Troll Rebuttal To Pointing Out All the Children With Cancer and pre-Cancerous Nodules

Finally a troll with some MOXy, some game!   But it all devolves into lies.

After pointing out a peer reviewed study showing 2000% to 5000% more cancer in kids in Fukushima, the pro nukist responded with the below.   Appreciate any debunks that anyone wishes to submit.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/10/fukushima-cancer-up-3000-in-children.html
stock out


"… 3,000 kids with thyroid cancer in Fukushima…"

That isn’t “actual” - it is “predicted” … and it isn’t likely, either.

Only 6,000 cases were reported from Chernobyl (3#) which was far worse. Chernobyl vented all the 131Iodine available, and the radioiodine fell over population centres across Europe, while most of Fukushima’s radioiodine was carried over the North Pacific Ocean.

(A) More than ten times the radioactive iodine was emitted by Chernobyl, than Fukushima. (#1, #8, #9, #10, #11)

(B) For the estimated dose to the thyroid, in the small group of highly contaminated areas of both accidents, Fukushima doses are half that of Chernobyl doses … 200 vs 500 (Reference #3) and for the larger population, the thyroid dose from Fukushima is tiny {1 to 10, compared to 200, (#3, #7)}. In Chernobyl, a threshold dose of about 200mGy was determined (#6) … which is right where the estimated dose is, in Japan, for the few “worst case” scenarios. (#3).

(C) The people of the Belarus and Ukraine areas were more deficient in iodine, thus their thyroids absorbed the radioiodine more readily than the people of Japan (whose diet is not generally deficient in iodine). (#4, #5)

(D) Authorities were immediately notified of the Fukushima accident and nearby populations were evacuated and iodine tablets distributed before significant venting occurred. (#3, #4, #5)

(E) Milk from the contaminated areas was consumed, around Chernobyl, and milk from anywhere near Fukushima was not consumed. (#3, #5)

(F) "Intense screening" - really, fear of radiation, causes action (like thyroid surgery) when, in the absence of fear, the doctors might say, "Yes, it is a lump. Let's check up on it in six months to a year and see how it is doing" (Reference #2, J Orient 2014)

References:

#1: "The source terms for 131I, … from the [Fukushima Nuclear Accident] were about 60-390 PBq… which was about 10% of that of [Chernobyl Nuclear Accident] and less than 1% of global fallout.”
Wuhui Lin, et al. 2015 "Radioactivity impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on the atmosphere.” Atmospheric Environment
http://www.researchgate.net/pr...

#2: ”The only cancer reportedly observed in excess [after the 1986 Chernobyl accident] is thyroid. However, Jaworowski contends that this is probably an artifact of intense screening, as [hidden, undiagnosed] thyroid cancer is extremely common. 33”
Orient, J. 2014 "Fukushima and reflections on radiation as a terror weapon.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
http://www.jpands.org/vol19no2...

#3: "…Exposure to radioactive iodine, mainly in food, led to increased thyroid cancer in children living in the [Chernobyl-]affected area. …An increased level of thyroid cancer among children was one of the significant radiation-induced health impacts from the Chernobyl NPP accident. The contamination of milk with 131I, for which prompt countermeasures were lacking, resulted in large doses to the thyroids of the public. Over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported, with 15 deaths reported by 2005. … The average thyroid dose to evacuees was about 500 milligray (mGy) (UNSCEAR 2008). For thyroid dose, 1 mGy is about the same as an equivalent dose of 1 mSv. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated thyroid doses from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident to range from 1 to 10 mSv in most of Japan, and from 100 to 200 mSv (equivalent dose) in the most affected area of the Fukushima prefecture (WHO 2012). These doses are significantly lower than those seen following the Chernobyl NPP accident.”
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15...

#4: ”222 … The occurrence of a large number of radiation-induced thyroid cancers in Fukushima Prefecture —such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident—can be discounted, because absorbed doses to the thyroid after the FDNPS accident were substantially lower than those after the Chernobyl accident”
http://www.unscear.org/docs/re...

#5: ”[Chernobyl] Thyroid doses exceeding 2 Gy were observed almost exclusively in younger children aged less than 4 years [30] and they usually were higher in the residents of rural than in urban areas with similar contamination level [29]. It is worth noting that organized administration of prophylactic or thyroid-blocking doses of stable iodine was not common.” … ”Importantly, a strong modifying effect of iodine deficiency was observed: relative risk for developing cancer was 3.2 in iodine deficient areas … The major route of 131I ingestion by residents [near Chernobyl] was its incorporation into the food chains of pastured cattle, mostly cows, and consumption of fresh milk as well as from vegetables and fruits grown in open soil … excess relative risk estimate of 5.25 per 1 Gy. ”
Saenko, V., et al. 2011 "The Chernobyl accident and its consequences.” Clinical Oncology
http://naosite.lb.nagasaki-u.a...

#6: ”… the Chernobyl accident, where thyroid doses ranged up to 1 Sv (123). The increase in thyroid cancer among young children is correlated with dose (124), and a threshold at 200 mSv is compatible with data (125).”

Tubiana, Maurice, et al. 2009 "The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data 1.” Radiology
http://health.phys.iit.edu/arc...

#7: "The average annual absorbed dose to the thyroid from naturally occurring sources of radiation is typically of the order of 1 mGy.”
http://www.unscear.org/docs/re...

#8: ”... the total amount of radionuclides released to the environment [from Fukushima] was in the range of 100 - 500 petabecquerels (PBq) for iodine-131 (I131) and 6 - 20 PBq for cesium-137 (Cs137) [5]”

Nishimura, Takeshi, Harutaka Hoshi, and Akitoshi Hotta 2015. "Current research and development activities on fission products and hydrogen risk after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.” Nuclear Engineering and Technology
http://www.kns.org/jknsfile/v4...

#9: "…the 131I … released by the Chernobyl accident was only about 0.1% of that released by the weapon tests.”

Gudiksen, P. H., T. F. Harvey, and R. Langen 1989. "Chernobyl source term, atmospheric dispersion, and dose estimation.” Health Physics
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/bi...

#10: ”Maximum 131-I activities in rain resulting from Fukushima were a factor of 10 lower for rainwater and a factor of 40-80 lower for seaweed compared to similar measurements made following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.”

”Depending on location, activities of 131-I in rain peaked between March 20-24 and were observed to decrease to background levels in the first week of April.”
http://fukushimainform.ca/2014...

#11: "Iodine-131 in tap water exhibited high levels shortly after the accident in several affected prefectures, but no exceedances of the limit were observed after March 2011.”
Merz, Stefan, Katsumi Shozugawa, and Georg Steinhauser 2015. "Analysis of Japanese Radionuclide Monitoring Data of Food Before and After the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.” Environmental Science & Technology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Risks of low level Radiation - A Compilation of Links

I am going to start this off with Ian Fairlie, a great researcher and author

http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/

A powerful new study has been published in Lancet Haematology [1] which adds to this evidence. However the study's findings are more important than the previous studies, for several reasons.
First, it provides "strong evidence", as stated by the authors, of a "dose-response relationship between cumulative, external, chronic, low-dose, exposures to radiation and leukaemia".
Second, it finds radiogenic risks of leukemia among nuclear workers to be more than double the risk found in a previous similar study in 2005. The excess relative risk of leukaemia mortality (excluding workers exposed to neutrons) was 4.19 per Gy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguably the most important study in the annals of radiobiology, confirming no-threshold risk for childhood leukemia down to micro-doses of natural background radiation -- lower than 'low dose'. The statistical power of Kendall et al. (2013) is unprecedented and is undoubtedly why such a fine-grain dose response was detected with statistical significance from the microscopic dose of 4.1 mSv (cumulative). The unparalleled power of this study was examined in Little et al (2010): These are free docs from PubMED

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3998763/#SD25 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967863/ -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reporting from Stanford on the 700 page BEIR 7

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/abrams-102605.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sternglass 1995 on Human Radiation Experiments.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet12/trnsc12a.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENENEWS has 15 pages with almost 1600 comments on Low Dose Radiation here

http://enenews.com/forum-effects-of-low-level-radiation 

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/2006MarChildCancerIJHS.html

The Dying Nuclear Industry Is Trying to Push Through a Law of "Radiation is Good for You"

The nuclear cartel is trying to push an NRC regulation that will state "radiation is good for you".

The paid nuclear promoters and internet disruptors are running with this story, and the NRC is actually reviewing it, asking for public comment.

Here is a good story showing even small doses of radiation are harmful, and there is no indication that radiation is nuetral or "good for you"

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2960165/risks_of_leukemia_in_nuclear_workers_more_than_double_previous_estimate.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is one 2012 document, produced after Fukushima,    They knew they were going to need a big change, or it would result in a full shutdown of nuclear everywhere.

If you want to email the main author, it is

feinendegen@gmx.net




stock here
100mSV is NOT low dose, it is extremely high dose, about 100 years of background radiation.

Epidemiology shows statistically significant increases of cancer risk with as little as 4 mSV cumulative dose.   Study is here
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/01/statistical-proof-that-low-dose.html

Look at their "conclusion" on page....wait they dont even use page numbers, wow.    May, Might, appears...they have no data hang their hat on, speculation that goes against what is known by high power studies.      Then they take a pot shot at LNT, no engineer or scientist with a brain halfway screwed on right would argue that LNT is "correct (LNT is nuclear bomb data, extrapolated toward zero).     So its a pot shot at a straw man.

From the conclusion "It is hoped that an appropriate consensus conference eventually provides new guidance.'   Which makes me think of the junk science of Global  Warming were apparently science is not based on facts but "consensus".

They also recognize that "effect of low dose irradiation are expected to vary among individuals".    Indeed, lets say that some low dose radiation actually helped 3 people, but gave the fourth person a leukemia.     Do you just say sorry to that person?   Oh, but we helped three people with a minor benefit, sorry you have to die while your daughter just entered high school.     A primary function and promise of medicine is "to do no harm".

The dying nuclear industry is spending over $1.4B per year to expand propaganda, one element is for "radiation is good for you, hormesis".    Although it is within scientific possibility that some people may see some benefits from some isotopes at some time series of some radiation "dose", it is utterly and disgustingly irresponsible and arrogant to think that we can take a relatively safe radiation limit, toss it out, and replace it with "up to 100 times background per year is good for each and every one of you".

This is strictly about protecting the dying nuclear industry and the out of control USA Radiation Medical Industry that is already tripling dose to USA on average by their misguided efforts "treating cancer with radiation", testing with radiation.   Blasting people with CT radiation machine because they have them, although MRI would do a better job 99% of the time.

Whoremesis, is not scientifically backed up at any broad level of statistically significant peer reviewed level, especially in regards to particular isotopes, organs, and various humans.    It also does not address age, or pregnancy.    The Hippocratic OATH says "First do no harm".      The uncertainties regarding specific affects and responses to individuals shows that proponents of hormesis have no respect for the prime directive of medicine.

---------------------------------------------------------------
A further review of the body of this paper show more basic problems.

They focus nearly entirely on DNA damage as the only negative effect of radiation, referring to both SSB and DSB (single strand breaks and double strand breaks), and give some lip service to bystander effect, and non-targeted effects.     If that would truly be the case, then how could anyone be killed almost immediately from radiation?     I mean....just because their DNA is damaged, that would not cause a near immediate death.  

It is also known that radiation functions to reduce the effectiveness of the body's immune system, why would that occur due to DNA damage.

The study firmly latches on to the ICRP model of dose damage being caused entirely by "energy deposition".   This is humerous since they want to latch onto the misguided ICRP energy deposition model, whilst tossing out the ICRP Linear No Threshold Model (LNT).    They also latch onto the misguided ICRP method of only focusing on 1 particular organ in the body, the one they calculate has the highest absorbed dose and call it the critical orgam.   Then they go on to ignore all other organs!    This is incredulous, and can barely pass the straight face test.    Lets say you have a weakened heart at a level of 7, higher being worse, and a weakened liver say level 5.      They say you can ignore the liver, kidney, thyroid, red blood cells, lungs, colon, prostrate......you can ignore everything else except the "most critical organ". 

Then even though they have "thrown out" the LNT straw man, they then use LNT to prove that 97% of cancer is caused by non-radiation toxins, but first "[proving" with LNT that background radiation would only account for 3% of all the cancers that we actually see.

At the end of section 5, the author makes the incredulous claim that "since epidemiology does not reveal cancer increase at doses below about 100 mGy (mSv).    stock here: we know that cancers area clearly at increased risk with accumulated 4 mSv only.     Here is that report.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/01/statistical-proof-that-low-dose.html

Aside: If you believe the ICRP methods, they expect that at 100 mSv to expect 1 extra cancer per 100 people.     The new "hormesis gang" is proposing up to 100 mSV per year, for everyone, women and children included.     A propose that these are not Doctors, but monsters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Author had a peer review from a Doctor de Saint-Georges, embedded below, but his arrogance in side stepping the Doctors comment and then throwing it in his face as if it should be believed is almost a sign of sociopathy, certainly rude.

Page 342: ‘The claim that a single DNA double strand break, however grave, in a stem cell may cause cancer is scientifically unjustified.’

It is well known that cancer has a multifactorial origin and therefore that a single double strand break alone is probably unable to cause cancer. However, in the multifactorial process if the single strand break just helps in the step lacking, we may then attest that the double strand break will cause cancer.

Response: It is good to read that Dr de Saint-Georges agrees that cancer has a multifactorial origin. However, quite a number of people still claim that a single double-strand break may be oncogenic.

stock here: Wow what a jerk. 
I do have some other basic complaints on his paper.    There are numbered citations in the text that appear as hyperlinks.    Well you think there are hyperlinks, so you think you could go directly to the source information being cited.   But when you click the "hyperlink" you are just taken to the list of citiations at the back and not even the particular one being cited, just the whole page.     Then it is a PDF that does not lend to easy copy and paste to do a web search to try to find the document.    So then you export the PDF to text format, find the citation, copy and past to web search....sheesh.    He makes it hard to check his work.    

It was hard to find many of the citations, and some where never found. 

----------------------------------------Here are the references

Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine
                                                         Springer 2012 ISBN 978-3-540-36718-5                          L. E. Feinendegen et al.

Feinendegen LE, Muehlensiepen H, Lindberg C, Marx J, Porschen W, Booz J (1984) Acute and temporary inhibition of thymidine kinase in  mouse bone marrow cells  after  low-dose exposure. Intern J Radiat Biol 45:205–215
Feinendegen LE, Loken MK, Booz J, Muehlensiepen H, Sondhaus CA, Bond VP (1995) Cellular  mechanisms of protection  and repair induced  by  radiation  exposure and  their  consequences for  cell system responses. Stem Cells 13(1):7–20
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, Sondhaus CA, Muehlensiepen H (1996)
Radiation effects induced by low doses in complex tissue and their relation to cellular adaptive responses. Mutat Res 358:199–205
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, Sondhaus CA, Altman KI (1999) Cellular signal adaptation  with damage  control  at low doses versus the predominance of DNA damage at high doses. C.R Acad Sci Paris, Life Sciences 322:245–251
Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD (eds) (2000) Cellular responses to low doses of ionizing radiation. Workshop of the US department of energy (DOE), Washington, and the national institutes of health (NIH), Bethesda, held on 27–30 April 1999 at the Mary Woodward Lasker Center, Cloister, NIH DOE Report Publication SC-047
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, and Sondhaus CA (2000) The dual response to low-dose irradiation: induction versus prevention of DNA damage. In: Yamada T, Mothersill C, Michael BD, Potten CS (eds), Biological effects of low dose radiation, Excerpta Medica, International Congress Serie 1211. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp 3–17
Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Sondhaus CA (2004) Responses to low doses of ionizing radiation in biological systems. Nonlinearity in Biol Toxicol Med 2:143–171
Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Neumann RD (2007a) Whole body
responses to low-level radiation exposure: new concepts in mammalian radiobiology. Exp Hematol 35:37–46
Feinendegen LE, Paretzke HG, Neumann RD (2007b) Damage propagation in complex biological systems following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. AFP: Int J 1:336–354
Feinendegen LE,  Paretzke  HG,  Neumann RD  (2008) Response to Comments by Dr. de Saint Georges: damage propagation in complex biological systems following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. AFP: Int J 2:206–210
Feinendegen LE, Brooks AL, Morgan WF (2011) Biological consequences and health risks of low-level exposure to ionizing radiation: commentary on the workshop. Health Phys 100:247–259
Finkel T, Holbrook NJ (2000) Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of aging. Nature 408:239–247
Fliedner TN, Dörr H, Meineke V (2005) Multi-organ involvement as a pathogenic principle of the radiation syndromes: a study involving 110 case histories documented in SEARCH and classified as the bases of haematopoetic indicators of effect. Brit J Radiol Suppl 27:1–8
Franco N, Lamartine J, Frouin V, Le Minter P, Petat C, Leplat JJ, Libert F, Gidrol X, Martin MT (2005) Low-dose exposure to gamma rays induces specific gene regulations in normal human keratinocytes. Radiat Res 163:623–635
Fujita  K, Ohtomi M, Ohyama H, and Yamada T  (1998) Biphasic
induction of apoptosis in the spleen after fractionated exposure of mice to very low doses of ionizing g radiation. In: Yamada T, Hashimoto Y (eds), Apoptosis, its role and mechanism, Business Center for Academic Societies Japan, Tokyo, pp 201–218
Guyton AC, Hall JE (2005) Textbook of medical physiology, 11th edn.
WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia
Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ (2005) Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 6th edn.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York
Harder  D  (2008) Ionisierende Strahlung and  die  Dosiabhängigkeit ihrer Wirkung. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 96(355):21–44
Heidenreich WF, Hoogenweem R (2001) Limits of applicability for the deterministic approximation of the two-step cloncal expansion model. Risk Anal 21:103–105
Heidenreich WF, Paretzke HG, Jacob P (1997) No evidence for increased tumour rates below 200 mSv in atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Environ Biophys 36(3):205–207
Hohn-el-Karim K,  Muehlensiepen H,  Altman  KI, Feinendegen LE (1990) Modification of effects of radiation on thymidine kinase. Intern J Radiat Biol 58:97–110
ICRP  (International  Commission  on  Radiation  Protection)  (1977)
Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection, ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP 1 No. 3
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (1983) Microdosimetry. Report 36, ICRU, Bethesda
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments)  (2005)  Patient  dosimetry  of  X-rays  used  in  medical imaging, Report 74, J ICRU; Oxford J, Oxford University Press, Oxford
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (2011) Quantification and reporting of low-dose and other heterogeneous exposures. Report 86, J ICRU; Oxford University Press, Oxford
ICRU (Internationalö Comnission on Radiaiton Units and Measure- ments) (1998) Fundamental quanititis and units for ionizting radiaiton, report 60. ICRU, Bethesda
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (2002) Acsorbed dose specification in nuclerar medicine, Report 67, J thw ICRU; Oxford J, Oxford University Press, Oxford Ishizaki K, Hayashi Y, Nakamura H, Yasui Y, Komatsu K, Tachibana A (2004)  No  induction  of  p53  phosphorylation  and  few  focus formation  of  phosphorylated  H2AX  suggest  efficient repair  of DNA damage during chronic low-dose-rate irradiation in human
cells. J Radiat Res 45:521–525
James  SJ,  Makinodan  T  (1990)  T-cell  potentiation  by  low  dose ionizing radiation: possible mechanisms. Health Phys 59:29–34
Kadhim MA, Hill MA, Moore SR (2006) Genomic instability and the role of radiation quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 122:221–227
Kondo S (1988) Altruistic cell suicide in relation to radiation hormesis.
Intern J Radiat Biol 53:95–102
Leonard BE (2007) Adaptive response and human benefit: Part I—a microdosimetric  dose  dependent  model.  Intern  J  Radiat  Biol
83:115–131
Liu SZ, Zhang YC, Mu Y, Su X, Liu JX (1996) Thymocyte apoptosis in response to low-dose radiation. Mutat Res 358:185–191
Mitchel REJ, Jackson JS, Morrison DP, Carlisle SM (2003) Low doses of radiation increase the latency of spontaneous lymphomas and spinal osteosarcomas in cancer prone, radiation sensitive Trp53 heterozygous mice. Radiat Res 159:320–327
Mitchel RE, Burchart P, Wyatt H (2008) A lower dose threshold for the in vivo protective adaptive response to radiation. Tumorigen- esis in chronically exposed normal and Trp53 heterozygous C57BL/6 mice. Radiat Res 170:765–775
Morgan WF, Sowa MB (2009) Non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation: Implications for risk assessment and the radiation dose response profile. Health Phys 97:426–432
Mothersill C, Seymour CB (2006) Radiation-induced bystander effects and the DNA paradigm: an ‘‘out of field’’ perspective. Mutat Res 59:5–10
Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, Sabatier L, Bouffler S (2009) Assessing  cancer  risk  of  low-dose  radiation.  Nat  Rev/Cancer
9:596–604
Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair MK, Gangadharan P, Koga T, Morishima H, Nakamura S, Sugahara T (2009) Back- ground radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karana- gappally cohort study. Health Phys 96:55–66
National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (2006) Health risks from low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington
Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine
Hormesis  by  Low  Dose  Radiation  Effects      Springer 2012  ISBN 978-3-540-36718-5                                                        

Neumaier T, Swenson J, Pham C, Polyzos A, Lo AT, Yang PA, Dyball J, Asaithamby A, Chen DJ, Bissell MJ, Thalhammer S, Costes SV (2012) Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci US 109:443–448
Nikjoo H, O’Neill P, Terrissol M, Goodhead DT (1999) Quantitative modelling of DNA damage using Monte-Carlo track structure method. Radiat Envrion Biophys 38:31–38
Olivieri G, Bodycote J, Wolff S (1984) Adaptive response of human
lymphocytes  to   low  concentration   of  radioactive   thymidine. Science 223:594–597
Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2001) Biologic response to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 2: dose responses of organisms. J Nucl Med 42:26N–32N
Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2003) Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage. Hum Exp Toxicol
22:290–306
Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K (2004) Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res
162:377–389
Preston DL,  Ron  E,  Tokuoka S,  Funamoto S,  Nishi  N,  Soda  M, Mabuchi K, Kodama K (2007) Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res 168:1–64
Rothkamm K, Löbrich M (2003) Evidence for a lack of DNA double- strand break repair  in  human cells  exposed to  very  low  x-ray doses’. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 100:5057–5062
Schöllnberger H, Stewart RD, Mitchel REJ (2005) Low-LET-induced radioprotective mechanisms within a stochastic two-stage cancer model. Dose-Response 3:508–518
Scott BR (2004) A biological-based model that.links genomic instability;
bystander effects, and adaptive response. Mutat Res 568:129–143
Sedelnikova OA, Horikawa I, Zimonjic DB, Popescu NC, Bonner WM, Barrett JC (2004) Senescing human cells and ageing mice accumulate DNA lesions with unrepairable double-strand breaks. Nature Cell Biol 6:168–170
Sen K, Sies H,  Baeurle  P (eds) (2000) Redox regulation  of  gene expression. Academic Press, San Diego
Tanooka H (2001) Threshold dose-response in radiation carcinogen-
esis: an approach from chronic beta-irradiation experiments and a review of non-tumour doses. Int J Radiat Biol 77:541–551
Tanooka H (2011) Meta-analysis of non-tumour doses for radiation- induced  cancer  on  the  basis  of  dose-rate.  Int  J  Radiat  Biol
87:645–652
Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, et al. (2005). Dose-effect relationships and the estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris) Joint Report No. 2
Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang CJM, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 251:13–22
Vilenchik MM, Knudson AG (2000) Inverse radiation dose-rate effects on somatic and germ-line mutations and DNA damage rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 97:5381–5386
Wolff S, Afzal V, Wienke JK, Olivieri G, Michaeli A (1988) Human lymphocytes exposed to low doses of ionizing radiations become refractory to high doses of radiation as well as to chemical mutagens that induce double-strand breaks in DNA. Intern J Radiat Biol 53:39–49
Zamboglou N, Porschen W, Muehlensiepen H, Booz J, Feinendegen LE (1981) Low dose effect of ionizing radiation on incorporation of iodo-deoxyuridine into bone marrow cells. Int J Radiat Biol
39:83–93
 

Why is Global Warming an Important Issue, Even If We Cannot Do Much or Anything About It?

There is an upcoming "climate convention" at a site in Paris.     At this Paris Site you will find some of the biggest criminals of the world.    And of course there will be plenty of Poly-Ticks, leeching off the working class.  

I'll the comment below from The Daily Sheeple stand on it own.     But let me sum up  why I have spent so much time on this so called "Global Warming".     Because there has been no warming in 19 years, even a minor cooling.

So then why all the lies?   Simple, when George Soros blew it by his early announcement of the one world government (of course controlled by the super rich), aka the New World Order, there was substantial blowback against any one world government.  

So instead of trying to roll out a One World Government, they shifted a bit, to 2 tactics:

1) Climate change agreements on a world wide basis.    This allows them to control all energy sources.

2) So called "trade agreements".    This allows them to control everything that is bought and sold.

None of this is in your best interests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jim_robert • 4 hours ago

I am a Canadian who hikes a lot in the Canadian Rockies.
Early pictures from the area vs. today show much glacier recession, at least for some glaciers, such as Bow Glacier, which is the source of the Bow River. The hiking book Classic Hikes in the Canadian Rockies shows this glacier around 1900. If you go there today, the same glacier is much, much receded.
BUT

here is the rub. The same anti-science types, who think science is determined by “consensus” (of which there is none, not even close) rather than **experimentation and hypothesis testing**,
unthinkingly look at this and make utterly unwarranted conclusions. The fact of the matter is that there was something called the Little Ice Age (LIA, also known as the Dalton Minimum) the nadir of which was around 1790 to 1830. The simple fact is that this was one of the coldest periods since the Ice Age,

and we are still emerging from this. THAT, mon ami, is why the Bow Glacier – and its sisters – have receded: we are still emerging from that LIA. This is why, according to the Archeological Survey of Canada, the tree line was 100 km. NORTH of where it is today during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period, which was preceded by the similar Roman Warm Period.

Incidentally, that emergence from the Little Ice Age has stopped over the past dozen years – there has been ZERO global warming since 1998, which now even the co-opted IPCC admits, as did Phil Jones at Hadley , the lead global warmer – until ClimateGate forced him to resign (and you’ll notice the leftists and Agenda 21 scamsters hope you’ll forget Climategate… along with Lois
LernerGate

More evidence. Kegwins’ study in Nature on marine radioistopes shows that we are, today, still BELOW the 3,000 year average.

If you google “Dr. Tim Ball+picea glauca” or go to http://drtimball.com/2012/sens...
you will find a white spruce stump on the coast Canada’s Arctic Ocean, dated about 5,000 years ago, and NOWHERE near today’s treeline. Of course, no one on the left has the intellectual honesty to address any of this.

The reality is that the left, the BIG GREEN MONEY, and the Agenda 21 types want to control energy, which allows them to control everything that touches, which is… well, everything

Shark Gate -- Fukushima Has Damaged the Pacific and the Sharks are Desperate

I hereby coin

Shark Gate

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30102453/exclusive-shark-attack-victim-describes-terrifying-encounter-off-hawaii

As shark attacks ramp up tremendously in Hawaii, the governmental and academic spin machine also ramp up.    Going from one attack per year to 14 and they say "it isn't really going up, there are just more people in the water"

Sheesh.    The food chain has been decimated and sharks are bioaccummulating radiation and heavy metals.   I used to dive almost every week, now it seems like there is an actual risk from sharks.

They are also reducing the statistics by the use of "instigated" versus non-instigated attacks.    So if  someone was fishing, then they "instigated" the attack and thus it is not really an attack.

I will add to this article as time allows

Fukushima Cancer Up 3000% in Children! An Epidemiological Study In Japan - Fukushima Furoshiki

My prior estimate was 550% increase in Thyroid Cancer.

[If you like this information presentation, sign up as a follower using the box on the right tool bar]

I am amazed that I was low by a factor of 6.    It's 3000%

Here is the abstract to the study.    You know the Chernobyl Necklace doesn't sound that great, I wonder how the Japanese media marketing will spin or adorn the Fukushima Necklace.

The Japanese love using a cloth they call Furoshiki for many functions, wrapping a gift, carrying vegetables, adorning as a garment, and now a new function.     Probably lots of Furoshiki wear to cover up the scars of thyroid operation.    The Fukushima Furoshiki.     Coined it, I have.

Here is the Fukushima Furoshiki
Cover up that pesky thyroid removal scars.  

Abstract

Background: After the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in March 2011, radioactive elements were released from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Based on prior knowledge, concern emerged about whether an increased incidence of thyroid cancer among exposed residents would occur as a result.

Methods: After the release, Fukushima Prefecture performed ultrasound thyroid screening on all residents ages <=18 years. The first round of screening included 298,577 examinees, and a second round began in April 2014. We analyzed the prefecture results from the first and second round up to December 31, 2014, in comparison with the Japanese annual incidence and the incidence within a reference area in Fukushima Prefecture.

Results: The highest incidence rate ratio, using a latency period of 4 years, was observed in the central middle district of the prefecture compared with the Japanese annual incidence (incidence rate ratio = 50; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 25, 90). The prevalence of thyroid cancer was 605 per million examinees (95% CI = 302, 1,082) and the prevalence odds ratio compared with the reference district in Fukushima Prefecture was 2.6 (95% CI = 0.99, 7.0). In the second screening round, even under the assumption that the rest of examinees were disease free, an incidence rate ratio of 12 has already been observed (95% CI = 5.1, 23).

Conclusions: An excess of thyroid cancer has been detected by ultrasound among children and adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture within 4 years of the release, and is unlikely to be explained by a screening surge.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

Great video conference with translation.    The lowest contamination area in Fukushima, which probably received no plume at all, shows ZERO childhood thyroid cancer.      Other areas of Fukushima show a high of 50 times the cancer rate, and moderate areas show 20 times the cancer rate.

They used standard well accepted epidemiological statistical methods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early on the WHO and the japan Government were really low balling the estimates for cancer risk due to Fukushima.

We knew they were lying through their teeth, now we know how badly.

Dr. Ian Fairlie said the WHO Report estimated:
* a 70% increase in thyroid cancer risk in females exposed as infants
* a 6% higher risk in breast cancer in females exposed as infants
* 7% higher leukemia risk in males exposed as infants
He felt this was an underestimate, as did many of the presenters of the Symposium on the "Health and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident"
Also, at that Symposium, Dr. Wing talked about some of the problems with the WHO's methods:
* the WHO study did not assess doses within 20 kilometers of the Fukushima power plant
* the WHO study chose not to asses radioactive gases such as Xenon
* the WHO study did not assess fetal doses
http://enenews.com/watch-live-stream-fukushima-event-nyc
And Beyond Nuclear noted that the Japanese government pressured the WHO to lower their estimates, and:
"As a result, doses listed in the WHO’s report are 1/3 to 1/10th lower than initially drafted.
"http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2015/10/8/new-study-claims-a-30-fold-increase-in-thyroid-cancer-in-fuk.html

A damning Review of the USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Stoppage of Radiation Cancer Study

[From CaptD--Confirmed Kill at San Onofre] Seen This Great comment:

---------------------------------------------------
This is pretty damning:
---------------------------------------------------
Garry Morgan

<http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2015/10/06/examining-the-reasons-for-ending-the-cancer-risk-study/comment-page-1/#comment-1617512>October<http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2015/10/06/examining-the-reasons-for-ending-the-cancer-risk-study/comment-page-1/#comment-1617512> 6, 2015 at 2:02 pm

One word describes this article – FALLACY. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) mission to protect the public is compromised by politicians supported by Nuclear Special Interest Groups such as the NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, applying pressure to decrease funding to the NRC. You are supporting the nuclear industry not the public. The NRC is not an agency which has separated itself from undue political and industry influences and pressures.

A report of radiological contamination and its health effects could have been completed with less expense than $8 million dollars, accurately. The nuclear industry and the United States Government has much to hide regarding the failures to protect the public at large and in communities surrounding all nuclear facilities – this includes the uranium mining communities, the fuel facility communities, the nuclear hazardous waste communities, nuclear weapons communities and all nuclear reactor facility communities.

The nuclear industry and the regulator does not report real time ionizing radiation from emission sources from any active nuclear facility; reporting is based on averages reported annually from nuclear facility locations. This type of reporting is skewered, and lacks scientific credibility due to not reporting emissions in a real time monitoring program with accurate radiological assessments from real time monitoring reports along with community resident health evaluations.

Non-profit institutional examination of nuclear emissions and community health is demonstrating an entirely different story from that which the nuclear industry and the NRC reports. When there is contradictory evidence disputing the nuclear industry and the NRC, the NEI hires nuclear industry paid persons to contradict any information assimilated from private non-profit sources, regardless if the information is actually an accurate compilation from government sources with professional data assimilation and analysis. Example – The Browns Ferry Report <http://best-matrr.org/pdfs/AL_BFN_Report_2013-final-dig2.pdf>http://best-matrr.org/pdfs/AL_BFN_Report_2013-final-dig2.pdf

The examination of dispersal of radiological contaminating materials in East Tennessee presents a horror story of cancer, declining health and radionuclide contamination of the environment of East Tennessee communities along the Tennessee River and its’ tributaries. The citizens of East Tennessee have become a sacrificial group since the beginnings of the nuclear age in 1945. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the NRC are participants in this horror story of the atomic age, placing the money gained from atomic death industry before peoples health and welfare – shame on you. Shame on the NRC, DOE, and the many nuclear and nuclear defense industries for your continued deceit.

This is the million pound weight in the room – the continuous deceit and placing money before human health in civilian nuclear and nuclear contractor programs, besides the continuous building of highly radioactive nuclear waste materials. The deceit demonstrated is a continuous failure to uphold Human Reliability Standards which is a cornerstone of any nuclear program, the failure due to deceit is tantamount to a disaster awaiting an outcome.

Garry Morgan, U.S. Army Medical Department, Retired
Director Health and Radiation Monitoring BEST/MATRR a local chapter of BREDL
<http://www.matrr.org/>http://www.matrr.org

How to Shut Down a Nuke Plant, Target It at Refueling Time = Fitzpatrick On the List

Nuclear Owners would rarely make a decision to shut down a nuclear plant, except at a programmed refueling.    Every 18 months to 24 months a nuke plant must shut down for usually around 40 days to refuel and do other tests and inspections.

They make money right up to the last minute before shutdown for refueling, and if they know they are going to close the plant, they can even stretch the run period to squeeze more profits out.

So the decision to close a plant will almost always come at a pre-planned shutdown....well actually probably 6 months in advance, which is a typical "warning period" of which utilities have to inform the governmental "Authorities Having Jurisdiction"

Fitzpatrick Nuke Plant in the Spotlight
http://wrvo.org/post/fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant-could-close-because-low-price-electricity

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Flooding, 11 dams have already breached.

Everything is soaked, saturated.    What if the dam above the nuke plant breeches?    Another Fukushima?   Duke Energy runs Robinson, and they have been convicted of dangerous lying, and contaminating rivers in North Carolina.     I guess we can trust them to be untrustable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/13/1377436/-Duke-Energy-may-have-under-reported-how-much-contamination-they-left-behind#

They state everything is fine, but I would sure appreciate a live web cam .....couldn't find one.

http://robinson.lakesonline.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/05/satellite-image-shows-south-carolinas-once-in-a-thousand-years-flood-was-due-to-a-complex-meteorological-event/

Walden Pond Now a Cancer Stricken, Uranium Polluted, Superfund Cleanup Site

stock here---below site seen in reference on ENENEWS

Original topic was that Thoreau's Walden Pond was turned into a DU production site and is now recognized as a superfund cleanup site, and former employee's are getting millions in payouts from the taxpayers to cover their cancers.

 Living simply....wasn't that the lesson?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 http://www.prop1.org/prop1/radiated/intro.htm

INTRODUCTION TO DEADLY NUCLEAR RADIATION HAZARDS USA DATABASE

---

Welcome to the Deadly Radiation Hazards USA Database. This database is a tool intended to be used in conjunction with the fourth edition of the map Deadly Nuclear Radiation Hazards USA. The authors have taken care to make this booklet "user-friendly," but recommend that you read the introduction before starting.

This database is the end result of thousands of hours of research, analysis, and data input. Scores of federal and state documents were carefully combed through to obtain what we believe is the most complete list of significant nuclear facilities ever compiled. The database includes

• All nuclear reactors (power, research, and DOE ) active, shutdown, and under construction, including nuclear powered ships
• All NRC and Agreement States "Broad" Licensees
• All contaminated sites currently identified by the DOE, NRC and EPA
• All licensees for significant quantities of critical mass material
• All licensees for storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive material including nuclear laundries, and incinerators
• All known dumpsites including underwater
• All off-site nuclear weapons tests
• All former uranium mines, mills,and processing facilities
• All major ports of entry
• All known nuclear weapons deployments
• All known nuclear weapon production complex facilities.
• All known sites of Depleted Uranium Contamination.
• All irradiators greater than 10,008 curies

Response from Author Of "We Need Radiation" Article

From Conca, in response to stock's questions.

I sent your comment to one of the authors and received this back:

I did a review on the whole text of the study, I just don’t have time to write it up nicely, but here is my shoot from the hip take on things. I am not against this type of study and in fact urge it to be replicated by those with no vested interests. -

These types of studies where cells shielded from natural levels of radiation exhibit deleterious effects have been done by the French (Planel et al.1987), the Italians (Satta et al. 1995; Carbone et al. 2009; Fratinni et al. 2015) and the Japanese (Kawanashi et al. 2012), studies run over the last four decades. (references cited in our Castillo paper)

No conclusion, their experimental setup is questionable. I mean why not run the background radiation cultures in “background radiation” rather than try to create a K40 background radiation using salts. - 

We started this work by doing just that and published an initial report (Smith et al. 2011). Comparing above ground controls to below ground shielded cells of D. radiodurans, we observed similar trends as in our second study (Castillo et al 2015), i.e., growth was inhibited. The idea of adding back radiation was to control for variables that would otherwise not be controllable at two different locations.

Just weird, the only benefit is being in the same location….and then to put the radiated test and the nonradiated in the SAME CABINET? - 

Both the add-back 40K control and the rad-deprived treatment were located in the steel vault, but they were in separate incubators. This means that the only difference between the two treatments was radiation. However, I appreciate the point made below about humidity differences.

Why the lousy climate control on the incubator box…the low rad chamber swung from 20RH to 60RH, thats a hella swing for a climate controlled box. The radiated chamber held much better tolerance at 30 to 50RH. - 

In 2011, we did have a hard time controlling the humidity in the 2 different incubators, due to the KCl salt buffering humidity by releasing/sorbing water. We attempted to control the minus incubator with variable levels of water. We are much better at it now than in 2011. Now, I’ve thought, what difference on the radiation field would humidity make? I’d love to run an experiment with the hypothesis that a gamma source would undergo more Compton scattering due to the atmospheric water molecules. Sigh, some day, when we get tighter endpoints maybe we’ll do it. Bottom line, both sets of cells in plus and minus rad incubators were suspended in water, both experiencing 100% humidity.

Then when they measured the low rad area with a test device, they decided to ignore the device and instead use a model that showed 20 times less radiation, excuse me? - 

I’m a much more natural empirical scientist than I am a theory guy, and so was the last one to let go of my Sodium Iodide detector measurements. But I couldn’t ignore the variability of my measurements: I took about 150 measurements, and yet the readings were all over the place. We reported 2 nGy/h plus/minus 1.8, so what does that mean? That’s a lot of variability, it was mostly the noise of the instrument I was using. Other empirical methods like suing badges also have severe limitations at these bizarrely low levels of rad. We got a physic geek to run MonteCarlo N Particle modeling; MCNP analyses are well-established and, in this case, gave the more accurate estimation.

They draw conclusions that both type of bacteria were heavily effected by rad or no rad, and then for the radiation sensitive bacteria they say our variation was so great that we really can’t say anything with any certainty. - 

We get clear and statistically significant stress gene upregulation in the radiation sensitive bacterium (S. oneidensis), so I’m not sure what’s being referred to. I really can’t understand the gene testing portion and it is not written clearly. - Yes, sorry, it could have been written better, but see above statement. The statistics say that in three separate experiments, three different families of stress genes (DNA repair, ROS response and efflux pump), become upregulated when cells are deprived of normal radiation. In our reciprocal control experiments, when we returned the cells to radiation-sufficient conditions (i.e., the other incubator 3 feet away with a source of rad), the stress genes went quiet.

Plus they were doing this at WIPP, in the underground, and they could only visit the test site quickly twice a day, their total test was 2 days long. So this must have been after the plutonium explosion in WIPP, a questionable place to do bio-testing.

We did the experiments reported in Castillo et al. in 2011, before the rad release. Interesting though, is the fact that about 1000 meters away, there is the nuclear repository for weapons waste, and yet the salt completely shields the rad so that MIT and Stanford can run two international astrophysics experiments (on dark matter and neutrino-less double beta decay, respectively), that rely on the almost complete absence of radiation in order to publish their results.

Then they want to questionable and not replicated test on special bacteria to be used as a basis for throwing out radiation standards on humans and gifting us with more radiation.

More work needs to be done to test under what conditions LNT is correct, but at these levels it is not. LNT needs to be tested, and not just accepted because it sounds good and is conservative.

------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here again, with more questions and statements---

LNT (Linear No Threshold) is a canard, a strawman argument, in terms of promoting any alternate theory by "disproving LNT".    No engineer or scientist would assume or even theorize that LNT was the way that 50 different important isotopes that decay with various methods and energies and that also have important chemical properties within the human body and bio-congregate in various ways....no one would assume a linear reaction to all these wildly varying factors.   Especially when the extrapolation, or interpolation if you insist since Zero is the "target" is based on a limited number of cases of a post war scenario of high dose radiation.

The true reaction of human to various isotopes may be supra "linear", sub "linear", parabolic, or even "double humped".     There may be some sweet spot in which there is a benefit.   But with our level of understanding and ability to test, and knowing that there are large individual differences in reaction to humans to many different inputs (hay fever as a simple example, peanut allergy, lactose intolerance) it seems clear that there will also be a huge difference in reactions to humans to various isotopes.    And so even IF, we could tell what is good for the gander, we could not certainly say that it is good for any particular set of gooses.

We know that the nuclear industry is extremely challenged at this time.   And we know that they want to loosen up the rules regarding radiation exposure and radiation releases and cleanup efforts.   So it is important for the nuclear industry to change the laws so that they have a chance of survival.   However, everywhere one looks, there is clear and statistically significant evidence that even at the existing, what some call "low" levels of radiation releases from nuclear plants, that there is importantly damaging and wide spread negative effects.     Although the environment and humans are under attack from a number of negative factors such as chemical pollution, pesticides, and some believe GMOs, this should not be a reason why we should not eliminate an obvious cause of deleterious radiation and heavy metal pollution (nuclear) which is no longer economic in favor of much better methods to generate electricity.   And that is before we even bring up the issue of long term damage from the attempt at long term "disposal" of nuclear waste.   

Sometimes we don't just need a bigger boat, we need a different boat.

Nuclear Plants Emit Radiation on a Regular and Large Basis, Evidence from the Nat'l Geospatial Intelligence Agency

From the main article at peer review Nature

Underground anti-neutrino detectors have revealed the rapidly decaying fission products inside nuclear reactors

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13945

Now the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency present some "nice" charts, showing some very non-nice inconvenient truths about nuke plants emissions.     It is really kind of sad when you look at it, these plants show up like an evil beacon of light in these maps.   There is A LOT more on these websites.

https://www.nga.mil/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/Antineutrino.aspx 

Whale Gate Coming to an Ocean Near You

Coming to an Alternate Reality Near You

I am predicting "Whale Gate"

The powers that be will announce

None of the mammal deaths can be reported per law, until the Authority Having Jurisdiction over the area to cover the Marine Mammal Protection act has vetted the death to make sure bad information is not distributed.

"We will get back to you with a report in the future"

When you see Whale Gate rolled out, you know the shite has really hit the fan.

I predict that the Humpback annual migration to Hawaii will be "delayed", and then much smaller than normal, then blamed on El Nino, and warm water.   

All those Humpbacks spend their whole summer in Alaska where the UME's where occurring.

We will have Whale deniers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the Alaska UME Unusual Mortality Event from summer.     They (NOAA) were testing for CS134/CS137 radiation in 1 (ONE) sample from 1 whale and were going to report back.

The last posting update to the UME site was August 21, 2015....hmmm....didn't those results come back yet?

 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/faqs_2015_large_whale.html

Funny, no emails listed on the website for NOAA.   I can only find a link to email the webmaster, not any other department.