Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Why Don't We Know the True Scale of the Fukushima Releases




         Radiation is political and current governmental and intergovernmental standards of radiation safety reflect the viewpoints of the winners in the fifty year old debate between independent geneticists and scientists affiliated with the nuclear power or weapons industry. 

        It may very well be that our genomes are far more vulnerable than accepted standards of exposure presume. EPA standards for air and drinking water and FDA standards for milk, and food also reflect substantial trade-offs and cost-benefit tradeoffs using data that may not reflect the true costs of radiation exposure, particularly when radionuclides are ingested and inhaled. Please see my links at the bottom of this page.

        The US Cancer Study commissioned by George W. Bush, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, found that the US military was the biggest contributor to environmentally caused cancer in the US http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf. Our exposure to ionizing radiation is multiple times higher (we know not how many) than prior to the development of the atomic bomb. It is hardly surprising that the latest Report on Carcinogens (12th ed.) finds that “the probability that a resident of the United States will develop cancer at some point in his or her lifetime is 1 in 2 for men and 1 in 3 for women” (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/roc12.pdf).

          Our exposure to ionizing radiation is multiple times higher (we know not how many) than prior to the development of the atomic bomb. It was the bomb that drove this explosion of "background" radiation and the creation of new elements, such as plutonium, that are not found naturally on earth. The seductive nuclear bomb entices nations desiring power, influence, and security. The nuclear bomb is the ultimate phaljis for the post World War II generations.  Nuclear energy has been a nation’s covert insurance on access to the materials needed to build a nuclear bomb. India did just that, relying on its enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Perhaps the seduction of the bomb was too much for Japan and its marvelous just-in-time capabilities offered a strategy for insuring security while remaining officially nuclear-weapons free. The truth will not be told on this account for many decades, if ever. However, it may very well be that Japan’s nuclear disaster extended beyond Fukushima Daiichi. 



The true scale of the disaster will take decades, if not centuries, to unfold for humanity. Helen Caldicott says twenty generations are required for damaged recessive mutations to be expressed in humans. How much radiation are we really exposed to and how much genetic damage has occurred to our genetic and epigenetic codes? How much genetic damage have we already incurred from our exposure to atmospheric fallout from testing? How much damage have we incurred from our exposure to high levels of medical diagnostic testing? How much have we been exposed to by aging, nuclear plants emitting radioisotopes like tritium daily?  The answers to these questions remain elusive but their urgency is renewed by the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

          The Fukushima nuclear plant disaster is the worst in recorded history, although considerable efforts have been made to minimize perceptions of its scale. Three reactors had complete meltdowns and some unknown numbers had melt-throughs, the proverbial China Syndrome. Note this infrared image of unit 1 taken in 2011
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/news-inside-of-reactor-1/

       There were spent fuel pool fires as well, although the details of the number of pools involved and the extent of their damage remain undisclosed. Official representations of the disaster are conflicting and are peppered with fallacies and distortions, such as the mythology of cold shutdown and the cessation of emissions. This image of Fukushima emissions was taken today, October 17, 2012


        Scientific accounts of the scale of the disaster are conflicted. Many studies use computers to model fallout deposition, relying on Tepco’s estimates for the model’s inputs of emissions (source terms). Computer models have no validity if the source terms are invalid. Yet, there have been few empirical studies to rely on for analysis of fallout quantity, quality, and patterns in specific areas. Those that have been published have been rather alarming. Empirical studies actually measuring fallout by examining radioxenon levels in the US pacific northwest, Iodine-131 levels in kelp off the coast of California, and studies of particle deposition in select locations have found significant levels of fallout of noble gasses and radionuclides.

There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from this discussion of Fukushima. First, data about the scale of atmospheric and ocean emissions have not been revealed and most studies modeling releases may be based on false inputs.  Despite ambiguity about the scale of releases, empirical research has documented that Fukushima radiation did in fact contaminate the entire Northern Hemisphere. A study, “Tracking the Complete Revolution of Surface Westerlies over Northern Hemisphere using radionuclides emitted from Fukushima” published in the Science of the Total Environment by Herandez-Ceballos et al tracked cesium 134, 137 and Iodine 131 as these radioisotopes were swept eastward in a “complete, uninterrupted revolution of the mid-latitude Surface Westerlies of the northern Hemisphere in late march 211.” (p. 84). The revolution occurred in less than 21 days. The study concluded that “little dissipation occurred during this time… and the Fukushima radioactive plume contaminated the entire Northern Hemisphere during a relatively short period of time” (p. 85).

Second, evidence exists that the Japanese government has not adequately evacuated citizens nor adequately identified and decontaminated hotspots outside of the evacuation zone. Nor has the US government conducted and publicized research on the contamination of US crops, precipitation, and groundwater by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen reported in 2011 that he had been told by people in the State Dept. that U.S. government ordered officails to downplay the health effects of radiation. Gundersen suggests that the US government has deliberately failed to measure the radiation to avoid generating public concern (video available http://enenews.com/gundersen-ive-told-people-state-dept-govt-downplay-health-effects-radiation-weve-really-gone-measure-video).More recently, Japan’s former ambassador, Mitsuhei Murata, asserted that the U.S. put pressure on Japan to tone down the alarming speculation about the fate of unit 4’s spent fuel pool. http://enenews.com/watch-govt-main-reason-crisis-fukushima-unit-4-toned-down-video/comment-page-1#comment-293829 

 The reason that the scope and severity of Fukushima nuclear disaster remains undisclosed is because it is the worst nuclear disaster in human history and the truth of its effects will be born by future generations who will become innocent victims of the pursuit of the most deadly phallis of all, control over the atom.

ON THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHERNOBYL




Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl


POSTS ON RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA
1. Post I:  Report Contains Numbers of Fuel Assemblies at Fukushima as of March 2010

2. Post II: How  Much Radiation Is At Issue: Cesium 137 in Spent Fuel Pool 4



POSTS ON RELEASES

POSTS on GENETICS and radiation


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.