“Safe” Radiation Is a Lethal TMI Lie.Says,David Wasserman.There is no safe dose of radiation

[The Wielding Truth]

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/03/safe-radiation-tmi-lethal-lie-people-died-mile-island-13567/

There is no safe dose of radiation.

We do not x-ray pregnant women.

Any detectable fallout can kill.

With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.

When you hear the terms “safe” and “insignificant” in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: ”Safe to whom”? ”Insignificant for which of us?”

Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed. (http://nukefree.org/… )

[TheWraith]

1. Yes, there are plenty of safe doses of radiation. To say otherwise is the lie.

It's like saying that swallowing even one apple seed will kill you, because apple seeds contain cyanide.

The fact of the matter is that from a scientific basis, Americans worrying about radiation coming from Fukushima is the worst kind of hysteria. It has NO scientific basis whatsoever, and only people who don't at all understand the subject could say otherwise.

[thereismore]

5. NO scientific basis. Spoken like a true scientist...afraid not! nt

[LoZoccolo]

25. Water, fire, air and dirt

Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lyin' and gettin' me pissed

- from "Miracles" by The Insane Clown Posse

[Buzz Clik]

39. He is correct. 100% correct.

The science supports him. Sorry.

[diane in sf]

53. You and Wraith are incorrect, every dose of radiation creates harm, your body may

be able to repair some of the damage or destroy the cells that are damaged, but this is metabolic activity that is not being used for normal body functions, hence a drain/damaging.

[TheWraith]

60. I'm sorry, but science does not back up your statements.

Even under the "linear no threshold model," which isn't agreed to be accurate, you're talking about such a minute impact that you couldn't even quantify it.

You might as well run in terror from the sun, electromagnetic waves, any kind of food, car exhaust, or anything else which has potentially damaging side effects.

[Buzz Clik]

70. Do you understand that many forms of radiation pass through your body doing absolutely nothing?

And the highly attenuated forms cannot even penetrate a dead skin cell?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

79. Let's stick to Gamma radiation - that which is being emitted from Fukushima

You know, iodine-131, cesium-137, et al.

[Union Scribe]

74. Oh, my. So radiation hurts us by draining our precious fluids

and energies. Okee doke.

[whistler162]

84. Dihydrogen Monoxide has killed more .

[The Wielding Truth]

8. It's the governmental "safe" standards discussed in this article.

It's some interesting research by Harvey Wasserman. He is editor and author of the site (nukefree.org).

This article is posted on the higgens blog which also has up to date readings on the traveling fallout and BP followup.

[Maru Kitteh]

68. You seem to be confused about what the word "research" means. Writing crap on a website is not

research. Furthermore:


1) The website is so poorly edited it's almost embarrassing to read. If this freakin' genius doesn't care enough about the information on his website to proofread it, why should I give it even a moment of serious consideration?


2) The claim that we DO NOT x-ray pregnant women is just stupid. We do.

3) The only people he repeatedly mentions working with are musicians and entertainers. Not great for somebody who expects to be taken seriously by, well, anyone of substance really.

4) The scant bit of "science" that may be located in relation to this subject on the site is based on one report well over half a century old. Even that pitiful bit is not properly cited or sourced. Why don't we just see what Mark Twain had to say on the subject while we're at it?

[Buzz Clik]

32. +1. I have grown weary of reading this insanity at DU. Luddites, one and all.

[sendero]

64. Let's put it another way..

... there is no safe level of ingestion of compounds such as iodine 131 or cesium 137 or plutonium. NO SAFE LEVEL for INGESTION.

THAT is a scientific fact.

[Drale]

2. You are exposed to radiation ever single minute of every single day of your life

Sun light is radiation, the earth releases radiation. In fact without radiation there would be no weather. That microwave you warm you hot pocket in? Radiation.

[TheWraith]

4. The potassium in the human body released 4,000 Becquerels every second.

Which is, coincidentally, about forty thousand times the amount of radiation drifting in from Japan.

[thereismore]

6. We have human bodies drifting in from Japan? Apples and oranges. There is good enough

reason for caution.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Caution? Yes. Concern? Yes! Reason to spread baseless fear? NO!!

[thereismore]

58. Agreed. nt

[CoffeeCat]

14. But that's naturally occurring radiation, correct?

The radiation released in the body from potassium in a banana--is naturally occurring. It
comes from bananas. Our bodies are used to it. It comes from the natural potassium in the
banana.

However, a radiation cloud from Japan--doesn't contain bananas, does it? It contains Iodine-131 and Cesium which
are not naturally occurring. They cause cancer. They are radioactive substances that are not found in food. They are man made.

Isn't there a major difference between ingesting radioactive isotopes/substances---and experiencing a minute
amount of naturally-occurring radiation from bananas that our bodies are used to?

Don't radioactive iodine-131 and Cesium, which are being emitted from Japan--nest inside the thyroid and
in other organs and cause cancer? Bananas don't cause cancer.

Seems to me that there is a big difference between the impact of RADIATION in naturally-occurring small doses---and RADIOACTIVE
SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE INGESTED--is there not?

And it also seems that a cloud of radiation from Japan--can give off a "low level" of radiation--but still contain radioactive
iodine-131 and cesium--which could cause cancer and even death in the future. Is that not correct?

[FBaggins]

16. Your body can't tell the difference between "natural" and "manmade" radiation.

Seems to me that there is a big difference between the impact of RADIATION in naturally-occuring small doses---and RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE INGESTED--is there not?

"ingested" is more significant than external sources of radiation, but an alpha particle from something in side your body is the same as another alpha particle in the same location from an artificial source. Breathing in radon isn't healthier just because the radon comes from the ground.

You body is also "used to" certain levels of external radiation. An "artificial" source 1/100th the activity level of what your body is "used to" does not become more dangerous because it isn't "naturally occuring".

[Junkdrawer]

19. K-40 gives off a beta and a gamma ray. Alpha emitters like Plutonium....

are a whole different story.

....

Potassium is also in this category. There are actually three potassium isotopes: K39, a stable isotope, is the most abundant, at 93.26 % of the total; K41 is next in abundance at 6.73 % and is also a stable isotope. The potassium isotope of interest is a radioactive isotope, K40. It is present in all potassium at a very low concentration, 0.0118 %. It has a very long half-life, 1,260,000,000 years. When it decays 89 % of the events give rise to the emission of a beta ray with maximum energy of 1.33 Mev. The other 11 % of the decays produce a gamma ray with an energy of 1.46 Mev.

....

http://rerowland.com/K40.html

[FBaggins]

20. You mean alpha emitters like Radon?

Can you compare the levels of Radon in the average home in, say, PA to the highest concentration of PU identified off-site in Japan?

Yes... PU stays in the body longer... but radon is replenished.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Did you ever hear about the Battelle Laboratories Northwest experiment?

It was infamous inside the nuclear industry. They were trying to find the minimum safe dose of Plutonium-239, so they gave 1 micro-gram each to 5 beagle dogs. Within a few years, ALL the dogs died of bone cancer. The experiment was not continued.

[FBaggins]

I have... I think you should look it up again.

The doses were much higher than that and there were more dogs involved (137) over many years... and they didn't all die of bone cancer.

Those beagles in the low-dose group were statistically indistinguishable from the control group.

http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Plutonium-inhalation-Health-Physics.pdf

[Junkdrawer]

34. Radiation homeostasis??? Really???

Not even Bill O'Reily wanted any part of that action.

[FBaggins]

43. The title and/or purpose of the report aren't particularly relevant here.

The detailed description of the study you referenced is what I was pointing out.

It doesn't fit your shorthand description at all. If you have a better link, by all means supply it.

[Junkdrawer]

49. Here's a more reputable source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NwwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Battelle+Laboratories+Northwest+plutonium+beagle&source=bl&ots=XrNWqjuZYe&sig=1AkOQseH74PBAny0LXNbxj7oju0&hl=en&ei=ACeaTZf3N9DSgQfCsIyuCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Battelle%20Laboratories%20Northwest%20plutonium%20beagle&f=false

[FBaggins]

50. I'm fine with that source

It, too, tells a different story from what you discussed.

[Junkdrawer]

51. I admit I was going with memories of findings I read in 1974...

However, a fair reading will show that I'm essentially correct and 1 microgram doses of Pu239 is a fatal dose.

[FBaggins]

52. Again... how are you defining "fatal dose"?

Is a dose that kills one person out of a thousand who receives it a "fatal dose"?


If you take a look at the dose administered to those poor dogs (I'm a beagel fan) and account for the fact that humans are much bigger than beagles, the study you cite says that it takes lots more than a microgram to expect someone to die from it.

[FBaggins]

76. Ok. Here's my "fair reading".

They used Plutonium 239. One nanocurie of PU239 is 16.3 nanograms of the material.

The conclusion of the study (as reported in your link) was:

They concluded very tentatively that a dose of more than 1 nanocurie of plutonium 239 per gram of lung tissue could cause premature death

If we assume that humans are equally susceptible, then we're talking about ~2,250 nanocuries (lungs weigh about five pounds) to get the same impact. Convert 2,250 nanocurries to the equivalent weight of PU239 and you're talking about 37 micrograms. Not one.

It's also important to note that they were erring on the side of caution. The low-dose beagles were actually given three to twenty times that amount. Those dogs did die 6-12 years later with malignant tumors, but that also means that some of them died at the age of 13-1/2 after the weight-adjusted equivalent of 700 micrograms of Plutonium... not one...

... and that's the average life expectancy of a beagle.

In short - the study properly supports the idea that Plutonium is a particularly dangerous element. But it doesn't support the notion that a single microgram is a killing dose.

[Junkdrawer]

82. Except that Pu239 would not be evenly distributed over a lung....

so a per/gram analysis is specious in this case. We're talking small particles, not a gas.

[FBaggins]

83. Sure it would

It was breathed in as a gas... And almost all of it was still in the lungs ten years later (assuming the dog lived that long)

And before you go too far afield, the same paper dealt with the "hot particle" theory too.

[thereismore]

29. Jesus, another poster who thinks we are idiots. nt

[TheWraith]

23. No, your facts are not correct. Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it magic.

There is no difference between a Becquerel of radiation from potassium in your body and one from iodine in a reactor. Period. There is no distinction for "natural" radiation versus "unnatural radiation." Cyanide is "natural," and it will still kill you. Sunlight is "natural" and can still give you cancer.

A large enough dose of radiation can increase your risk of cancer. And by "large enough," I mean many hundreds of thousands of times any possible dose floating across the ocean, if not more. A few radioactive particles don't kill you any more than swallowing one apple seed does. That's pseudoscience at it's worst.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Do you agree that 1 microgram of Pu239 is fatal?

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

27. Do you agree that Pierre is the capital of South Dakota?

Your statement has no connection with your previous claims.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Which claims did *I* make?

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

37. That a handful of iodine particles reaching the US will kill people.

And that "natural" radiation is somehow different, and completely harmless, while a vastly smaller amount of "unnatural" radiation will kill you dead.


"Don't radioactive iodine-131 and Cesium, which are being emitted from Japan--nest inside the thyroid and
in other organs and cause cancer? Bananas don't cause cancer."


"And it also seems that a cloud of radiation from Japan--can give off a "low level" of radiation--but still contain radioactive
iodine-131 and cesium--which could cause cancer and even death in the future. Is that not correct?"

[Junkdrawer]

40. Check the posts and posters again. n/t

[TheWraith]

44. Whoops, you're right. I thought I was still replying to the same person.

So then, what IS your position?

[FBaggins]

38. You sure seem to imply that one microgram of PU is a fatal dose.

That's a pretty big stretch.

[Junkdrawer]

46. You dispute that?

I rarely find any "expert" that uninformed.

[FBaggins]

48. Easily

Or are you saying that it's POSSIBLE for one microgram to kill you?

Sure... it's "possible".

It sure isn't likely... or anywhere CLOSE to likely.

There were a couple dozen scientists from the Manhattan Protect that were followed for decades. With exposures up to three micrograms, only one had died of bone cancer 40+ years later.

G.L.Voelz and J.N.P. Lawrence, "A 42-year medical follow-up of Manhattan project plutonium workers." Health Physics, Vol. 37, 1991, pp. 445-485.

[StarburstClock]

30. Then it's safe to stick your head in your microwave?

Go ahead, I dare you.

[TheWraith]

33. Right, because the universe is totally black and white!

There is NO distinction between harmless low levels of something and sticking your head in a microwave! Brilliant, Holmes!

Actually, a microwave is EM radiation, not ionizing radiation. A microwave's output has more in common with your laptop computer's wireless antenna than with x-rays.

[thereismore]

31. Jesus, do you even know the difference between wavelengths of 600 nm, 1 cm and 10 pm? Educate

yourself.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

80. Are we exposed to high levels of gamma radiation every day of our lives? -nt

[FBaggins]

3. Ridiculous fear mongering.

We DO, in fact, x-ray pregnant women. And claiming that "any detectable fallout can kill" is just flat-out dishonest.

Do you really think that your body can tell the difference between an alpha particle that comes from an entirely natural source and one that comes from nuclear fallout?

Do people move from California to Florida to avoid the higher gamma doses? Why not? The difference IS detectable. How about from PA to NC to avoid double the average radon exposure?

[iemitsu]

15. its not dishonest to speak the truth.

i am having difficulty believing all the denials here.

[FBaggins]

17. Of course it isn't

But there isn't any truth in the OP.

[iemitsu]

22. you must feel pretty protected from the radiation.

people believe what they want to believe.

[TheWraith]

24. I for one feel protected by my knowledge of science.

And the awareness that this radiation hysteria has absolutely no basis in reality.

[iemitsu]

35. a scientist would not claim there is no basis for concern.

[TheWraith]

41. Except that they have, repeatedly, over and over.

But that doesn't make a good article to terrify people, so they go to non-scientists who claim that 500,000 people will die as a result of the leak. :eyes:

[Maru Kitteh]

69. Yeah but he like totally knows Gram Nash and Jackson Browne man..... they play awesome guitar so

I'll bet they're ROCKIN scientists. I totally makes sense.

[FBaggins]

45. Of course they would.

And they have. Over and over and over again.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Different btwn radiation vs. ingesting radioactive particles???

So far, the media reports have been talking about RADIATION LEVELS--whether they are in the air, in the
water or even in the milk.

We've been told that the radiation levels are safe.

However, what about radioactive substances like Iodine-131 and Cesium. Is it ok to inhale these substances
into your lungs or drink them in milk?

Isn't RADIATION that we are exposed to in the air--hitting the outside of our bodies---different than inhaling and
ingesting radioactive substances (such as iodine-131 an Cesium which are being emitted from the Japanese plant)?

Trying to understand all of this...

[Junkdrawer]

9. Very different indeed. But that's not the story the Corporate Media wants out now....

so solid Health Physics is ignored.

[FBaggins]

11. Amazing how often "solid health physics" directly contradicts what the ACTUAL health physicists say.

Q - Should I be worried about radioactivity coming to the United States from the failed Japanese nuclear reactors?

A - No, there is no need for concern. The information we have now tells us that no harmful levels of radioactivity will arrive in the United States from the failed Japanese nuclear power plants.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationnuclearpower.html

[Junkdrawer]

12. Where did I say "radioactivity coming to the United States"?

I'm more worried about the poor people just outside the 12 mile exclusion zone.

[FBaggins]

13. Sorry... it's the subject of the OP.

"Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed."

[Hestia]

10. Thank you - that is what I have been asking & saying - okay, so we get radiation

everyday but are we getting Iodine 131 or even Iodine-129 (goddess forbid)? Oh, wait, let me guess, it's those pesky bananas that will do us all in :scared:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

47. You have nuggets of facts in your rhetorical questions,...

... but your implications are unfounded.

Yes, some emitters are harmless when outside your body. Alpha particles must be ingested to have an impact on humans. Soft betas are the same. For hard betas, ingestion is worse than not ingesting, but the impact is similar. For gammas and neutron emitters, it doesn't matter much.

Do you know why?

[Buzz Clik]

36. To all scientifically literate, anti-nuke DUers: are you condemning this OP as anti-science?

It is wrong-headed, fear mongering silliness. If every dose of radiation were lethal, we would all be dead.

Radon is natural, and radioactive.

Cosmic radiation.

The list just goes and goes.

Are we dead yet?

[jeff47]

54. Not anti-science, just lacking in science education. (nt)

[jeff47]

55. You're quoting one of the most misunderstood facts about radiation.

The reason there is no "safe" dose is because we can not predict which radioactive particle will kill you. It might be fallout from a nuke plant, or it might be the potassium in a banana you ate years ago. Or it might be from the Carbon-14 your lawnmower released while burning gasoline.

So "no safe radiation" doesn't mean hiding from all sources of radiation (which isn't possible anyway). It means the limits have to be set based on probability, and that you should avoid exposure when possible.

And, to be pedantic, X-rays don't come from nuclear decay.

[The Wielding Truth]

56. Oh ... you are agreeing to the question. Okay.

[jeff47]

57. And this relates to my post how? (nt)

[hayu_lol]

59. This may seem insulting but it is not intended to be so...

No matter which side one takes on this subject, there is virtually NOTHING that we can do about any of this. It seems, that without adequate background education on this subject, we cannot satisfactorily understand the real problem and sift out the fear-mongering 'The Sky Is Falling' claims.

We throw data around as if it has meaning...even when the data released from different sources does not agree with every account. Might help if more of us understood the actual terms...gosh knows that the media is worse off than we are judging by the media reports. The media itself is hurting more than it helps.

The Berkeley nuke dept has been monitoring radiation levels from the top of their building on the Berkeley campus since this 'event' began. So far, theirs are the only numbers and descriptions that count.

On site radioactive sea water should be released to the ocean...such is the learned opinion of some of our best physicists...the ocean will dilute these materials which will not, in the long run, pollute the oceans more than the daily sewage tonnage that the world pours into it. This was also suggested by Dr Bill Wattenberg who has worked in the nuclear field for years and whose opinions I personally value.

Someone already mentioned this...the OP states that we do not x-ray pregnant women. But, we certainly do under certain conditions...doctors decide and that, after all, is their baliwick. Much of the info in the OP is absolutely fraudulent...other so-called experts giving the public whatever gets the most attention.

Going back to the beginning of this long screed, there is NOTHING that any of can do about this situation EXCEPT to try and nail down whatever facts can be found in the media FROTH.

Reading some of the different numbers on this thread, I find that multi-story piles of coal-fired fly ash have higher numbers than much of what is escaping from the reactor sites.

Thanks to those posters who have repeatedly tried to use facts and not fear-mongering to explain what is plainly a bad situation.

[jeff47]

61. Yes, our science education sucks

Fact is a good school system would have provided you with all the background information you are clamoring for by the time you graduated high school.

[Buzz Clik]

71. It's kinda like starting up your car in the morning. "Is this the ride that finally kills me?"

There's a realistic probability that you will die in a car accident.

[The Wielding Truth]

72. I see your line of thought but manufacturing poison without an antidote is insane.

The byproduct of nuclear energy cannot be neutralized. Until there is a truly safe way to dispose of spent uranium we should not use this as a means of energy. Yes small amounts of most things will not immediately kill you but why place land mines all around you hoping they will not go off. These hot spots will decay or be exposed before their danger has expired. I want the future children and other living things to be able to live without that threat.

[Buzz Clik]

75. True, true. Disposal is problematic. Do you support opening the facility at Yucca Mountain?

[jeff47]

77. So we should rely on another energy source that produces more poison that we can't neutralize?

Coal plants aren't environmentally wonderful. Heck, the smoke from them is significantly radioactive. And we have no realistic way to capture the CO2 which is causing that little global warming problem.

Yes, nuclear waste is a problem. But there's a lot less of it than coal plant waste.

(Wind & Solar would be lovely, but our grid can't currently handle using only wind and solar.)

I want the future children and other living things to be able to live without that threat.

I'd like them to have a planet with a functioning ecosystem, adequate fresh water and without literal mountains of coal ash. A comparatively small quantity of radioactive waste is less problematic for the future.

[flamingdem]

62. Now we have health/environment damage due to recklessness/hubris for HUNDREDS OF YEARS nt

[jeff47]

78. Yes. Too bad we spent the last 50 years burning all that coal.

It's going to take more than a century to get rid of the waste products from that.

[uppityperson]

63. unrec for hyperbole

"We do not x-ray pregnant women" for instance.

[flamingdem]

65. Make the connection - point is this catastrophe will hurt children

the most at a cellular level.

But looking at the site I don't like the vibe of this guy so I see what you mean, it's in the wording

[uppityperson]

66. Of course. But you don't have to use hyperbole in an already awful situation.

Seriously, it is bad enough without having to post extra OMGness and inaccuracies to prove a point. That point is easily enough made anyways.

[flamingdem]

67. I agree. Those websites using exaggerated numbers about water aren't helping

define what the real risks are, and they are bad enough!

That kind of site is about driving traffic unfortunately

The good part is that the apolitical get involved when it's extreme but just as quickly they can shut down

[Union Scribe]

73. The truth of the matter is bad enough without hair-pulling and fearmongering.

[uppityperson]

81. Thank you and exactly.

[The Wielding Truth]

85. Is it really being stressed enough to make us stop accepting the insanity of

creating more of a problem than a solution? Is it an over reaction if there is not enough reaction to stop us from poisoning our world? What accident will it take to require us to use energy that will not harm us?

If you dismiss this as fear mongering or hand wringing when a concerned opinion is posted, then where can we go to discuss the seriousness of this and all the ill conceived preposterous missuses of our miraculous and finite earth?

Let's not kick each other for over reaction, but pull together for meaningful action.

[defendandprotect]

86. K/R