Scientists: Test West Coast for Fukushima radiation

[Yo_Mama]

67. He's basically just being alarmist

Read this and think about the implications:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-09/tokyo-radiation-less-than-in-paris-three-years-after-meltdown.html

Note that the article also discusses highly contaminated areas, esp. to the NW of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

He's not as nutty as a lot of them, but the reality is that he does know from his training what these readings mean, and the implications, whereas the average person doesn't. And the alarmists are convincing some people to do things that are harmful to their health.

As for what he's making up, start here:
http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/west-coast-radiation-exposure-risks

The linear no-dose threshold theory is just a theory, and it's a theory that hasn't been borne out by studies conducted in areas that have natural high doses of radiation. Nor has it been borne out in animal testing. It's a theory used to set environmental safety levels, though, for which purpose it works pretty well. And he has the education to know this.

What he's NOT telling the public in this video is that US background environmental levels aren't going to change as a result of the "plume", and therefore there is no reason to worry. He's lying by omission - AND HE KNOWS IT.

And again, this may gain a lot of readership and some funding, but it is causing actual harm to poor deluded dopes who are taking stuff that can harm them. Contrast his statements from those who are actually studying the radiation:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5875/20140204/california-kelp-tested-fukushima-radiation-year-long-study.htm

If you want to read some of the actual work on that theory, try this search:
https://www.google.com/#q=linear+no+dose+threshold+evidence

http://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174%2811%2900069-1/abstract

Here's a publicly available review article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

What studies actually seem to be showing is something quite interesting. Not only does linear no-threshold theory not work, it appears that it really doesn't work, because animal studies designed to be very sensitive show that at low doses, very low doses may cause more damage than higher doses, because cell-protective effects kick in. This is similar to you getting a very low virus exposure - you would not notice any effects until viral particles increase enough to invoke an immune response.

Of course at high levels damage is observable. This might explain why surveys in the west don't seem to confirm much in the way of adverse effects from most low-dose medical uses, and world wide surveys haven't shown negative health effects in areas with naturally high levels of exposure. It's only when doses get so high as to overwhelm your natural defenses that the damage becomes evident. And since we are all exposed to radiation naturally, and since the radiation level on earth has been dropping steadily ever since life evolved, flying a lot turns out not to be an observable health risk.

So now we have something of a public health hazard created by rumor:
http://rt.com/news/british-columbia-fukushima-radiation-097/

The natural rebuttal to the critiques of linear threshold no-dose theory is that epidemiological studies are not sensitive enough to pick up very low rates of increased disease. That is true, but I have read some that do pick up risks such as low vegetable consumption, lack of exercise, and stress, for example. So some of the studies have been pretty damned sensitive.

People are making money selling radiation dectectors and potassium iodide. There's money in alarmism.

Btw, I think Gundersen's critiques about the safety of nuclear power plants are better founded.