{"id":175,"date":"2013-12-09T17:43:54","date_gmt":"2013-12-09T17:43:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.propectin.com\/blog\/?p=175"},"modified":"2013-12-09T17:44:58","modified_gmt":"2013-12-09T17:44:58","slug":"175","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.propectin.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/09\/175\/","title":{"rendered":"What is the ACTUAL Risk for Pacific Coast Residents from Fukushima Radiation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/contributed\/2013-12-02\/what-actual-risk-pacific-coast-residents-fukushima-radiation<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/h1>\n

What Is The ACTUAL Risk for Pacific Coast Residents from Fukushima Radiation?<\/h1>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a012\/02\/2013 19:51 -0500<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\u201c[The Odds of] Longer Term Chronic Effects, Cancer Or Genetic Effects \u2026 Cannot Be Said To Be Zero\u201d<\/h3>\n

It is very difficult to obtain accurate information on the dangers from Fukushima radiation to residents of the West Coast of North America and Hawaii.<\/p>\n

On the one hand, there is fear-mongering and \u201cwe\u2019re all going to die\u201d type hysteria.<\/p>\n

On the one hand, there is a tendency for governments to cover up the truth to avoid panic and deflect blame for bad policy. Japan is poised to pass a bill which would\u00a0outlaw most reporting on Fukushima<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 And the U.S. government is\u00a0not\u00a0even\u00a0monitoring<\/em>\u00a0radiation levels in the waters off the U.S. coast.\u00a0 As the Cape Cod Times\u00a0reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

With the first plume of water carrying radionuclides from Fukushima due to hit the U.S. West Coast any day now, [the senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Ken Buesseler’s]\u00a0 latest project is to convince the federal government to monitor radiation levels in the sea water.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t have a U.S. agency responsible for radiation in the ocean,\u201d Buesseler said. \u201cIt\u2019s really bizarre.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

He spent this past week in Washington, D.C., meeting with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, asking them to come up with some sort of plan to keep tabs on levels of radionuclides in the ocean.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Buesseler also talked with U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who agreed the federal government has a role in making sure the oceans are healthy and safe.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But Markey said in an email that an increased federal role is not likely [because of budget cuts].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, Dr. Buesseler\u00a0points out<\/a>\u00a0the circular reasoning which the government is using (at 10:00)<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

I completely agree that no radiation has been seen in the regards that we\u2019re not really testing for it [laughter] in any organized way \u2026 We have very few data; it\u2019s not really being organized.\u00a0The government says we don\u2019t really need to do that because we\u2019re predicting very low levels<\/strong>. On the other hand, you could argue I\u2019d very much like to see study on our side of the ocean just to confirm these values and build some confidence with the public that\u2019s been concerned about this. They\u2019re right to be concerned \u2014 as scientists we\u2019re telling them they shouldn\u2019t be, but it\u2019d be nice to have a few more data points to fill that gap \u2026 I\u2019ve been told that there\u2019s very little testing going on.<\/p>\n

People are certainly concerned.\u00a0 As the Wall Street Journal\u00a0notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Water containing radioactive materials has been leaking from storage tanks and drains at the plant into groundwater and the nearby ocean,\u00a0raising concerns across the world that currents might spread radioactivity to faraway places<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But people don\u2019t know where to get accurate information on the risks involved.<\/p>\n

This essay provides reliable information on what is\u00a0really<\/em>\u00a0going on \u2026 based upon the known science. \u00a0 It\u2019s divided into 3 sections:<\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Is Low-Level Radiation Dangerous \u2026 Or Harmless?<\/a><\/p>\n

II. \u00a0\u00a0How Much Radiation Will We Be Exposed To?<\/a><\/p>\n

III.\u00a0How Can We Protect Ourselves from Radiation?<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

I. Is Low-Level Radiation Dangerous \u2026 Or Harmless?<\/h3>\n

You may have heard different claims about whether low-level radiation is dangerous \u2026 or harmless.<\/p>\n

Fox News\u00a0reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Doug Dasher, who [teaches<\/a>] radioecology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said it remains possible that there will be minor effects for people on the U.S. West Coast, despite the low test results.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cNo acute effects resulting in mortality or damage to organs \u2026 would be expected,\u201d he told FoxNews.com. But he added that more subtle effects might occur.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cLonger term chronic effects, cancer or genetic effects\u2026 odds are statistically low, if the concentrations in the models remain within the projections, [but] cannot be said to be zero.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is Dasher saying?\u00a0 That even\u00a0low levels<\/em>\u00a0of radiation from Fukushima can increase the risk of cancer and other diseases.<\/p>\n

A major 2012 scientific study proves that low-level radiation can cause huge health problems. Science Daily\u00a0reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life<\/strong>, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society\u2019s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of\u00a046 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years<\/strong>, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe \u2026. \u201cPooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mousseau and co-author Anders M\u00f8ller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining\u00a0more than 5,000 papers<\/strong>\u00a0involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down\u2019s Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The scientists reported\u00a0significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence<\/strong>. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cWhen you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cIt also provides evidence that\u00a0there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation<\/strong>,\u201d he added. \u201cA theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold \u2014 radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mousseau hopes their results, which are consistent with the \u201clinear-no-threshold\u201d model for radiation effects, will better inform the debate about exposure risks. \u201cWith the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there\u2019s\u00a0an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting<\/strong>, because maybe it\u2019s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,\u201d he said. \u201cBut they\u2019re assuming the natural background levels are fine.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cAnd the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Physicians for Social Responsibility\u00a0notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual\u2019s risk for the development of cancer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cThere is\u00a0no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources<\/strong>. Period,\u201d said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. \u201cExposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cConsuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,\u201dsaid Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Radiation can be concentrated many times in the food chain and any consumption adds to the cumulative risk of cancer and other diseases.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

John LaForge\u00a0writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

The National Council on Radiation Protection says, \u201c\u2026 every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremen\u00adtal increase in the risk of cancer<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0The Environmental Protection Agency says<\/strong>, \u201c\u2026\u00a0any exposure to radiation poses some risk<\/strong>, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.\u201d\u00a0The Department of Energy says about \u201clow levels of radiation\u201d that \u201c\u2026 the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, \u201cany amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer<\/strong>\u00a0\u2026 any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.\u201d The National Academy of Sciences, in its \u201cBiological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,\u201d says, \u201c\u2026 it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers \u2026.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Japan Times\u00a0reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

Protracted exposure to low-level radiation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of leukemia, according to a long-term study published Thursday in a U.S. research journal.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The study released in the monthly Environmental Health Perspectives was based on a\u00a020-year survey<\/strong>\u00a0of around\u00a0110,000 workers<\/strong>who engaged in cleanup work related to the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in 1986.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Scientists from the\u00a0University of California, San Francisco, the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the National Research Center for Radiation Medicine<\/strong>\u00a0in Ukraine were among those who participated in the research.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, the\u00a0overwhelming<\/em>\u00a0consensus among radiation experts is that repeated exposure to low doses of radiation\u00a0can cause cancer, genetic mutations<\/a>,\u00a0heart disease, stroke and other serious illness<\/a>\u00a0(and see\u00a0this<\/a>.) If a government agency says anything else, it\u2019s likely for\u00a0political reasons<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0top U.S. government radiation experts<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 like Karl Morgan, John Goffman and Arthur Tamplin \u2013 and scientific luminaries such as Ernest Sternglass and Alice Stewart, concluded that low level radiation can cause serious health effects.<\/p>\n

A military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq\u00a0states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects\u2026 Every exposure increases risk of cancer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Military briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to be able to assess risk to their soldiers.)<\/p>\n

The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:<\/p>\n