Peer Reviewed Study Shows 14,000 U.S. Deaths from Fukushima

[BethMomDem]

3. No evidence of a plume", you mean the one that was detectable with monitors????

And radiation found in breast milk, water, cows HIGH ABOVE SAFE LEVELS.

Basically if we listen to the MSM claims of bias and accusations of anti-nuclear WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT FUKUSHIMA RADIATION IS NOT REALLY RADIATION AT ALL. THEY ARE BASICALLY CLAIMING IT CAN'T MAKE ANYONE SICK, ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISCARRIAGES OR RADIATION SPIKES, THE DETECTORS ARE ALL ERRONEOUSLY REPORTING EXTREMELY HIGH LEVELS ETC.

WOW FUKUSHIMA RADIATION MUST BE MAGICALLY SAFE AND DEFIES EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT RADIATION.------------------You can buy that if you wish.



They don't overestimate at all, quite the contrary. They look at the total increases for a specific time period, not the TOTAL period during which Fukushima was spewing out radiation. So if anything they cautiously UNDERESTIMATED as scientists generally do.

Scientific American is as PRO-NUCLEAR AS THEY COME. To claim that these researchers are anti-nuclear simply because they point out statistical facts THAT CORRELATE WITH PREVIOUS DATA GATHERED DURING THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER is quite an exaggerated claim, and slanderous considering their credentials and methods of performing the study which were performed in line with a highly rigorous scientific method accepted globally.

We have heard nothing but the same from all media outlets and the government alike. These same institutions that regularly weaken regulations on nuclear plants so that dangerously under-regulated plants are able to pass inspections even when there are cracks galore in containment systems.

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/

tsk tsk. Yes, you can post a Scientific American article, that anyone could claim is Pro-Nuclear and anti-regulation, but I'll just call it extremely biased completely inaccurate. It claims no plume.......................no plume indeed. Just detectors detecting the radiatios, ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES IN THE FORM OF A PLUME FOLLOWED BY EXTREMELY HIGH LEVELS IN WATER, MILK ETC.