Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BethMomDem

(70 posts)
25. I do understand all that, nonetheless, people here are sick, people there have died.
Wed Oct 30, 2013, 02:25 PM
Oct 2013

Saying Fukushima hasn't had a biological effect in the U.S. when there is a plethora of evidence showing that it has is like believing the sun doesn't cause sunburn.

If you want to believe a body(the government) that continually relaxes regulations on plants that have known problems(cracks, leaks etc) simply so those plants can keep producing energy, that is your business.

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.

Data from Chernobyl, which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown. These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels.
(Chernobyl ? Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Alexeiy V. Yablokov, Vasily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. Consulting Editor: Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger. New York Academy of Sciences, 2009.)

Levels of radioisotopes were measured in children who had died in the Minsk area that had received Chernobyl fallout. The cardiac findings were the same as those seen in test animals that had been administered Cs-137. Bandashevsky, Y. I, Pathology of Incorporated Ionizing Radiation, Belarus Technical University, Minsk. 136 pp., 1999. For his pioneering work, Prof. Bandashevsky was arrested in 2001 and imprisoned for five years of an eight year sentence.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/


These soldiers were lied to, but I guess that was for their own good?!?!?!?!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

OTOH Richard D Oct 2013 #1
Science isn't for Dummies. GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #2
No evidence of a plume", you mean the one that was detectable with monitors???? BethMomDem Oct 2013 #3
Please help me out understand about this plume. What exactly made up the plume? rhett o rick Oct 2013 #4
Are you asking for a complete breakdown of how fallout accumulates and travels? BethMomDem Oct 2013 #5
Let's start over. Radiation is radiated energy that is emitted from a radiation source. rhett o rick Oct 2013 #12
That would be implied with the word, RADIATION----RADIATE, I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that. BethMomDem Oct 2013 #16
Yes I guess I got confused when you said, "Radiation was (and is being released) and rose with steam rhett o rick Oct 2013 #18
Radiation did in fact rain down, radio-contamination is in fact RADIATION. BethMomDem Oct 2013 #19
This is an extremely important issue. All the more important to discuss it rhett o rick Oct 2013 #26
BTW I am not opposed to Nuclear energy generation. BethMomDem Oct 2013 #17
There was no plume. Coyotl Oct 2013 #7
Plume of radiative particles IN AIR AND WATER, SOME ROSE WITH STEAM, the rest dumped in the water BethMomDem Oct 2013 #21
Ouch! What a smack down! nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #15
In order to do a scientific study that truedelphi Oct 2013 #6
If RT say it, there is a 60 % chance that this is 100 % bullshit. Sand Wind Oct 2013 #8
Highest radiation level seen in 2 years near Fukushima reactor — TeeYiYi Oct 2013 #9
Equivalent dose DhhD Oct 2013 #10
Radiation Damage DhhD Oct 2013 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author bowens43 Oct 2013 #13
That's just ridiculous. According the the World Health Organization... Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #14
Money protects money. I guess all the anomalous deaths, diseases and dead zones in the pacific BethMomDem Oct 2013 #20
I'll stick with science and leave faith to the faithful. nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #22
Science says MELTDOWNS release dangerous, biologically destructive material. You mean that science? BethMomDem Oct 2013 #23
The devil is in the details... Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #24
I do understand all that, nonetheless, people here are sick, people there have died. BethMomDem Oct 2013 #25
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Peer Reviewed Study Shows...»Reply #25