Saturday, November 25, 2017

"Radiation is Safe" Meme


The "radiation is safe" meme is being promoted in a "re-statement" published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. It is important to understand what a "restatement" is and is not according to this journal. It is NOT a systematic review of literature. It is NOT a comprehensive appraisal of the state of the art. It does not address contaminated food and water and the internalization of radioisotopes.

Instead, the restatement below ranks specific research findings based on OPINIONS and this ranking process explicitly de-values research studies that don't meet particular criteria, which may or may not have relevance for validity:
Angela R. McLean, Ella K. Adlen, Elisabeth Cardis, Alex Elliott, Dudley T. Goodhead5, Mats Harms-Ringdahl6, Jolyon H. Hendry, Peter Hoskin, Penny A. Jeggo, David J. C. Mackay, Colin R. Muirhead, John Shepherd, Roy E. Shore, Geraldine A. Thomas, Richard Wakeford and H. Charles J. Godfray (2017) A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation. Proc. R. Soc. B 284: 20171070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1070 A preliminary draft review of the literature on health risks of low-level radiationwas constructed. At a 1-day workshop,most authors met to discuss the different evidence components. A second draft was then made and each piece of evidence was assigned a descriptor. Because of the very extensive nature of the underlying evidence base, we devised a set of categories that are broadly speaking a ranked score of the strength and consistency of the supporting evidence. In these descriptors, a ‘well-powered study’ means a study that has high p. 4 
....This is not a systematic review and the categorization of the evidence statements represents the opinion of the authors arrived at through debate, but not through other formal consensus procedures. Systematic reviews of the literature on the health effects of ionizing radiation exist elsewhere and are hundreds of pages long (e.g. [5,9,14]). P. 4

....Chernobyl: “At present, there is little convincing evidence of other radiation-associated effects in recovery workers or the wider public."

....Nor do we cover the regulation of radioactivity in food [20]. The project considers only the natural science evidence base (although we make some reference to the psycho-social science of the impact of accidents).” 6


There is an interesting graph that includes beneficial effects of radiation hormesis on page 4. The use of the word "hormesis"

There is no doubt that not all forms of exposure to ionizing radiation are equal in effect.

Moreover, there is no doubt that we vary in our vulnerability to ionizing radiation depending our age, lifestyle, genetics, etc.

That said, there is also no doubt that INTERNALIZATION of radioactive elements - such as cesium134/137 and Iodine-131 poses clear long-term hazards through bioaccumulation of chemically and radiologically genotoxic isotopes.

see my post from Saturday, November 4, 2017:

Fukushima's Radioactive Legacy


Did you see the article by Jeff McMahon in Forbes covering research by Dr. Shin-ichi Hayama, a wildlife veterinarian studying Fukushima's contaminated monkeys:
Jeff McMahon (2017, October 30). Three Ways Radiation Has Changed The Monkeys Of Fukushima. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/10/30/three-ways-radiation-has-changed-the-monkeys-of-fukushima-a-warning-for-humans/#15b788165eac

The Japanese macaques show effects associated with radiation exposure—especially youngsters born since the March 2011 meltdowns at the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, according to a wildlife veterinarian who has studied the population since 2008... [The three changes include]:

Smaller bodies

Smaller heads and brains

Anemia: "The monkeys show a reduction in all blood components: red blood cells, white blood cells, hemoglobin, and the cells in bone marrow that produce blood components."
Findings expressed in graphs show clear correlation between level of exposure and biological problems, such as a reduction in white blood cells.

Perhaps even more concerning is the lack of recovery observed by Dr. Hayama:
"We have taken these tests from 2012 through 2017, and the levels have not recovered. So we have to say this is not an acute phenomenon. It has become chronic, and we would have to consider radiation exposure as a possible cause," Hayama said.
You can read the full study and previous research:
Shin-ichi Hayama, Moe Tsuchiya, Kazuhiko Ochiai, Sachie Nakiri, Setsuko Nakanishi, Naomi Ishii, Takuya Kato, Aki Tanaka, Fumiharu Konno, Yoshi Kawamoto & Toshinori Omi (2017) Small head size and delayed body weight growth in wild Japanese monkey fetuses after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 3528 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03866-8Kazuhiko Ochiai, Shin-ichi https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03866-8
Hayama, Sachie Nakiri, Setsuko Nakanishi, Naomi Ishii, Taiki Uno, Takuya Kato, Fumiharu Konno, Yoshi Kawamoto, Shuichi Tsuchida & Toshinori Omi (2014) Low blood cell counts in wild Japanese monkeys after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Scientific Reports 4, Article number: 5793 (2014) doi:10.1038/srep05793https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05793
Two other studies that have documented biological effects from Fukushima radiation exposure include the following:
A. Moller, A. Hagiwara, S. Matsui, S. Kasahara, K. Kawatsu, I. Nishiumi, H. Suzuki, K. Ueda, T. and A. Mousseau (2012) ‘Abundance of Birds in Fukushima as Judged from Chernobyl’, Environmental Pollution, 164, 36-39.

A. Hiyama, C. Nohara, S. Kinjo, W. Taira, S. Gima, A. Tanahara, and J. Otaki (2012) ‘The Biological Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on the Pale Grass Blue Butterfly’, Scientific Reports, 1-10.
No one really knows what is going to happen in a nuclear waste land. There are so many uncertainties and contingencies but one thing is certain and that is that increased levels of radionuclides in air, water, soil, and food disrupt the established patterns of life upon which we depend.


I also recommend this article here on PROPAGANDA ON LOW DOSE RADIATION: http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/propaganda-on-low-dose-radiation.html


3 comments:

  1. Yes there are people who do know Majia. There are dead zones in the ocean. As radionuclide levels, and chemical levels reach a certain point, there will be dead zones on land.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no rhyme or reaon to any of this.

    https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/zionism-anti-semitism-alliance-israel-joseph-massad

    It is simply mind-blowing brain-washing and psyops, that spooks and well connected operatives use to create chaos. They use memes, lies, fake narratives and fake ideology to twist and manipulate. It is distraction and, massive lies that highlight the disposability of people and civility in society. Evil, dirty, mass manipulation, so they can do their dirty work. So they an do the evil manipulations, more unabated. It is Hidden in plane sight, and yet there are so many people who have, and are buying into the bullshit. Black people pay for it. Poor people pay for it. Democracy pays for it.
    The environment and life, pays for it. It is the form of massive nuclear rearmament under trumps doctrine. In the form of massive investment in extraction and nuclear reactors , that guarentee all of us long-drawn and painful death, soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. https://nuclear-news.net/2017/11/25/russian-anger-builds-in-town-next-to-leaking-nuclear-plant/

    ReplyDelete