The Studies on Radiation Poisoning IN THE USA

[Mackay]

realted to nuclear reactors including three mile island which they lied to you about also.

this organization specializes in studying the effects of radiaiton. They are independent from US Governemnt, General Electric, Toshiba, Areva other faciliites that promote the nuclear industry.

http://www.radiation.org/

FIRST STUDY OF IN-BODY RADIATION BEGINS AT THREE MILE ISLAND

Harrisburg, November 14, 2005 A study of baby teeth measuring levels of Strontium-90, a radioactive chemical found only in nuclear weapons and reactors, has begun near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

The study is the first to analyze radioactivity in bodies of persons living near U.S. nuclear plants. The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) research group announced it is seeking donations of baby teeth at a press conference today in Harrisburg.

This project will accomplish two goals, said Joseph Mangano RPHP National Coordinator. For the first time, we can understand how much radioactivity Three Mile Island has added to peoples bodies. And we can also determine if it is contributing to high local cancer rates. Effects of both the 1979 accident at Three Mile Islands unit 2, and ongoing operations at unit 1, will be explored.

Infants and children living in Dauphin County, where Three Mile Island is located, have high rates of disease and death, specifically:

Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)
Rate of births under 5 lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)
Excluding accidents, suicide, and homicide

RPHP began conducting the baby tooth study in 1998. It has tested over 4,500 teeth, mostly from areas near seven U.S. nuclear plants, and has published results in four medical journals. Strontium-90 levels have been consistently found to be highest near nuclear plants, and have risen sharply since the late 1980s. The chemical is released from nuclear reactors and enters the body through breathing, drinking, and eating. It attaches to bone and teeth, where it damages cells, and is most harmful to the infant and fetus.

...............

now if all this is happening from three mile island Japan is in for a hard time... and being downwinders,,, I just don't know, we could have more exposure to than we would care for. Three Mile Island was not a level 5 accident... it is in now in Japan.

 

[patandchickens]

now if all this is happening from three mile island Japan is in for a hard time... and being downwinders,,, I just don't know, we could have more exposure to than we would care for. Three Mile Island was not a level 5 accident... it is in now in Japan.

Any county anywhere is going to have some demographic groups with higher or lower mortality/morbidity rates than the national average.

That is the whole point of the difference between a national average and a specific place.

There are lots and lots of reasons why particular demographic groups' motality/morbidity rates depart from national averages, such as local industries, health care availability, socioeconomic status, even geology.

Thus far the studies that have looked for elevated cancer rates in the area *unexplained by* other known factors have not found any. (I grew up not too far downwind from TMI, was in late Jr High when it happened, family still in the area, have kind of paid attention to the story over the years).

The point of the press release you cite is that they are GOING TO LOOK AND SEE if there are patterns in those departures from national-average mortality/morbidity that could be explained by patterns of radiation exposure, specifically in this case Sr-90 levels.

GOING TO LOOK FOR is a whole lot different from "have found".

For *sure* there has not been *much* impact from TMI -- the argument of the strongly-anti-nuke folks who are still searching for evidence of long-term health impacts is merely that there may be a small extra rate of cancers etc due to the accident, not that there have been massive widespread health effects. Which there undisputedly have not been (not massive widespread health effects, I mean).

(Note though that the types of cancers that are known to result from sublethal radiation exposure of the type you "might could have gotten" from TMI or undisputably DID get (if you were in the wrong part of Europe at the wrong time) from Chernobyl tend to take decades or more to develop. Thus there has not been all THAT much time to get actual hard data on what really *has* resulted -- what studies have been done are based either on estimates from dose-response rel'ps established elsewhere, or based on fairly preliminary data simply b/c not *that* much time has passed. I do not think we will be able to have a really definitive answer til maybe twenty-thirty years from now.)

Pat

 

[Mackay]

I would wish those small extra rates of cancer upon those who impede studies and lie, and better their children than mine, but better no children at all.

strontium 90 is the basis for the following study.... you get that from nukes and powerplants that fail


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/14cancer.html?_r=2&ref=matthewlwald

 

[Icu4dzs]

The son of an english aristocrat is quoted as saying, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

In the immortal words of a swiss patent office clerk, "I don't know what the third world war will be fought with, but the 4th world war will be fought with sticks and stones"

The third world war is just beginning. The UN has decided to create a "no fly zone" over Libya. I don't think Mr. Ghadafi is going to like that...do you?

Despite this seemingly disconnected pair of statements we bring you another piece of information on the generation of heat energy.

From his book on out door survival, Tom Brown stated that the cottonwood tree had the best material for making a bow drill with which to make a fire. Seems that is where you would have us return based on the above.

Think now from a more systems level. What do YOU suggest we do to provide a population with a pathologically selfish appetite for energy in order to meet that appetite as that population grows ever larger not only here in the USA but in the world in general? Any VIABLE ideas?

 

[patandchickens]

The third world war is just beginning. The UN has decided to create a "no fly zone" over Libya. I don't think Mr. Ghadafi is going to like that...do you?

No, but he's dealing with it by stopping officially bombing the rebels. I shouldn't be surprised if the international community responds to this by deeming him to officially not be flying any planes. Sigh. (There does not seem to be any great international will to confront the dude... for some good and some not-so-good reasons)

But I dunno "the third world war is beginning". People say that kind of thing a lot on this forum (well, and elsewhere too). I keep being tempted to go back and find peoples' quotes from a year ago "I guarantee that within 6 months US civil order will have collapsed" or "H1N1 flu is going to mutate to a more virulent form and kill millions worldwide" or posts from a few years back "in just a couple of years you will be faced with hordes of starving zombies from the cities invading the countryside"... etc etc etc.

Plenty of other things have happened over the past, well, any number of years that at the time looked much more ominous than the situation in Libya (well, the whole middle east and northern africa, this year). Of course if there ever IS a WWIII (whatever it takes to officially be a 'world' war, these days), it will obviously begin with SOMEthing, but I wish people would not go overboard every time something geopolitical happens.

JMHO of course, others should feel free to panic (or get their hopes up to feel self-righteously self-congratulatory) at will of course

What do YOU suggest we do to provide a population with a pathologically selfish appetite for energy in order to meet that appetite as that population grows ever larger not only here in the USA but in the world in general? Any VIABLE ideas?

Why do people dismiss "use a lot less energy" as obviously ridiculously impractical or impossible? Of *course* it's not going to happen if we don't TRY, but geez, it is not like there has been much incentive TO try or much interest IN trying ("turn down your a/c by 5 degrees F" does not count as a sincere attempt to rethink energy consumption patterns, in my book )

I think it is at least as practical-sounding as any of the other ideas on the table. Yet it's the only one that does not seem to get really serious consideration *anywhere*, even (frankly) on this forum!

Pat

 

[Dunkopf]

I still think they should impose a larger gas tax. Force people to reduce consumption. Yes it will raise prices. What are we going to do when there's no oil left. Solar and wind should be subsidized as much as they subsidize nuclear. Then maybe they could increase it from 2% to 8% or so. A little research wouldn't hurt either. Of course that's hard to do when the current people controlling the purse strings and radical state Governors are trying to shut down the public school system.

So I'm sure we will probably have no choice but to slowly increase nuclear power plants to take over when all the oil is gone. They will just locate them in low income areas which will be about 95% of the country by then. We all know that low income people have no power so it won't matter if they have a few birth defects or a little cancer here and there.

As for Libya. I'm not that opposed to a no fly zone. Of course in order to do that they have to destroy all of Ghadafis anti aircraft and radar emplacements. Right now it sounds like Ghadafi is going to stop slaughtering his people and leave them be in the small area they still control. He'll stay in power and his country will remain a lousy place to live if you don't like his style of governing.

Hardly WWIII. Of course we could have just done a pre-emptive war.