Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Nuke Visual Combat -- Bama Knows Nutting!

LOL I asked William Banzai of Zero Hedge fame to create some visual combat to help educate people on WIPP, and after a string of comments, this was a result.

Whether you like Obama or not, I think it's hilarious.

WIPP Dirty Bombs
Fukushima (sheesh wasnt that over a long time ago)
Civil Right (sheesh, wasn't that over a long time ago)

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Damage Documented from low dose 1mSv and Background Radiation Sources

The absence of the WHO (UN World Health Organization) is remarkable in these statements. Especially since human health is their primary responsibility.

The WHO did issue a report regarding the negative health effects:

Increased cancer risks for affected children in the region between 4% (solid cancers), 7% for leukemia, 70% for thyroid cancers.

That organizations such as IAEA & UNSCEAR, whose members have substantial interest in more nuclear declare that Fukushima doesn’t harm human health, says little.

Research after Chernobyl clearly showed that extra levels of only 1mSv/year harm next generations already substantial:

Here is one example from that report from Chernobyl using a vast amount of data over a long period of time.  CLP is Cleft Lip.    

In Bavaria, from October 1986 to December 1990, the CLP frequency increased by 9.5% (p = 0.10) relative to the trend as computed from the remaining years. The association of CLP rates with fallout on a district level is reflected by a significant relative risk (RR) per kBq/m 2 of RR=1.008 (p = 0.03). A synoptic analysis of the Bavarian data and the GDR data restricted to the overlapping time window from 1984 to 1989 discloses a simultaneous significant jump of the CLP prevalence by 8.6% (p = 0.02) after 1986. The presumption of a long-term increase of CLP after exposure to Chernobyl fallout is corroborated by the analysis of the Bavarian congenital malformation data [13].

These from an ENENEWer

These may (or may not be) helpful:
Environmental Radiation Factsheet
Radioactivity in Nature

Thanks, MS: there's much baseline, survey and assumptions information in these two resources that I didn't have. The difference between the NCRP-95 (1987) and NCRP-160 (2006) documents was particularly interesting. Average annual exposure nearly doubles.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Dandelions, an Excellent Health Aid, Liver Aid, Heavy Metal Detox--Look at this huge field of Dandelions!

UPDATE: (PS Dandelions are a great Mercury and Radioactive Heavy Metal Chelator)
We had an awesome meal last night based on Dandelions.    We spent around 10 minutes picking the best of the best leaves.

Miso Soup --- Fantastic!    No bitterness, and a mild tanginess, this ain't your grandma's Miso Soup, or maybe it is.

Dandelion Tempura --- fantastic, fried with a little flour, taste great with or without salt.    We also fried some complete plant, leaves and flower, and those were even better.    We did not use any root.

Butter fried Dandelion, was still pretty bitter, but the dogs loved it.

Fresh leaf, just washed, too bitter to be enjoyable, but this is late in  the season, the younger leaves do make good salad accompaniments. 

As I surveyed thousands of dandelions in my front yard, I thought a little research would be good.    I had heard they are good to eat, and make tea from.

Instead, I find that perhaps they are an incredibly convenient way to help remove heavy metals, and esp. radioactive heavy metals from the body, without going to the fairly dangerous DMSA and EDTA chelation therapies.  Dandelions are also directly beneficial to the liver.

Don't curse those dandelions!  Instead, use them as a nice Spring Detox!

According to the USDA Bulletin #8, "Composition of Foods" (Haytowitz and Matthews 1984), dandelions rank in the top 4 green vegetables in overall nutritional value

Do your own Google search.    You might be amazed.

Don't eat Dandelion that has had herbicide applied to it, double check.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Does the Average Person Need to Worry About Genetic Damage and Fallout from Fukushima

The Answer is YES

This is from ENENEWS.  Its an example of the superior work that they do in bringing truth to the forefront, whilst so many other organization profit from covering up the truth, or bending the truth to their own twisted purposes.

Visit them, tell em "stock" sent you

And drop a comment here at the Nuke Pro blog
And sign up as a follower

Hi ftlt, regarding your points about the time frame for genetic changes and oceanic transport of Fukushima radionuclides:
1) "There is time needed to cause genetic changes"
>> It appears the scientists conclude the genetic changes took place "suddenly" after something "virtually unheard of" in that part of the world appeared in 2011 and then retreated. From the SF Chronicle article: "a species of phytoplankton virtually unheard of in this part of the world… Its modus operandi… is to suddenly appear… then retreat into tiny invasion-of-the-body-snatcher-type pods until ocean conditions are ripe for another rampage."
2) "Would the ocean current have had time to impact California coast"
>> In 2011, the California coast was impacted by fallout transported through the air and then the subsequent run-off, not contamination transported by ocean currents.
*40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off California in March 2011
*California kelp had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed in March 2011
*Kelp Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported
*Ocean water collected near the coast of Santa Barbara County on on March 22, 2011 had 14.7 Bq/m³ of cesium-134 and -137.
*Sr. Scientist: Most shocking thing is how US gov’t was “very concerned” about Fukushima radiation hitting West Coast and affecting Americans — Public told that everything fine (VIDEO)
*U. of California Dean: We detected “far more than I expected” of Fukushima radioactive sulfur in March 2011 — “Unprecedented increase” reported
Many more reports from those early days here:

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Alaska Radiation Increased from Fukushima the Same Amount as a Direct Nuclear Bomb Test on Alaska

The Alaska nuclide test report Stock pointed out is very informative, and I urge people to read the whole thing, and to find out more about the monitoring that has been being done there since 1965. Amchitka was the site of several underground nuclear tests; the neighboring island of Adak is used as a “control” to which nuclide levels can be compared.
More info here:
Report link:
Brief fact sheet:
The 2011 monitoring season came 3 months after the start of the Fukushima disaster. As the report notes (section 9.0):

“The results imply that Dolly Varden, rockweed, and to a lesser extent, Irish lord appear to contain a significant cesium isotope signature from Fukushima Dai-ichi. ……

… Observations of Fukushima-derived fallout impacting on this region are supported by findings of elevated levels of 134Cs (and 137Cs) in lichen and soil collected from both the Adak and Amchitka regions.”

So there’s no doubt that Fukushima nuclides made it to the Aleutians, and yes, they also made it to CA and elsewhere. The important question is “In what concentrations?” And, “How can we find out how much we got, and where it is?” The Amchitka tests focus on lichen because it’s one of the greatest biological concentrators of Cs. The levels in lichen are regularly hundreds or thousands of times higher than what’s found in the soil beneath them. Amazing creatures, and somewhat like mushrooms in this regard. In arctic regions, species like reindeer feed on the lichen, which contributes to high contamination levels in their flesh which persists for decades. It’s worth pointing out, however, that caribou in northern Canada, for instance, show eye-openingly high levels of internal contamination from natural radionuclides as well, particularly Po210, and people who have relied on them as a food source for centuries had high internal contamination themselves even before the nuclear era because of it.

They tested fish, seaweed, and other marine species caught off Amchitka and Adak for Cs137, Am241, U234, 235, and 238, and Pu239 and 240at the same time, and came up with less than 1 Bq/kg of Cs in the highest sample, which was mussels. Table 15 shows that samples from the Irish Sea are much higher, up to around 11 Bq/kg. All this is just for context
I agree that there are good reasons to do more monitoring right about now, and not wait until 2016. And no good reason not to do more testing in CA as well.

Anyway, we’ve established that Fukushima contamination was clearly detectable in Alaskan lichen in the sumer of 2011. But how did that compare to before the Fukushima disaster? A look at table 40 (it’s posted on the website Stock linked to) gives a very good idea:

In table 40: Cs137 in lichen

1970-71 Clam lake range 8000-27000 pCi/kg (300-1000 Bq/kg) (stock --after three massive atomic bombs were set off on the island)
1971-79 Clam lake range 1500-67000 pCi/kg (55-2479 Bq/kg) (stock --after the three atomic bombs were set off on this island, the radiation in lichens tripled after the first initial dosing, and then lasted for a decade)

1997 Amchitka range 64-74 pCi/kg (2.3-2.7 Bq/kg)
2011 Amchitka range 1890-7120 pCi/kg (70-263 Bq/kg) (stock--after Fukushima)

STOCK--So Fukushima, 2000 miles away caused a radiation level about 1/4 of what three direct atomic bombs would do at ground zero.   Look at the blue highlights above.   Think about that now.)  

The point being that while Cs levels in 2011 had increased compared to 1997 due to Fukushima, they were still lower than anytime between 1970-79, due to nuclear testing.  (Stock --due to direct bombing of the island the tests were conducted on, not at all a fair comparison!)

Stock Here-- This reviewer is kind of pretending that the high rates at Clam lake  are due to overall world wide nuclear testing "fallout".    Clam lake is in the Anchitka Island which was not receiving just worldwide nuclear fallout, but was the actual site of several direct nuclear bomb tests.  

Here is some background

Amchitka Island sits at the midway point on the great arc of Alaska's Aleutian Islands, less than 900 miles across the Bering Sea from the coast of Russia. Amchitka, a spongy landscape of maritime tundra, is one of the most southerly of the Aleutians. The island's relatively temperate climate has made it one of the Arctic's most valuable bird sanctuaries, a critical staging ground for more than 100 migratory species, as well as home to walruses, sea otters and sea lions. Off the coast of Amchitka is a thriving fishery of salmon, pollock, haddock and halibut.
  All of these values were recognized early on. In 1913, Amchitka was designated as a national wildlife refuge by President William Howard Taft. But these ecological wonders were swept aside in the early '60s when the Pentagon and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) went on the lookout for a new place to blow up H-bombs. Thirty years ago, Amchitka was the site of three large underground nuclear tests, including the most powerful nuclear explosion ever detonated by the United States.

Back to the Review

And this is one of the points: outside of the most contaminated parts of Fukushima itself, the fallout from this disaster was much less than that from the nuclear testing period. (stock here---from the nuke testing of 3 bombs on one island, including the largest nuke bomb ever set off by the USA, and they are comparing that to contamination from the Fukushima over 2000 miles away--stock out) That doesn’t make it alright, and we’re not saying bomb test fallout was ok either. In fact as a society we’re still trying to understand what the health effects from testing were.

From our point of view, as a group of people very committed to characterizing and measuring the contamination in order to help people make well-informed decisions regarding their health and well-being, the more we understand about how this compares with past radioactive releases and their effects, the better our decisions and choices will be.