bet to solve nuclear power’s problems and we see many troubling ways in which SMRs might actually make the nuclear power industry’s current woes even worse. SMRs are being promoted vigorously in the wake of the failure of the much-vaunted nuclear renaissance. But SMRs don’t actually reduce financial risk; they increase it, transferring it from the reactor purchaser to the manufacturing supply chain. Given that even the smaller risk of projects consisting of one or two large reactors is considered a ‘bet my company’ risk it is difficult to see that Wall Street would be interested in betting much larger sums on financing the SMR supply chain without firm orders. But those orders would not be forthcoming without a firm price, which cannot be established without a mass manufacturing supply chain. This indicates that only massive federal intervention with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and orders could make mass-manufacturing of SMRs a reality in the United States.”

M.V. Ramana, Ph.D., Nuclear Futures Laboratory and Program on Science and Global Security,Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, said: “SMRs would likely increase proliferation risks. My colleagues at Princeton University and I analyzed the proliferation risks of SMRs of various kinds ?¦ and concluded that the proliferation risks would increase significantly unless specific design and safeguards steps were taken to mitigate them.  Left unaddressed risk increases by about 45 percent compared to current light water reactors for an equivalent power capacity. This risk increase does not include the inspection problems attendant upon a larger geographic dispersal that may accompany small modular reactors. The safeguarding of the reactors and spent fuel would be a more difficult and complex task than with the large reactors of today.”

Dr. Makhijani added: “Without huge federal subsidies, the SMR supply chain is likely to emerge in other countries, probably China, even if the designs are proven and tested inthe United States. Why would China order large numbers of U.S. reactors when it can set up its own supply chain and can manufacture industrial goods more cheaply? It is fanciful and impractical to believe that SMRs can bring large numbers of industrial jobs to the United States in a globalized world economy governed by World Trade Organization rules.  Efficiency improvements and wind-generated electricity, are already cheaper than new large reactors. On the other hand, commercialization of SMRs will require mass manufacturing facilities for the entire supply chain, which will take a decade or more, if there are sufficient orders. By that time, a distributed grid based on renewable energy is likely to be a reality, eliminating the need for a new generation of nuclear reactors large or small.”

Other key report findings include the following:

  • SMRs could reduce some safety risks but also create new ones, particularly if current reactor rules are relaxed.  Key elements of SMRs would be underground. “These [safety] features [of SMRs] would reduce some risks. But they could create new problems as well. For instance, they could aggravate the problem of flooding ?¦ Safety improvements may be reduced because SMR proponents are already arguing for changes in regulations to reduce costs. For instance, the current mPower design would have just three personnel for operating for two reactors ?? an operator for each reactor and one supervisor overseeing them both. This raises serious safety questions ?? will three operating staff be able to adequately respond to and manage a serious accident? Reducing security requirements, the plant exclusion zone, and the 10-mile emergency planning zone are other industry regulatory goals for SMRs.”
  • It breaks, you bought it:   No thought is evident on how to handle SMR recalls.   “Millions of cars, presumably made to high quality control are routinely recalled. The most comparable example in terms of the size of the supply chain and overall order books for SMRs would be passenger aircraft. Boeing Dreamliners were presumably rigorously designed, tested, and certified before they entered into service. But battery failures, including a fire in flight resulted in a worldwide grounding of all the planes. How would a similar situation with SMRs be handled? Would they all be shut down pending resolution of an issue of comparable significance? What about grid stability, if SMRs supply almost 25 percent of the electricity by 2035 (as has been suggested).”

See the full report at

The nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research provides interested parties with understandable and accurate scientific and technical information on energy and environmental issues. IEER’s aim is to bring scientific excellence to public policy issues in order to promote the democratization of science and a safer, healthier environment.

SOURCE Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Washington, DC.

Article source ;

“Pandora’s Promise” a dishonest pro nuclear propaganda film

August 18, 2013

The movie also illustrates that none of its five layman “converts” to pro-nuke views knows enough about nuclear plants or other energy solutions to evaluate them fairly. They only know the Nuclear Dream.

A Nuclear Submariner Challenges a Pro-Nuclear Film  NYT, By ANDREW C. REVKIN, 16 Aug 13 John Dudley Miller, a former nuclear engineering officer in the Navy with a doctorate in social psychology and a long career in journalism, sent this “Your Dot” critique of “Pandora’s Promise,” the new documentary defending nuclear power,

When I saw “Pandora’s Promise,” I didn’t believe a word of it. I served as a submarine nuclear engineering officer for my four-year stint in the Navy years ago. I qualified as an Engineering Officer of the Watch (a guy who’s in charge of the plant and its other technicians during four-hour shifts) on two different sub reactors. I know the truth about reactors, and the movie replaces it with the demonstrably false Nuclear Dream, a just-so mythical story claiming that nukes are safe, clean and cheap…..

the movie –   It spews out a stream of untruths, for instance, telling us only that Chernobyl killed56 people. It leaves out that a United Nations World Health Organization agency predicts 16,000 more will die from Chernobyl cancers and that the European Environment Agency estimates 34,000 more. It omits that non-fatalthyroid cancer struck another 6,000, mostly children

Even the movie’s two reactor designers distort truth. Physicist Charles Till claims that fast-breeder reactors are inherently safe. Actually, they’re riskier than ordinary reactorsHans BetheManhattan Project scientist and Nobel laureatecalculated in 1956 that if a breeder’s liquid sodium coolant leaked out, it could melt in 40 seconds, become a small unintended atom bomb and spontaneously explode. (Modern designers believe breeders are more likely to melt down like Three Mile Island than to explode like Chernobyl.)

The breeder reactors EBR-1 in Idaho and Fermi-1 near Detroit partially melted. Several breeders have suffered sodium coolant fires, because sodium automatically burns in air and explodes in water.

Engineer Len Koch tells us that breeders create plutoniumthat can all be recycled to power other reactors that will produce more plutonium in an endless chain. But the Idaho National Laboratory has been trying for 13 years to separate the plutonium bred inside the EBR-2, and 24 to 35 percent of each batch cannot be removed.

The leftover plutonium must be isolated for 240,000 yearsbefore it is safe, because breathing air contaminated with it sooner can cause fatal lung cancers. Creating it is the most immoral action humans have ever taken. We get electricity for a few decades; future generations inherit an impossible burden essentially forever.

The world’s 990,000 pounds of already-separated plutonium can make more than 35,000 A-bombs. Procure29 pounds of it and you can make your very own.

The movie also illustrates that none of its five layman “converts” to pro-nuke views knows enough about nuclear plants or other energy solutions to evaluate them fairly. They only know the Nuclear Dream.

For instance, author Stewart Brand tells us that thinking even 10,000 years in the future is “science fiction,” so we should just forget about sequestering long-lived waste for 240,000 years. That’s fatally irresponsible.

Career public relations man Michael Shellenberger dismisses energy efficiency as inconsequential. But the international consulting firm McKinsey & Companycalculated in 2009 that by 2020 the United States could cut non-transportation energy use 23 percent.

In the film, activist Mark Lynas claims that because wind and solar power are intermittent, we must build 100 percent redundant natural gas backup plants for them. But the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says that if we build a more flexible electricity gridrenewables can provide 80 percent of the non-transportation electricity we will use in 2050, without backups.

Lynas also asserts that natural radiation is much more harmful than man-made radiation. That’s backwards. While we absorb background radiation every day, standing next to a newly removed reactor spent fuel rod for a few seconds will kill you, David Lochbaum, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) nuclear safety engineer, calculates.

Last, the documentary includes an interview in which the novelist Gwyneth Cravens claims that drinking one day’stritium leakage from the Vermont Yankee plant in 2010 would have deposited no more radiation inside someone than eating one banana. Actually, it would have delivered about 150,000 times that much, calculates Ed Lyman, a UCS physicist. (Here’s more from UCS on that plant’s problems.)………..

Dental X rays a significant cancer cause

August 18, 2013

Radiation safety of dental X-rays questioned, by ALEX ROSLIN on AUG 14, 2013“………..In a study in the journal Cancer last year, 1,433 people with men­ingioma were found to be two times more likely to have had a “bitewing” dental X-ray as those without the illness. Those who reported having a panorex scanning dental X-ray (which gives a two-dimensional panoramic view of the mouth) before age 10 were 4.9 times more likely to have meningioma.

Meningioma is the most common form of primary brain tumour (tumours that start in the brain). Women get it more than twice as often as men.

Other studies have linked dental X-rays to thyroid cancer, breast cancer (in women who hadn’t worn a shielded apron), saliva-gland tumours, and glioma (a cancerous type of brain and spinal tumour).

Pregnant women who got a dental X-ray were three times more likely to deliver a low-birth-weight baby (weighing less than 2.5 kilograms), according to a 2004 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Dental X-rays are the most common way Americans are exposed to human-made radiation, the 2012 Cancer study said.

Yet despite growing awareness about the risks of X-rays, radiation in many dental offices is actually rising. That’s thanks to the explosive growth of 3-D cone-beam CT (computed tomography) machines, which give off up to 60 times the radiation of a conventional dental X-ray.

CT manufacturers heavily market their machines to dentists, promising unsurpassed detail about a patient’s mouth. The marketing includes payments to prominent dentists to give talks to colleagues, ads in dental magazines and displays at dental conferences, according to a 2010 New York Times investigation.

“Kids love to see that 3-D image,” one orthodontist said in a webcast sponsored by a CT maker.

The marketing often minimizes the radiation exposure from the machines, while experts on dental radiation criticize the growing “indiscriminate use” of CT scans for routine screening, particularly by orthodontists, the story said.

“The parents of these children have no idea about the amount of radiation used in these CT scans, and even more frightening, neither do the dentists,” Nicholas Dello Russo, an instructor in periodontology at Harvard University’s school of dental medicine, told the Times.

Here in B.C., the first CT machine was introduced in a dental office in 2006 or 2007. Today, five to 10 percent of dental offices use one, according to Daniel Hanson of Langley-based Innovative Biomedical Engineering.

Hanson’s company is hired by the B.C. Dental Association to inspect dentists’ X-ray machines to ensure they comply with radiation safety regulations. That doesn’t include looking at patients’ radiation-exposure records, which Hanson said no one in the province is tracking…….

The increasing use of dental CT scans is part of a trend of patients being exposed to increasing amounts of other medical X-ray radiation. In the U.S., radiation exposure from diagnostic medical X-rays has shot up more than sevenfold for the average person since the early 1980s, in large part because of the use of medical CT machines, according to a 2009 study by the U.S.-based National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.

An estimated 29,000 cancers (half of them fatal) will result from the 72 million medical CT scans done in 2007 alone, the U.S. National Cancer Institute said in a different 2009 study.

Yet only nine percent of emergency-room doctors believe CT scans increase cancer risk, and only three percent of patients think so, according to a 2004 study in the journal Radiology.

Growing awareness of risks from dental X-rays prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 to call on dentists to reduce radiation by switching to faster-speed types of X-ray film that require less radiation……

Radiation health research perverted by the International Atomic Energy Agency

August 18, 2013

The Nuclear Cancer inside of the United Nations, blog by Jan Hemmer  June 1, 2013 by Mikkai   妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ      ”……The main way in which the “radiation protection industry” has succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear power is by insisting on a group of extremely restrictive definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic. For example, under IAEA’s criteria:

>    If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA’s figures

>    If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.

>    If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it isnot counted.

>    Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count

>    A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.

>    Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease does not count since it is not a “serious genetic disease” in the Mendelian sense.

>    Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].

>    Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if the person smokes — in fact whenever there is a possibility of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.

>    If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body.

quote by Dr. Rosalia Bertell, November 1999 issue of The Ecologist, pp. 408-411:


True medical research negated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

August 18, 2013

The IAEA wants the people make believe, that the main effect of the atomic catastrophe is psychological

The Nuclear Cancer inside of the United Nations, blog by Jan Hemmer, June 1, 2013 by Mikkai   妊娠中の日本人女性の避難す

 22nd July 1946 – Creation of World Health Organiation  (WHO)

10th December 1948 – The UN adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

July 1957 – Creation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

28th May 1959 – Signing of the Agreement WHA 12-40 between WHO and IAEA.

The UN is divided into 7 organisations, of which two are of interest to us, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council. The “Economic and Social Council” oversees ALL the United Nations agencies with the exception of the “IAEA”. In fact, the IAEA is the only agency that reports directly to the “Security Council” which is made up of representatives of 15 countries, of which 5 are permanent members of the Council : the United States, the Untied Kingdom, the Russian Federation, China and France. These 5 nations are all nuclear powers, both civil and military, and almost all are exporters of nuclear technology.

The 10 remaining members (or countries) have a mandate which lasts for 2 years.
The influence of these 5 permanent members of the Security Council on policy making within the IAEA is enormous and ongoing. With no counterbalancing power, it is almost impossible to claim that the IAEA has an objective view of the nuclear industry and the consequences of its use.

On 28th May 1959, the IAEA (not yet two years old !) and WHO signed an agreement referred to as “WHA 12-40” which, though it might, on paper, appear balanced and reciprocal, in practice, puts WHO in a subordinate position to the IAEA.

The IAEA wants the people make believe, that the main effect of the atomic catastrophe is psychological. This is made in these steps:

– Make the people believe, that because of background radiation every additional radiation is natural, normal, not bad (known as the principle of “substantial equivalence”)

– Tell the people, that Fukushima is not as bad as Chernobyl, and, Chernobyl was a small accident (50 deaths acc. to WHO, 125,000 deaths acc. to Ukrainian health minisry 1993).

– Make the people believe, that any other statement is panic and unobjective (The IAEA uses the word “Radiophobia” for Chernobyl)

– The IAEA recognizes the disease in highly contaminated areas as not in connection with the contamination.

– Make sure that there are no independent measurements, only measurements by the atomic power plant operator, it is also important NOT to show radiationmeasurements during the TV weather forecasts.

– Make sure that there are no organized measurements at all, for each region, each plant, each city – especially not in the media. Or do reconstrucion on the basis of official data, which are often too low.

– Advise the officals with authentic language

– Advise the government to install a 30 km No Enter Zone – invented and used during the atomic weapon test in the U.S. – but 30 km is not enough for an atomic reactor accident.

– Refuse cancer studies like the german KiKK study as unscientific

– Raise radiation limits for different groups of people, so that different values can be measured but each is normal, and below the limt

Radiation sickness

August 18, 2013

With a large enough dose of radiation, for instance, bone marrow will break down almost completely causing major problems with anemia and maintenance of the blood. 

this problem is distinct from cancer as caused by radiation.

Geek Answers: What is radiation sickness and why does it happen? GEEK By  Aug. 15, 2013   Acute Radiation Syndrome, more commonly known as radiation sickness, is one of the scarier threats out there, since it’s born of a force we can neither see nor readily detect and its symptoms can be varied and hard to identify. It can range in severity from an upset stomach to a long, painful death, and it often attacks people literally from the inside out. It seems like an almost spooky threat, but there is some very simple science radiation sickness. Essentially, it comes down to the type of radiation that can alter the electrical structure of atoms in the body.

We call such radiation “ionizing radiation” because it carries enough kinetic energy to knock an electron off of an atom it hits, giving that atom a non-standard number of electrons, turning it into an ion. It generally takes quite a bit of energy to achieve this, and ionizing radiation is almost exclusively the result of large and violent events (both manmade and cosmic). A nuclear reactor produces ionizing radiation that must be filtered out with shielding around the core which can — in the event of a disaster — contaminate whole communities, like Chernobyl. The sun itself would shower the Earth with far too much ionizing radiation for life, were it not for our light-scattering upper atmosphere. Still, some forms of radiation get through, like ultra-violet radiation from the sun, or the super-powerful gamma radiation from supernovae and other stellar events.

When ionizing radiation creates an ion in the body, it releases a small but significant amount of heat, and the atom itself can, depending on its identity and environment, go on to steal or donate electrons to surrounding atoms in an effort to neutralize itself. This latter effect is not unlike the mechanism of free radical damage. Regardless, both forms of damage are caused by newly ionized atoms and molecules, and in large enough doses can wreak havoc on the body.

Certain organs and tissue types are more vulnerable to these kinds of damage. With a large enough dose of radiation, for instance, bone marrow will break down almost completely causing major problems with anemia and maintenance of the blood. When the damage occurs in a skin cell, either randomly or because the radiation is too weak to penetrate through the skin, this can result in radiation burns and other surface deformities……

It’s worth noting that this problem is distinct from cancer as caused by radiation. Damage to DNA can occur due to ionizing radiation, and this can have direct effects due to crippling a cell’s ability to properly make certain proteins. However, only very specific and unlikely mutations will lead to cancer, specifically, and while the cause of those mutations may be radiation we do not consider such cancers to be within the scope of radiation sickness.

Safety reporting procedures designed to protect the nuclear industry, not the public

August 18, 2013

Incapacitation and Protection AGAINST Truth, Blog by Jan Hemmer  June 2, 2013 by Mikkai   It is remarkable how reports always include “stress” / “fear” / “might” / “concern” / “risk” / “Danger” in their headlines and MAIN goals of reporting.

The real damage occurring moves into the background. The dead, the injured, not worth looking at, only the concern counts. This is important, especially during nuclear catastrophes (which never end), to create the illusion of an “end”, to overcome the “current situation”.

This is not about hope or strength, but to cover up, so that the Holocaust industry can live on. Nourished by the death of children, sponsored by the IAEA and the World Health Organization. I present you two instruments which are used: 1) The invention of an unethical, non-medical term: “Radiophobia” and 2) the exclusion of NGOs as alarmists. Compare everything you have read and seen with this information. Be ready to see everything in a totally new light. Even the term “stress” is today overused, for everything, as if stress is something new in human history and could be responsible for all the diseases. It’s not. Internal Emitters from Reactors are. Risk is a virtual term, which conceals existing, current, happening damage.

Experts suggest that we accept that cancer thins the ranks around us.
At the same time our experts tell us Nuclear Reactors cause no health effect.
And even the victims promote “Living with Cancer” , “my life with cancer”….
The romanticizing of murder is one of the means of repression and powerlessness.
And is imposed on the coming generations.
The same with diabetes, allergies, dead or premature birth, birth defects, autoimmune diseases, ADD, disabilities, etc…

At the same time our human emotions that are vital for life, are more and more misunderstood as aberrations. By a diabolical mechanization of our lives. Also powered by experts. That’s why we always read “risk”, “may”, “concern” – instead of REAL DAMAGE happening RIGHT NOW.

A reactor means for each country the following:

  • People do not want reactors
  • The reactors are imposed on them
  • Reactors scatter death more sophisticated (effect after Generationns) and more effective (food, soil, water) than nuclear bombs
  • People are allowed to become irradiated by reactors through dose limits (these are justified by NOTHING)
  • The people pay the reactors, although they never wanted them
    A reactor may cost 15 billion – one thousandth (15 million) is sufficient to control the press, experts, politicians
  • Few countries have mastered the fuel cycle or have the required money, or no know-how: financing, operation, and raw materials come from outside – whole nations become hostages
  • If a reactor explodes – people pay for it, the people who were NEVER wanted the reactors
    Doctors are not set in radiation biology knowledge
  • The victims pay the perpetrator
  • The perpetrator plays as a victim who badly needs more money
  • The victims even have to complain to get a single cent
  • For children with cancer by Fukushima, there is absolutely NOTHING
  • The criteria according to which a child is sick by reactors, the industry sets. NOT doctors
  • Parents who still dare to do so are persecuted and marginalized
  • In court ONLY the methodology of the perpetrator / nuclear industry counts
  • The established health ministeries rely on the Commission on Radiological Protection
  • The Radiation Protection Commission refers to the international Commission on Radiological Protection
  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection relies on the IAEA / RERF
  • The IAEA / RERF relies on the military industrial nuclear complex of five veto-wielding Security Council and the fraud Hiroshima & Nagasaki findings
  • The natural radiation was responsible for almost all mutations of evolution
    A radiation dose produced far below the dose limits emitted by reactors increases the mutation rate easily (genomic instability, point mutation)
    Almost every mutation is bad and brings only (fatal) Cons
  • The victims are even ostracized by their own fellows
  • Children and fetuses die faster, be misunderstood even by adults, who are also victims
  • The Incapacitation of the victims happens legally, by illegal (emergency) laws
  • The WHO refers to the IAEA, since 1959 (WHA 12-40 contract)
  • NGOs who are doing work (measurements, evacuation) are attacked as “panic makers” & “unpatriotic”
  • Nuclear Safety means: Safety for the Reactor, NOT the people
  • Nuclear Safety means: MORE MONEY for the Industry
  • The Devil acts as Angel (WHO, IAEA) …………

How the International Atomic Energy Agency belittles opponents of nuclear power

August 18, 2013

The Nuclear Cancer inside of the United Nations, blog by Jan Hemmer  June 1, 2013 by Mikkai   妊娠中の日本人女性の避難す “……….At the Chernobyl IAEA forum the term “Radiophobia” was invented and used: “What’s worse, the IAEA is going public these days with statements ridiculing the so called “radiophobia” of the population and calling for an end of aid programs, which, according to the IAEA report of 2005, only serve to instil a victim mentality in a totally healthy population – a claim not only cynical, but potentially dangerous for the health of the affected population.” Source:

“Presently the international organizations (WHO, IAEA) recognize as the main cause of increase of thyroid cancer in liquidators and children population after the accident their irradiation with radioactive iodine, I-131. The rest of diseases, they suppose, are provoked by psycho-emotional reactions..” (!!!…… “ IGNORED BY IAEA, UNSCEAR, ICRP, WHO

The problematic Fukushima ice wall plan

August 18, 2013

At Fukushima, those problems will be even more extreme, but the cost of doing nothing is even higher

How to Build an Ice Wall Around a Leaking Nuclear Reactor   Yahoo News, Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic 14 Aug 13  Building cryogenic barriers sounds like the specialty of an obscure supervillain, but it’s a well-established technique in civil engineering, used regularly for tunnel boring and mining. Ground freezing was even tested as a way of containing radioactive waste in the 1990s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and performed admirably.

at left, workers near Fukushima radioactive water storage tanks

Joe Sopko, the civil engineering firm Moretrench’s director of ground freezing, has spoken with several consultants about the details of the project, and he’s convinced it’s certainly possible. “This is not a complicated freeze job. It really isn’t,” he told me. “However, the installation, because of the radiation, is.”…….

Here’s how it works. Freeze pipes, made from normal steel, are sunk into the ground at regular intervals. The spacing is normally about one meter. Then, some type of coolant is fed into the pipes. Sopko uses a brine — salty liquid which can be cooled far below the freezing point of fresh water without turning into a solid. On the surface, a big refrigerator chills the liquid, which is pumped into the pipes. The liquid extracts heat from the ground, and returns to the chiller, where it is recooled and sent back down. It’s not a fast process and can take many months. (Sometimes, for speed’s sake an expendable refrigerant like liquid nitrogen is used, but it requires trucking in tanks full of the stuff.)

First, ice forms in columns around the freeze pipes. Then, as time goes on, the ice spreads out, linking the columns. Finally, an impermeable wall forms. For containment, it’s important that the ice extend all the way down to the bedrock, so that the walls of ice form a box with the bedrock at the bottom. If an earthquake cracks the ice or the power goes out for a period of times, refrigerating the ground again re-seals the wall.

“You have all this cold frozen soil that water wants to leak through,” Yarmak said. “But as the water leaks its way through, it freezes, and the wall heals itself back up.”………

The key problem ground freezing projects can run into, Sopko said, was fast flowing groundwater. Flow rates above 1 meter per day can make it difficult for the freeze wall to form. But he said that he’d spoken with people with knowledge of the site, who said the rate was a tenth of that, or about 10 centimeters per day.

The most difficult thing, as in all cryogenic barrier construction, is the drilling.

“The holes have to go in straight. They have to be parallel to each other,” Sopko said. “If the pipes deviate too far apart from each other, then, you don’t get closure between the two.” In other words, you’d have holes in your wall.

Arctic Foundation’s Yarmak also noted that the difficulty of the drilling would vary. The installation of the pipes on the inland side of the complex would be relatively easier because the water you’d encounter would be less contaminated. It’s on the other side, after the water has passed through the plant, that the drilling could get tricky.

“If it’s contaminated material, then everything gets really expensive, and things slow down. And you have to make sure you’re keeping your people safe and not screwing up the environment more than it already is,” Yarmak said.

However, if the engineers can get the inland and wing walls to form, then the amount of water flowing through the plant could drop enough to make drilling on the ocean side a little easier.

Still, working on a contaminated site is just difficult. At Oak Ridge, Yarmak’s crew had to stay on a patch of pavement that had been plopped down over an old cooling pond. “You couldn’t walk off the pavement. The pavement was clean, but the woods were not. You couldn’t go into the woods. If the leaves came down, you had to blow them away because they were contaminated,” he said. “It was quite an interesting job, but it was a little stressful. You wanted to make sure your crew stayed safe.”

At Fukushima, those problems will be even more extreme, but the cost of doing nothing is even higher.