animal experiments, Chernobyl, Chernobyl disaster, Children of Chernobyl, dangers of ionizing radiation, dangers of nuclear, Fukushima, Health impacts nuclear, human experiments, ionizing radiation, narrow-mindness, nuclear energy, nuclear industry, nuclear power, plutonium, radium, x-rays
This is a continuation of: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/radiation-and-reindeer-plus-sheep-part-iii-of-a-series/
We have started to examine some of the impacts of Chernobyl far away on vegetation and Reindeer in Finland and Scandinavia, but how about Chernobyl, on the ground? It is important to zoom in and out on the topic, and hence avoid being like those scientists who are too focused on the micro to see the macro; to avoid being like those scientists who treat living beings as objects; to avoid being like those doctors and scientists who are so specialized that they literally do not recognize that an injury to the ankle can impact the knee or that an injury to the knee can impact the hip. Not only do these people exist but some are professors at Medical Schools or universities, hence endangering knowledge now and in the future by spawning more like themselves.
Children of Chernobyl, Part 1
(other parts are available on youtube)
Warning, Not for the Sensitive, unless you still think that nuclear is ok
The Children of Chernobyl
Anyone who can look at the above two videos of Chernobyl and then say, with a straight face, that nuclear power is ok; that the risks are acceptable is a suicidal psychopath-sociopath. Everyone else needs to get to work to stop the stuff if you do not want to be the people in the film. Forget about empathy for others. We are talking about YOUR survival and that of your loved ones. And, there is soon no place to run and hide.
Apparently those running and promoting the nuclear industry are either too myopic and specialized, in the way described above, to understand the larger implications of what they are doing or they are psychopath-sociopaths. Don’t psychopath-sociopaths have a will to live? Or are they suicidal and trying to drag us along with them? The extreme dangers of the ionizing radiation associated with nuclear energy have been known for about a century.
How stupid are world leaders? Is there enough food in their nuclear bunkers for the rest of their lives? For their children’s lives? It is impossible. Do they never want to see the light of day again? How resistant are their bunkers to radiation over time? How long can they filter air and water, and how effectively? We could say the same thing for the minions of the nuclear industry.
Chernobyl-Fukushima will be coming to a neighborhood near you, if it hasn’t, and if nuclear energy is not stopped, once and for all. With these nuclear catastrophes having occurred in such diverse cultures, along with the long-known dangers of ionizing radiation, it is now impossible to say that it can’t occur next to you. Let’s not forget the UK’s Windscale fire; the US Three Mile Island, and other less well-known incidents. The Japanese even have invented drains for shower curtains. Who thinks of that? If an escalator breaks down in Tokyo, three rush to see about it. Where else does that happen?
Yesterday the Founder of the Fund “For the Children of Chernobyl” Belarus. Prof. Dr. Gennady Grushevoy died after a long illness:
“since 1989 more than 300,000 young Belarusians were able to improve their health in a clean place thanks to Gennady Grushevoy’s “Fund for the Children of Chernobyl” http://www.svaboda.org/content/article/25245635.html
At the beginning of January 2014, the fund was forced, by state pressure, to change its legal status. The word “Chernobyl” is no longer allowed in the name and must NOT appear in the new one. A new organization was founded but had to change its name to something like “Happy Children” (exact translation still undetermined) See: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/prof-dr-gennady-grushevoy/ Notice the need to send the children to a place where they can have cleaner food, air and water. If we do not stop Fukushima and if we continue down the nuclear path there will no longer be anyplace to go for cleaner food, air and water. Furthermore, we see here an apparent attempt by government to rewrite history regarding Chernobyl. Chernobyl will still be dangerous after history ends. It will be dangerous for close to eternity.
The extreme dangers of ionizing radiation have been known for well over 100 years, in the case of inhalation; about 100 years for external hazard, and about 100 years for ingestion. Hence, neither Chernobyl, nor Fukushima, nor Three Mile Island, nor any of the other nuclear accidents should have occurred. We should not have to be dealing with hazardous radioactive waste which no one wants or knows what to do with and which is leaching into the environment. We would not be poisoning people and the environment with both abandoned and active uranium mines, nor leaking nuclear plants. We cannot rewrite the past but we can write a nuclear free future, as some countries have chosen. This must be a worldwide effort for a nuclear free world because, like the human body, the world is connected together.
Obviously there should have been no Hiroshima, Nagasaki and none of the animal or human radiation experiments. Official radiation experiments started on humans in the 1940s and are documented to have occurred at least as late as 1989.
So, how long have they known that ionizing radiation and hence the nuclear industry is bad for you?
HE Müller wrote, in 1913, that through radium research the dangerous effects of radiation and radium emanations, if it is of too long duration, became known. He considered the Schneeberger lung cancer to be a specific occupational disease of the mines, whose rocks contained radium and whose air was laden with strong emanations. (From our Thursday, 23 May 2013 update at: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/thorium-and-uranium-mining-in-haiti/ )
“In July 1896, only one month after the discovery of x rays, a severe case of x-ray-induced dermatitis was published,…By 1903, animal studies had shown that x rays could produce cancer and kill living tissue and that the organs most vulnerable to radiation damage were the skin, the blood-forming organs, and the reproductive organs.” “A Brief History of Radiation” Los Alamos Science, Number 23, 1995 http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/00326631.pdf
“From 1917 to 1926, U.S. Radium Corporation, originally called the Radium Luminous Material Corporation, was engaged in the extraction and purification of radium from carnotite ore to produce luminous paints, which were marketed under the brand name ‘Undark’. As a defense contractor, U.S. Radium was a major supplier of radioluminescent watches [and dials] to the military. Their plant in Illinois employed more than a hundred workers, mainly women, to paint radium-lit watch faces and instruments, misleading them that it was safe.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
“In the mid-1920s, a lawsuit was filed against the United States Radium Corporation by five dying “Radium Girl” dial painters who had painted radium-based luminous paint on the dials of watches and clocks. The dial painters routinely licked their brushes to give them a fine point, thereby ingesting radium. Their exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because radium is treated as calcium by the body, and deposited in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium
Regarding the “Radium Girls”:
“During the litigation, it was determined that the company’s scientists and management had taken considerable precautions to protect themselves from the effects of radiation, yet had not seen fit to protect their employees. Worse, for several years the companies had attempted to cover up the effects and avoid liability by insisting that the Radium Girls were instead suffering from syphilis. This complete disregard for employee welfare had a significant impact on the formulation of occupational disease labor law.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium
In 1925 Mutscheller published “Physical Standards of Protection Against Roentgen Ray Dangers”. F. M. Sievert at similar conclusions. “In 1934, the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-ray and Radium Protection proposed the first formal standard for protecting people from radiation sources” From “A Brief History of Radiation“, Los Alamos Science, Number 23, 1995 http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/00326631.pdf
“In 1944, when plutonium began to be produced in kilogram quantities, the experiences with radium forewarned scientists about plutonium’s probable toxic effects and provided an essential quantitative basis for the creation of a plutonium standard…” By July 1945 “animal experiments that showed that plutonium was distributed in the bone differently, and more dangerously, than radium.”
By the end of 1945, “studies with rodents and dogs had shown that the acute radiation effects of plutonium … far exceeded any known chemical hazard of heavy metals. The clinical picture of acute plutonium toxicity in dogs was, superficially at least, quite similar to the effect of a single lethal dose of total-body x rays. Although the initial vomiting and depression seen with x rays were absent, weight loss and refusal of food and water in the first days were followed, around the tenth day, by the final ‘shock’ phase that included a rise in body temperature, pulse rate, labored breathing, and various hemorrhages.”
“At that time, very little of the experimental work extended over a period of more than six or seven months, so the picture of chronic plutonium toxicity was essentially a guess. A few bone tumors and one instance of bone thinning had been observed in rats and mice“. From: “The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments“, By William Moss and Roger Eckhardt, Los Alamos science, no 23, 1995, http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326640.pdf
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Those who have not seen the other 3 parts of the first documentary, above, need to go to youtube and see the other parts. It has been made available on you tube by Andrew Hartley, who filmed it. It is a very important historical record. The last two parts would normally not be recommended for the sensitive, but they are important, because they discuss the increased rates of cancer of various sorts. Also, it discusses disappearing medical records.
How about those kids who were suffering from hair loss in the documentary, 4 or 5 years after Chernobyl? What caused that? The doctors said they couldn’t explain the increased numbers of bald children in Kiev (Ukraine) after 1986 and didn’t know how to cure them. It’s not clear if they are referring only to the City of Kiev or the Kiev Oblast District where Chernobyl is located.
Strangely, even the pro-nuclear lobby, the UN’s IAEA has been forced to address the topic, although they still try to sweep it under the rug by blaming it on the USSR and saying that maybe it was caused by x-rays prior to Chernobyl! And, yes, x-rays can be dangerous too AND? How come the doctors and parents on the ground at the time were able to quantify increased rates of various types of cancer and baldness! This is discussed in the documentary. There certainly would not have been increased rates of x-ray use, especially when the USSR was having financial problems, in the run-up to its collapse.
Nonetheless, why doesn’t the IAEA call for an end to nuclear energy and a switch to prioritizing MRIs to replace x-rays to the extent possible? Go figure. Right here is plenty of damning information provided by the international pro-nuclear lobby, the IAEA:
“Republican Research Centre for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology in Gomel, Belarus… On the hospital side of the Centre, most of the patients are so-called ‘liquidators’, or inhabitants from the territories that were affected by the Chernobyl accident, who have multiple conditions ranging from cancer, cataracts and cardiac problems to lung disease and malfunction of the haematosis (blood production) system. Children and adolescents in the wards generally come for treatment of thyroid cancer or immune disorders such as leukaemia and alopecia (a condition in which the immune system attacks hair follicles, resulting in hair loss all over the body).
The increased incidence in thyroid cancer, particularly amongst children, is directly linked to the Chernobyl accident and, more specifically, to the early release of radioactive iodine and subsequent consumption of contaminated milk. The thyroid gland requires iodine to produce hormones that regulate various bodily functions. However, it is incapable of distinguishing between the natural, stable element and the radioactive version: it will simply absorb what is available. At the time of the accident, iodine deficiency was widespread in the affected areas (it is still a significant problem). Had Chernobyl occurred in the western world, where something as simple as adding iodine to salt had already significantly reduced deficiencies, the impact might have much more moderate“. http://tc. iaea. org /tcweb/ news_archive/ Chernobyl/ medicalcentre/ default.asp (To access this link cut and past and close the spacing. We will have more and more links like this because we have found that on wikipedia and elsewhere that useful links often disappear. Some web sites do not allow usage of links either. Perhaps if no one does a direct link they will leave them there. Perhaps it is just web site changes or upgrades, but dead links are happening so frequently that it makes us wonder. The Los Alamos Science review which we discussed, was still available on their gov lab site, as of a week ago, but we opted to use another web site, which had part of the review, so as to have no direct link.)
According to the documentary, children had many other types of cancer, not only thyroid cancer and leukemia.
As previously discussed, iodine deficiency indeed means that one uptakes more radio-iodine, but having adequate iodine is not a guarantee of total protection. Additionally, where the problem is long-term contamination of food, as in Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is not a permanent solution, unless there is a clean source of non-radioactive iodine. As usual, they fail to mention that Strontium 90 contaminates milk because it mimics calcium. Caesium 137 would be found in milk. Other radionuclides may as well. Plutonium, for instance, may mimic calcium and so could possibly be found in milk.
Iodine 131 has a very short half-life, but Iodine 131 has a half-life of 15.7 MILLION YEARS:
“Iodine-129 as a long-lived marker for nuclear fission contamination
Iodine-129 (129I; half-life 15.7 million years) is a product of…uranium and plutonium fission…Artificial nuclear processes, in particular nuclear fuel reprocessing and atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, have now swamped the natural signal for this isotope. Nevertheless, it now serves as a groundwater tracer as indicator of nuclear waste dispersion into the natural environment. In a similar fashion, 129I was used in rainwater studies to track fission products following the Chernobyl disaster…it is highly biophilic, and occurs in multiple ionic forms (commonly, I− and IO3−) which have different chemical behaviors. This makes it fairly easy for 129I to enter the biosphere as it becomes incorporated into vegetation, soil, milk, animal tissue, etc…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iodine (bold added)
Mostly we hear about Iodine 131, with a short, but dangerous, half-life:
“The high energy beta radiation from I131 causes it to be the most carcinogenic of the iodine isotopes. It is thought to cause the majority of excess thyroid cancers seen after nuclear fission contamination (such as bomb fallout or severe nuclear reactor accidents like the Chernobyl disaster)“. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iodine It decays to Xenon 131. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_xenon
But, are thyroid conditions the only cause of hairloss? How are the IAEA described autoimmune conditions related to radiation from Chernobyl? The children were losing eyelashes and all body hair, along with the hair on their head, according to the documentary.
Alopecia is the name given for all hairloss, not just auto-immune hairloss: “Hair loss or baldness (technically known as alopecia) is a loss of hair from the head or body.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_loss
According to the US government:
What it is
Hair loss (also called alopecia) is when some or all of your hair falls out.
Why it occurs
Radiation therapy can cause hair loss because it damages cells that grow quickly, such as those in your hair roots.
Hair loss from radiation therapy only happens on the part of your body being treated. This is not the same as hair loss from chemotherapy, which happens all over your body. For instance, you may lose some or all of the hair on your head when you get radiation to your brain. But if you get radiation to your hip, you may lose pubic hair (between your legs) but not the hair on your head.
How long it lasts
You may start losing hair in your treatment area 2 to 3 weeks after your first radiation therapy session. It takes about a week for all the hair in your treatment area to fall out. Your hair may grow back 3 to 6 months after treatment is over. Sometimes, though, the dose of radiation is so high that your hair never grows back.
Once your hair starts to grow back, it may not look or feel the way it did before. Your hair may be thinner, or curly instead of straight. Or it may be darker or lighter in color than it was before.” http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-and-you/page8 (bold added for emphasis)
Total body radiation may be used in the context of “Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation”
which is “most often performed for patients with certain cancers of the blood or bone marrow, such as multiple myeloma or leukemia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_body_irradiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematopoietic_stem_cell_transplantation So, it doesn’t take much imagination to imagine that if the children got too much radiation after Chernobyl that it could have the same impact as Total Body radiation, especially since children are more sensitive to the impacts of radiation, probably because of their fast growth rate. Also, some of the children may have lost hair from total body radiation from leukemia treatment, but this would not account for hair loss of unknown cause.
“Epilation (hair loss) may occur on any hair bearing skin with doses above 1 Gy. It only occurs within the radiation field/s. Hair loss may be permanent with a single dose of 10 Gy, but if the dose is fractionated permanent hair loss may not occur until dose exceeds 45 Gy.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_therapy
So, from the above we see that some causes of the children’s hair-loss might be impacts of radiation on the thyroid, direct impacts of radiation on the head and body, radiotherapy related to radiation induced leukemia.
Besides thyroid conditions, total body radiation in the environment or for leukemia treatment, and radiation treatment to the head, what might be some other causes of the children’s baldness or alopecia?
Another reason given is iron deficiency, zinc deficiency or other deficiencies, although according to wikipedia complete baldness is not generally seen in these conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_loss In our previous post, we discussed that plutonium is well-known to cause anemia, though we have not found the reasons and do not know if it is known. One mechanism is probably the ability of plutonium to mimic iron and hence to displace iron in transfer (Transferrin) and storage (ferritin), thus creating an iron deficiency. In the previous post, we also saw that plutonium may replace-displace other nutrients, such as calcium or zinc.
No one was notified or evacuated for a couple of days after the event. There was a May Day parade and everyone was outside. As in Fukushima, the Chernobyl evacuation perimeter did not, and really could not, include all contaminated areas. As in Scandinavia and Finland, the fall-out was sometimes patchy, as well. Even the pro-nuclear IAEA is forced to admit that radiation from Chernobyl caused “multiple conditions ranging from cancer, cataracts and cardiac problems to lung disease and malfunction of the haematosis (blood production) system“, along with thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, and leukemia. However, if they remove that information soon we won’t be surprised. Kind of hard to promote their pro-nuclear agenda with the truth out there. But, removing the info doesn’t change the facts or the reality.
As far as we know, we do not live in a fantasy world where governments can re-write the facts of science as they please. Or, rather they can re-write the facts all they want –there-in lies the problem–but it does not change reality.
And, if radiation is safe then why are women of reproductive age supposed to have their reproductive organs shielded during xrays? How can they explain that:
“Total body irradiation results in female infertility in most cases, with recovery of gonadal function occurring in 10−14% of cases. The number of pregnancies observed after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation involving such as procedure is lower than 2%. Fertility preservation measures mainly include cryopreservation of ovarian tissue, embryos or oocytes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_body_irradiation (bold added)
One can but notice with fright Belarus reportedly declaring contaminated zones suddenly clean by government fiat: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/japan-look-at-belarus-the-change-in-irradiated-soils/ One can but worry at the lack of information from the Japanese government, whose overall actions eerily repeat the behavior of the USSR after Chernobyl. One can but wonder at the difficulties of finding the world levels of the various radionuclides, whether from weapons testing, Chernobyl, Fukushima or other disasters. Where there is any reporting it tends to be of the shorter lived radionuclides.
What is next? Will they start teaching that radiation is good for you in schools? Are we living through a new Inquisition, as in the Galileo Affair?
“Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition”
“By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus’ ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were ‘false’ and ‘altogether contrary to Holy Scripture’, and suspending Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected.” That is, the book had to be rewritten. (bold added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
“The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, during which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. He went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619. He argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth, and promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Following mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him ‘gravely suspect of heresy’, sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
At least they can also fire all of the pro-nuclear pseudo-scientist academics, because they won’t be needed any more to offer their pseudo-scientific justifications in support of the nuclear industry. That will be very funny when these people lose their jobs! If radiation is good for you, and nuclear disasters cause no harm, then there’s no more need for research. No more need for the IAEA either. No more worries about Iran. No more worries about terrorists getting hold of radioactive materials, either. Why, the UN and governments can just put forth an edict declaring that radiation, like bananas, is healthy and they can save a lot of time and money. There will be no need to get excited and tell people to stay home from work for two days when a radiation monitor goes off at the Sellafield nuclear facility. No need to pretend that a radioactive banana was stuck on Sellafield’s fence, or the new mantra: it was only natural radon. Only natural radon from a weather front setting off the alarm at one of the world’s most notorious nuclear facilities! Are we to believe this? That area is one of the rainiest in the world, with constant fronts coming through. Why did they tell everyone to stay home on Friday too if everything is ok? Isn’t life good in their fantasy world? But, wait, if radiation is good for you then why is the UK paying a fortune to clean-up Sellafield? Did the pro-nuclear lobby just do themselves out of a job?
Where will this nonsense end? It is so Orwellian! Unfortunately, the computer age makes it easier to change and disappear information and records. They don’t have to bother to burn books. Nor do they have to bother to re-write them. Everyone needs to be hoarding information, in their brains and any other format possible, just in case.
Monday, 3 February 2014
For those who have not been adequately indoctrinated by the nuclear lobby Chernobyl deniers, such as the IAEA and UNSCEAR, the children near Chernobyl suffering serious health effects comes as no surprise. (Even IAEA-UNSCEAR admit to a couple of thousand thyroid cancers). Besides the obvious external radiation, it stands to reason that if people and reindeer in far-away Scandinavia can bioaccumulate radionuclides from food and water, contaminated by Chernobyl, then those living in proximity to Chernobyl and eating the food, certainly would. So, you may not be too surprised at hearing that things aren’t so great on the ground near Chernobyl. How could they be ok?
But, we’ll wager that the fact that there was hair loss and other problems reported in conjunction with the Three Mile Island disaster, in Pennsylvania, USA, will most likely come as a surprise. Wasn’t that a near event only? Three Mile Island, like the 1957 Windscale (Sellafield) disaster, ranked a 5 compared to the 7 of Chernobyl and Fukushima. The authors of wikipedia assure us that, as we always heard, it was basically a “non-event” from a public health perspective:
“Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (United States), 28 March 1979. A combination of design and operator errors caused a gradual loss of coolant, leading to a partial meltdown. Radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere, but no injuries or sickness have been attributed to this accident.” (bold added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale
It seems that hair loss, redness of skin (erythema), and vomiting reported was previously blamed on nervousness, now popularly called “radio-phobia”. Does this sound familiar? But, people’s radio-phobia can NOT be blamed for the deaths of their pets and livestock! Certainly not of the livestock! The primary author of the following study has a background in psychology, as well as being an epidemiologist. This means that he should have adequate background to consider psychological issues, as well as being an expert in research design and social stats. And, your psychological issues can’t kill your livestock! Although it seems unlikely, someone who is stressed could forget to feed their house pet and it die. However, livestock, presumably cows, should prosper fine on grass in spring and summer. Dead animals was a clear give-away of a problem. Shouldn’t cancer clusters have been as well?
The authors conclude that more radiation was released by the Three Mile Island “plume” than has been admitted. UNC Chapel Hill is supposed to be a top-notch research university, for those who give credence to these things:
“A Re-Analysis of Cancer Incidence near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant” By Steve Wing, David Richardson, Donna Armstrong, Douglas Crawford-Brown, UNC Chapel Hill
“The well-known accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant on the Susque-hanna River near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA, began on March 28, 1979. Industry and government reports concluded that the maximum gamma dose to a member of the general population was about 1 mSv and that the accident would not result in detectable health effects [2,11]. Despite these reassurances, many community members reported erythema, hair loss, vomiting, metallic taste, and deaths of pets and livestock at the time of the accident . A local survey reported clusters of excess cancer deaths near TMI during 1979-84 .
Our re-analysis of cancer incidence around the TMI nuclear power plant is consistent with the hypothesis that radiation from the accident led to an increase in cancer in areas that were in the pathway of radioactive plumes. This would not be expected to occur over a short period of time in the general population unless doses were far higher than estimated by industry and government authorities. Rather, findings support the allegation that people in the area who reported erythema, hair loss, vomiting, and pet deaths at the time of the accident were not suffering from emotional stress, but rather were exposed to high level radiation. Bold added for emphasis. Complete paper here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/PORTS_Wing.pdf
The following excellent documentary seems to be
“Nuclear Controversies” (2004) by Wladimir Tchertkoff http://youtu.be/r4kGdzJaxzk It is 50 minutes long. If you are unable to sit still that long you can watch it in five 10 minute intervals. Any minutes you watch is worthwhile. One thought, however, regarding apple pectin for removing radionuclides: any “remedy”, especially an absorbent, must itself be clean of radionuclides! Cleaner food is the best option, but as the nuclear folly continues there will be less and less cleaner food.
The problem of radio-caesium and the heart, which we still haven’t gotten back to, is mentioned in this film. How might radio-caesium impact the heart? Caesium mimics potassium in the body, and what is potassium needed for ? “neurotransmission, muscle contraction, and heart function“:
“Animals, in particular, employ sodium and potassium differentially to generate electrical potentials in animal cells, especially in nervous tissue. Potassium depletion in animals, including humans, results in various neurological dysfunctions.
Potassium is the major cation (positive ion) inside animal cells, while sodium is the major cation outside animal cells. The concentration differences of these charged particles causes a difference in electric potential between the inside and outside of cells, known as the membrane potential. The balance between potassium and sodium is maintained by ion transporters in the cell membrane. All potassium ion channels are tetramers with several conserved secondary structural elements. The most recently resolved potassium ion channel is KirBac3.1, which gives a total of five potassium ion channels (KcsA, KirBac1.1, KirBac3.1, KvAP, MthK) with a determined structure. All five are from prokaryotic species. The cell membrane potential created by potassium and sodium ions allows the cell to generate an action potential—a ‘spike’ of electrical discharge. The ability of cells to produce electrical discharge is critical for body functions such as neurotransmission, muscle contraction, and heart function.
A severe shortage of potassium in body fluids may cause a potentially fatal condition known as hypokalemia…Symptoms are related to alterations in membrane potential and cellular metabolism. Symptoms include muscle weakness and cramps, paralytic ileus, ECG abnormalities, intestinal paralysis, decreased reflex response and (in severe cases) respiratory paralysis, alkalosis and arrhythmia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_in_biology
So, the reported relationship between caesium and heart failure should come as no surprise, if caesium mimics and displaces potassium in the body. In this scenario caesium would create either a shortage of potassium, or a dysfunction, by replacing potassium. An additional question is what is the actual impact of ionizing radiation on the electrical system of the body?
It is interesting that the Chernobyl forum decisions, discussed in the video, were made by Abel Gonzales of the IAEA, an Argentinian, whose career started in the days when Argentina was best known as a dictatorship, which harbored Nazis, along with a California trained Canadian UNSCEAR agent, when Canada is so highly dependent on resource-extraction, including uranium mining. It is absolutely mind-blowing that an Argentinian and Canadian, along with a couple of old Soviet bureaucrats, who seem to have made mistakes handling the initial accident, are listened to, while doctors, scientists, and daily experience of those on the ground near Chernobyl are ignored. Even Gonzales underlines the unknown aspects. Well, everyone with an iota of intelligence knows that where impacts are unknown, it is best to opt on the side of caution. Trouble is that many impacts are already all too well-known!
Below is a list of doctors and scientists who contributed to one study published by Greenpeace. It seems to have hundreds of references, and another study, mentioned after this list, has even more. You will read online how these two documents are not scientific and blah, blah. Who is lacking in science? An Argentinian and Canadian who want to only look at official Soviet and post-Soviet records or those working and researching on the ground? Science involves looking on the ground, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Additionally, since there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation, is it really necessary to look further?
“In 1940, several members of the US Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection ‘proposed that the [radiation exposure] standard be lowered by a factor of five in response to the accumulating evidence that ANY amount of radiation, no matter how small, can cause genetic damage, injuring future generations.‘ Gioacchino Failla argued against the lowering of the standards saying that ‘if genetic damage were to be a consideration for standard-setters, then logically no radiation exposure should be allowed.” (bold added) http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/NO_Safe_RAD.pdf
“The U.S. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations concludes that, despite some evidence of a partial repair mechanism, recent low-dose radiation data ‘do not contradict the hypothesis, at least with respect to cancer induction and hereditary genetic effects, that the frequency of such effects increases with low-level radiation as a linear, non-threshold function of the dose.” (National Research Council BEIR V 1990)
A panel from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) charged to investigate the dangers of low-energy, low-dose ionizing radiation has concluded, ‘that it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers… (BIER VII, 2005)” (bold added) This and much more at: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/NO_Safe_RAD.pdf
And, yet, the following doctors and scientists have chosen to do research. Do you believe them or outsiders and old Soviet bureaucrats who apparently made mistakes during Chernobyl? Might the old Soviet bureaucrats be put on trial for mishandling Chernobyl, if the truth were recognized? For us, who to believe is a no-brainer:
Antipkin Yu.G., Institute of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Arabskaya L.P., Institute of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Bazyka D.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Blokov I.P., Greenpeace International – Chapter 1 and 2 Burlak G.F., Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Burlakova E.B., Institute of Biochemical Physics – Chapter 1 Buzunov V.A., In-t of radiological hygiene and epidemiology, Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Kiev – Chapter 3 Cheban A.K., “Physicians of Chernobyl” Association, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 and 3 Dashkevich V.E., In-t of paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Diomina, E.A., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Druzhina M.A., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Fedirko P.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Fedorenko Z., Institute of Oncology, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Fuzik M., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Geranios A., Department of Nuclear Physics and Elementary Particles, University of Athens, Greece – Chapter 4 Gryshchenko V., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Gulak G.L., Institute of Oncology, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Komissarenko I.V., Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Kovalenko A.Ye., Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Khudoley V.V., Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Center of Independent Environmental Expertise, Russian Academy of Sciences St.Petersburg, Russia -Chapters 1 and 2 Lipskaya A.I., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3
Loganovsky K.N., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Malko M.V., Joint Institute of Power and Nuclear Research, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus , Belarus – Chapters 1 and 2 Misharina Zh.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Naboka M.V., Department of Eco-hygienic investigations of the Radioecological Centre of the National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Nyagu A.I., “Physicians of Chernobyl”, International Journal of Radiation Medicine, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Okeanov E.A., A.D. Sakharov International State Environment University, Minsk, Belarus -Chapter 1 and 2 Omelyanets N.I., Laboratory of Medical Demography, Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Oradovskaya I.V., Immunology Institute of the Russia Ministry of Public Health, Moscow, Russia – Chapter 3 Petrov N.N, Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Center of Independent Environmental Expertise, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia – Chapters 1 and 2 Pilinskaya M.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Pintchouk L.B., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Prysyazhnyuk A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Rjazskay E.S., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Rodionova N.K., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Rymyantseva G.M., V.P. Serbskiy V.P., Scientific-Research Institute of Social and Legal Psychiatry, Moscow, Russia – Chapter 3 Rybakov S.I., Surgical Department, Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Schmitz-Feuerhake I., Department of Physics, University of Bremen, Germany (retired) – Chapter 4 Serkiz Ya.I., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Sherashov V.S., State Scientific-Research Center of Preventive Medicine, Moscow, Russia -Chapter 3 Shestopalov V.M., Radioecological Centre, National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Skvarskaya E.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Slipenyuk K., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 2 Stepanova E.I., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Sushko V.A., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Tararukhina O.B., Russian Scientific Radiology Centre, Moscow, Russia – Chapter 3
Tereshchenko V.P., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Usatenko V.I., National Commission of Radiation Protection of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 1 Vdovenko V.Yu., Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Academy of Medical Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine – Chapter 3 Wenisch A., Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology, Vienna, Austria – Chapter 4 Zubovsky G.A, Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology, Moscow, Russia – Chapter 3 Full document is here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/4/chernobylhealthreport.pdf
There is also:
“Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” By Alexey V. YABLOKOV Vassily B. NESTERENKO Alexey V. NESTERENKO (2009) which seems to have even more references, and is available for free, online. From what we have read the copyright has reverted to the authors. It addresses the impact on plants, as well as people. It is the only work we’ve seen addressing tumors in plants, which we hope still to get to.
We still intend to include the things promised in Part III and more.