Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Leak: What You Should Know

August 24, 2013 Leave a comment

Fukushima’s Radioactive Water Leak: What You Should Know.


Fukushima now in state of emergency, leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily

August 13, 2013 Leave a comment

Fukushima now in state of emergency, leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily

via Fukushima now in state of emergency, leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily.

Hypothyroidism Rising Among Newborns in Humboldt Co After the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown

April 2, 2013 3 comments
This report appeared in the Open Journal of Pediatrics.  The study found that newborns in the Pacific Northwest have experienced a sharp rise in infant hypothyroidism following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, bucking a nationwide declining trend.  Eureka Ca had the biggest change in hypothyroidism rates of all the sites surveyed.  Radioactive iodine, released in large quantities from the crippled nuclear power plant, tends to accumulate in the thyroid where it can interfere with normal thyroid function and cause cancer.
Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2013, 3, 1-9
doi:10.4236/ojped.2013.31001 Pub
lished Online March 2013 (
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes.
Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US
States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns
after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown
Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman
Radiation and Public Health
Project, New York, USA
Received 2 October 2012; revised 24 De
cember 2012; accepted 29 January 2013
Various reports indicate that the incidence of con-
genital hypothyroidism is increasing in developed
nations, and that improved detection and more inclu-
sive criteria for the disease do not explain this trend
entirely. One risk factor documented in numerous
studies is exposure to radioactive iodine found in nu-
clear weapons test fallout and nuclear reactor emis-
sions. Large amounts of fa
llout disseminated world-
wide from the meltdowns in
four reactors at the Fu-
kushima-Dai-ichi plant in Japan beginning March 11,
2011 included radioiodine isotopes. Just days after
the meltdowns, I-131 concentrations in US precipita-
tion was measured up to 211 times above normal.
Highest levels of I-131 and airborne gross beta were
documented in the five US States on the Pacific Ocean.
The number of congenital hypothyroid cases in these
five states from March 17-December 31, 2011 was
16% greater than for the same period in 2010, com-
pared to a 3% decline in 36
other US States (p < 0.03).
The greatest divergence in these two groups (+28%)
occurred in the period March
17-June 30 (p < 0.04).
Further analysis, in the US and in other nations, is
needed to better understand any association between
iodine exposure from Fuku
shima-Dai-ichi and con-
genital hypothyroidism risk.
Congenital Hypothyroidism;
Fukushima-Dai-Ichi; Iodine; Nuclear
1.1. Rise in Congenital Hypothyroidism
Incidence Not Well Understood
Since the development of a simple blood spot test
through a neonatal heel prick in the 1960s [1], newborns
in developed nations have been routinely screened for
congenital hypothyroidism. CH is a disorder that results
in stunted growth, lowered
intelligence, deafness, and
neurological abnormalities [2], but can be effectively
treated if detected early. Increased incidence has been
observed during the past two decades, including the
United States, Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom, and
Greece [3-7]. In the
U.S., the rate in
creased 75.3% from
1987 to 2002 [3]. While changes in American laboratory
practices and screening methods along with changes in
proportions of multiple pregna
ncies, race, birth weight,
and gender in the population may explain some of the
increase, several reports conclude that there are other,
unknown factors that account for this temporal trend
Environmental factors pose
one possible cause of
these increases. One report examining the potential risk
of CH from perchlorate in drinking water found no asso-
ciation [12]. Another found significant links between CH
risk and levels of dioxin-like compounds and organo-
chloride pesticides detected
in the maternal breast milk
1.2. Exposure to Radioactive Iodine as a Factor
in Congenital Hypothyroidism
Another potential environmental risk factor is prenatal
exposure to radioactive iodi
ne isotopes, which seek out
the susceptible fetal thyroid gland. For decades radioac-
tive iodine has been recognized to cause adverse effects
(including hypothyroidism) to the thyroid gland. The
fetal thyroid, the first glandular structure to appear in the
human embryo [14], begins to concentrate iodine and
produce thyroid hormones by the 70
day of gestation
[15]. In the mid-1950s, during the period of atmospheric
nuclear weapons tests, I-131 produced by fission was
first detected in the adult human thyroid [16,17]. I-131
concentrations were calculated to be about 10 times
higher in the human fetal thyroid vs. the human adult or
hog thyroid [18], and maximum elevations in fetal thy-
There were no direct sponsors for th
is research, as the authors devel-
oped the manuscript independently. Mangano is an employee of the
Radiation and Public
Health Project.

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
roids were detected approximately one month after nu-
clear explosions [19]. The main path of exposure to short-
lived isotopes such as I-131 is via dairy products due to
radioactive fallout deposition on forage [20].
One report on relatively low doses of I-131 exposures
to rat embryos resulted in large decreases in fetal thy-
roxine and increases in Thyroid Stimulating Hormone
(TSH), dependent upon the time of pregnancy that the
exposure occurred [21]. A recent analysis discovered
levels of whole blood iodine in three infants from Ore-
gon (US) screened at birth
exceeded the average for con-
trols by a factor of 10 [22].
While anthropogenic radioactive iodine has existed
following the discovery of fission in the 1940s, relatively
few studies have examined the potential association be-
tween iodine exposure to the fetus and CH risk. The
massive hydrogen bomb explosion “Bravo” on March 1,
1954 resulted in high doses to residents of the Marshall
Islands and various thyroid disorders, including hypo-
thyroidism in the child and adult. However, only two
cases of CH were detected in the relatively small popula-
tion [23,24]. In the five areas closest to the Chernobyl
nuclear meltdown, the highest prevalence of hypothy-
roidism in children was observed in Gomel, the area with
the highest exposures [25]. An examination of 160,000
local children exposed to Ch
ernobyl fallout before age
ten found a link with I-131 exposure and risk of juvenile
hypothyroidism [26].
In Pennsylvania (US), the site of the March 1979 par-
tial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power
plant, the change in CH in nine month period before and
after the event differed in
upwind/western area (8 to 7
cases) and downwind/eastern areas (9 to 20 cases). [27,
28] The peak of I-131 from Chernobyl fallout in May
1986 in US milk was three times greater in northwest
states than in southeast states; 1984-1985 vs. 1986-1987
changes in CH rates was +23.3% in the northwest and
1.0% in the southeast [29]. I-131 exposure due to re-
leases from the Hanford (U.S.) nuclear weapons installa-
tion found a significantly el
evated number of preterm
births, which are linked to risk of CH [30]. The CH rate
closest to the Savannah River (US) nuclear weapons
plant was not found to be elevated [31].
More recently, CH rates of the four counties closest to
the Indian Point, New York (US) nuclear plant, located
mostly under 20 miles, are about twice that of the US,
and especially high in the
most recent period available
[32]. The 1970-1993 total of airborne I-131 and particu-
lates released by Indian Point was the 5
greatest of 72
nuclear plants [33]. Data in
Table 1
reflect official com-
plications from state screening programs [34].
The meltdowns of four nucl
ear reactors at the Fuku-
shima-Dai-ichi plant in Japan that began on March 11,
2011 after an earthquake and tsunami creates another ba-
sis to examine any potential
effects of radioiodine expo-
sure on CH rates. This report will review temporal CH
trends in the US following the meltdowns, comparing
those areas having elevated ra
dioactivity with the rest of
the US.
2.1. Measuring Exposures from Fukushima
The first of two major components needed to examine a
potential association between Fukushima fallout and CH
risk is exposure levels. Estimates of emissions from Fu-
kushima are not precise; the
reactors are not stable and
are releasing radioactivity
. Worldwide measurements
show that 16,700 Peta-Becquerels of Xenon-133 were
emitted by fall 2011, about 2.5 times more than that re-
leased by the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. [35] Other re-
ports place Fukushima emissions below Chernobyl’s.
In the US, the plume arrived
in the air above the west
coast states on March 15, just four days after the start of
the meltdowns [36]. US Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (EPA) measurements of I-131 in air, water, and milk
were relatively few in number, and thus it is not possible
to derive reliable geographic differences from these data.
The most I-131 readings in the US environment were
taken in precipitation, with 77 such measurements re-
ported from March 22 to April 12, 2011. Detectable lev-
els of I-131 in precipitation largely disappeared after this
period; of the 10 measurements on April 14, five were
“not detectable” and the others
were just slightly above
detectable levels of about 2.0 picocuries per liter [37].
Table 1.
Congenital hypothyroid rates countie
s closest to Indian point nuclea
r site compared to US, 1997-2007.
Cases Live Births Cases/100,000 Live Births 95% CI % vs. US P value
Four Counties, 1997-2004 135 185,099
90.6 – 85.2 +70.7 <0.0001
Four Counties, 2005-2007 73
82.7 – 131.9 +151.2 <0.0001
Total 1997-2007
208 253,118
90.6 – 85.2 +92.4 <0.0001
US, 2001-2005
8569 20,060,577
Includes orange, putnam, rockland, and Westchester counties.

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Table 2
shows the distribution of the 77 measure-
ments of I-131, covering 30 sites. After Fukushima, only
7 of 77 readings produced a “not detectable” result. But
18 of 77 measurements were 40 pCi/l or greater, at least
20 times above normal. The greatest concentrations were
detected in Boise ID (242, 394, and 422), or 121-211
times above normal. Boise is
in the northwest U.S., but
the highest ten measurements included the East Coast
cities of Jacksonville FL (148) and Boston MA (92).
These data support the conclusion that I-131 from Fuku-
shima entered the environment across the entire nation.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory docu-
mented that airborne levels of Xenon-133 in Washington
State, on the Pacific coast,
were 10,000 to 100,000 times
greater than normal in the
week following the disaster
[38]. Xe-133 is a gas that travels more rapidly than other
isotopes, but frequently is a
tracer for future spatial pat-
terns of other radionuclides. Moreover, Washington State
was the site of radioactive “h
ot particles” soon after Fu-
kudhima [39].
A team from California State University-Long Beach
measured I-131 in kelp on the California coast on April
20, 2011 just over a month after the Fukushima melt-
downs. The highest levels in the dry seaweed were found
in Orange County in southern California (250 times
greater than before the accident
), Santa Cruz in northern
California (200 times greater), and Los Angeles County
(60 times greater) [40]. In New Hampshire, close to the
Atlantic coast, during the period March-May 2011 I-131
doubled from prior periods [41].
A national study conducted by the National Geological
Survey examined concentrations of wet depositions of
fission-produced isotopes in soil at sites across the US,
for several radioisotopes, between March 15 and April 5,
Table 2.
Measurements of I-131 in US precipitation March 22
to April 12, 2011.
Concentration I-131 (pCi/l) No. Measurements
0.0 – 1.9
2.0 – 9.9
10.0 – 19.9
20.0 – 39.9
40.0 – 69.9
70.0 – 99.9
100.0- 8
Not detectable, or probably around normal levels of 2.0.
2011. Results showed that for I-131, the highest deposi-
tions, in becquerels per cubic meter, occurred in north-
west Oregon (5100), central California (1610), northern
Colorado (833), coastal California (211), and western
Washington (60.4). No other station recorded concentra-
tions above 13. Similar results were observed for Ce-
sium-134 and Cesium-137 [42]. All the cited locations
are on or near the Pacific
coast, with the exception of
Colorado, in the western US.
Thus, the data indicate the greatest concentrations of
environmental I-131 in the continental US after Fuku-
shima occurred on the west coast. While the excess is
difficult to quantify precisely, for purposes of this report
comparisons in airborne gross beta concentrations will be
made between the five Pacific and West Coast states
(Alaska, California, Hawaii,
Oregon, and Washington)
and the remainder of the nation. The source of data is the
US Environmental Protection Agency’s twice-weekly
measurements in nearly 100 US locations, creating a
large sample of hundreds of measurements in the weeks
after the arrival of Fukushima fallout.
2.2. Collecting Data on Congenital
Hypothyroidism Incidence
The other principal component in this dose-response
comparison involves CH incidence. Each of the 50 US
states maintains newborn screening program results, in-
cluding CH cases. Because only annual data is made
easily available on the internet, we conducted a tele-
phone survey of states, requesting monthly numbers of
CH cases, for each month in
2010 and 2011,
according to
the date of the baby’s birth. Cases from births of March 1
– 16 and March 17 – 31 were separated to define the pe-
riod after the arrival of Fukushima fallout in the US.
States were asked to provide only confirmed primary
CH cases; these are newborns who test positive for the
condition, and require therapeutic intervention to avoid
adverse health effects. Transient CH cases are mostly
newborns not confirmed to have CH, and secondary CH
cases are not recorded by all states. State programs were
also asked to confirm that there was no change in CH
definitions between 2010 and 2011 that would bias any
temporal comparison. State definitions vary by thyroxine
and TSH thresholds, so no valid intra-state comparisons
can be made.
Calculating CH rates of cases per live births is not
possible at this time, as final birth totals are not yet
available. Official preliminary data indicate that there
will be a 1 percent 2010-2011 decline in U.S. births [43];
thus, comparing the number of CH cases for large popu-
lations should prove highly accu
rate as a predictor of the
rate. In 2010, the five Pacific/West Coast States had a
total population of 49,880,102 (16.2% of the US total of

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
308,745,538) [44], and accounted for 693,676 (16.8%) of
the 4,130,665 US births in 2009 [45].
CH cases for births in the periods March 17 to De-
cember 31 (2010 and 2011)
will be compared, for the
Pacific/West Coast States and the remainder of the US
Portions of this 290 day period will also be compared.
Significance testing will be conducted using a t test,
where n equals the number of Pacific/West Coast cases
in 2010 and 2011, the observed change will be the
change in the Pacific/West Coast, and the expected
change will be the change for the remainder of the US.
3.1. Largest US Radiation Increases after
Fukushima in Pacific/West Coast States
A review of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
data measuring airborne levels of gross beta was con-
ducted, to compare 2010 and 2011 levels. The EPA uses
air filters to measure aerosols at points close to ground
level. The Agency typically does measurements about
twice a week for 69 US sites.
At the time of the analysis,
data were only available up to October 4, 2011, and thus
results for the periods January 1 to October 4 were com-
pared for 2010 and 2011 [46]. Beta measurements in-
clude a variety of radioisotopes, of which I-131 is a por-
tion, meaning gross beta as a proxy for relative expo-
sures to the thyroid gland.
The largest amounts of radioactive fallout in the US
environment from Fukushima occurred in late March and
all of April 2011, before declining to levels typically re-
corded in 2010. Thus, 2010-2011 comparisons were made
for two periods. The first was March 15-April 30, and
the second was the remainder of the period (January 1-
March 14 plus May 1-October 4).
To identify an “exposed” po
pulation, we selected 18
EPA stations in the five Pacific/West Coast States for
which at least 20 gross beta measurements were made
during both 2010 and 2011. Many stations had consid-
erably more, and thus a total of 1,043 and 1,083 meas-
urements were used in the two years for the 18 stations.
We identified a “control” group representing the re-
mainder of the US. Thus, 31 sites were selected, repre-
senting a wide geographic diversity. These sites recorded
59 to 79 airborne beta m
easurements each year for the
288-day period January 1-October 4, approximately twice-
weekly measurements for the
entire period. In all, 2,211
and 2,057 measurements were
included in each respect-
tive year for the 31 sites. Th
e list of these 18 exposed and
31 control sites is given in Appendix 1.
The “average” beta for each group was calculated by
dividing the arithmetic mean by the number of sites (18
or 31).
Table 3
presents the changes in average beta for
exposed and control groups, for the periods of higher and
lower/no exposure.
The data show that in the 18 sites in the Pacific/West
Coast (“exposed”) was 7.345 times higher in the March
15-April 30 period, compared to just 2.397 in the 31
other sites (“controls”), a ratio of 3.06. For the rest of the
year, the 2010-2011 change was very small (0.983 and
1.018, a ratio of 0.97), which is expected due to the ab-
sence of Fukushima fallout in both years.
Observations for some sites showed especially large
increases. In the Pacific/West
Coast, the largest changes
were in the California citie
s of Eureka (increase of
38.264 times), Anaheim (14.941), and San Bernardino
(12.054). In the 31 control sites, the only increases above
4.2 times were observed in Tucson AZ (9.320) and Salt
Lake City UT (7.879), both located in the western US.
The lowest figures were found in the southeastern cities
of Baton Rouge LA (1.222) and Montgomery AL (1.212).
This shows that for all areas of the US, 2010-2011 gross
beta concentrations increased in the period March 15-
April 30. Thus, Fukushima fallout appeared to affect all
areas of the US, and was especially large in some, mostly
in the western part of the nation.
3.2. Congenital Hypothyroidism Incidence
Trends in US
With the greatest airborne gross beta increases docu-
mented on the west coast, we can assess any changes in
Table 3.
Change in average airborne gross beta concentration Paci
fic/West Coast sites (exposed) and other US sites (control)
2010-2011, periods of high and
low/no fallout from Fukushima.
2010 Average (n) 2011 Average (n) Change, 2010-2011
Period Exposed Control Exposed Control Exposed Control
High Fallout
March 15 – April 30 0.005112 (190) 0.008527 (401) 0.033016 (225) 0.020204 (378) 7.345 2.397
Low/No Fallout
Jan. 1-March 14 + May 1-Oct. 4 0.006027 (853) 0.009573 (1810) 0.005526 (858) 0.009670 (1679) 0.983 1.018
Figures are in picocuries of gross beta per cubic meter of air.

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
CH incidence. All US newborns diagnosed with primary
CH born March 17-December 31, 2011 were exposed
to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima melt-
downs. While these newborns were exposed at different
phases of pregnancy, effects of exposure is elevated dur-
ing the fetal period, compared to those during infancy,
childhood, and adulthood.
Phone calls to state newborn screening program coor-
dinators for monthly confirmed primary CH cases for
2010 and 2011 provided data for 41 of 50 states, repre-
senting 87% of all US births.
Included in the 41 states
were all five Pacific/West Coast States. Most of the other
states not sharing statistical data were small states with
under 10 cases per year, whose policies would not permit
release of small numbers of cases due to confidentiality
concerns. States reporting data are given in Appendix 2.
Table 4
presents the reported numbers of confirmed
primary CH cases for the fi
ve (5) Pacific/West Coast
States, along with cases fo
r the other 36 US States.
The 2010-2011 ratio representing the change in CH
cases was 1.16 for the five Pacific/West Coast States,
rising from 281 to 327 confirmed cases. The 1.16 ratio
exceeded the 0.97 ratio (dec
line in cases from 1208 to
1167) for the 36 control states; the difference is signifi-
cant at p < 0.03. Increases in
ratios were observed in the
exposed areas for the periods March 17-June 30 (1.28,
significant at p < 0.04) and
July 1-December 31 (1.10,
not significant at p < 0.21).
Congenital hypothyroidism (CH) incidence is rising in
various nations. Recent studies have examined patterns
of these increases; better detection and more liberal defi-
nitions of CH may explain some of this pattern, but there
is a general consensus that other factors are appearing to
affect temporal trends. A well-documented risk factor
affecting CH is exposure to the thyroid-seeking iodine
isotopes such as I-131. Previous sources have linked ele-
vated risk for hypothyroidism with nuclear weapons tests
and nuclear power inst
allations [22-34].
The meltdowns at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear
plant in Japan beginning March 11, 2011 present an op-
portunity to examine a recent e
xposure to radiation, not
just in Japan but in other nations that received the fallout.
In the US, government offici
als measured concentrations
of I-131 in precipitation up to 211 times above normal
during the weeks following the meltdowns. There were
increased concentrations of all beta-emitting radionu-
clides in the air during the six weeks following the be-
ginning of Fukushima fallout. Compared to the same
period a year earlier, the fallout increases were more than
seven times greater in the five Pacific/West Coast States,
compared to just over two times in the remainder of the
For births March 17 to December 31, the 2010-2011
change in confirmed CH cases in the five Pacific/West
Coast States was significantly
greater than for 36 other
US States (p < 0.02). These 41 states represent 87% of
US births, meaning that this result likely represents the
pattern for the entire nation. The largest gap between the
two groups of states occurred in the period March 17 to
June 30, which represents fetuses exposed to environ-
mental radioiodine during the third trimester of preg-
nancy, after the thyroid gland is more fully developed
than in the first two trimesters.
Possible explanations for this finding should be con-
sidered. Prior research has shown that certain demo-
graphic groups are at greater
risk for CH, including fe-
male births, Hispanics, Asians, and births to older moth-
ers. However, it is highly likely that distribution in gen-
der, race/ethnicity, or maternal age changed little from
2010 to 2011. As mentioned, including all 50 states
might have changed the comparison, but the sample of
87% of US births used in this report yields results very
similar to the total. Knowing the number of live births
and calculating CH rates could change the results, but the
official estimate that live births will decline just 1 per-
cent from 2010 to 2011 makes this unlikely to explain
the difference between the two groups of states. The sta-
tistical significance of the findings (p < 0.03 for March
17-December 31 births, and p
< 0.04 for March 17-June
30 births) make random yearly fluctuation unlikely as an
explanation for the observed differences.
The potential for Fukushima fallout to contribute to
rising CH in the Pacific/West Coast area of the US can
only be explained if evidence of harm from relatively
Table 4.
Confirmed primary congenital hypothyroid cases Ma
rch 17-December 31 (2010 and 2011), 41 US States.
5 Exposed States
P value 36 Control States
Period 2010 2011 Ratio 2010 2011 Ratio
March 17-December 31 281
327 1.16 <0.03 1208 1167 0.97
March 17-June 30
122 1.28 <0.04 399 378 0.96
July 1-December 30
205 1.10
695 662 0.97
Note: For March 17-June 30 and July 1-December 31, the control state group excludes Indiana.

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
low-dose radiation exposures is understood. Numerous
reports have identified elevated disease risk from low
radiation doses previously be
lieved to be non-hazardous,
or at least not able to be calculated using standard re-
search methods. The first of
these discoveries from the
late 1950s showed prenatal abdominal X-rays nearly
doubled the chance of the irradiated fetus dying before
age ten [47,48]. US government officials estimated I-131
exposures from milk contaminated by Nevada above
ground nuclear weapons tests in the period 1951 to 1958
[49], as the basis for the projection that as many as
212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from Ne-
vada test fallout [50]. US officials also concluded (based
on several dozen published studies) that occupational
exposures received by worker
s in nuclear weapons plants
caused a variety of cancers [51]. The consensus from
results of these and other studies was that risks to health
of radiation exposure follows a linear no-threshold model,
even at the smallest doses [52]. Thus, while environ-
mental levels of Fukushima fallout were thousands of
times greater near the stricken
plant than those in the US,
these relatively low (but el
evated) exposures should be
analyzed for any potential links with diseases.
There are limitations to the data in this report that call
for future actions to address them. One of these actions is
to examine individual exposu
res to newborns with CH,
but the practical feasibility of calculating these data is
very low. Another is to obtain more precise temporal and
geographic data on environmen
tal levels of specific ra-
dionuclides in the US after Fukushima, including I-131.
Moreover, estimating specific exposures to humans as a
consequence of the fallout would also be helpful in any
future analyses of health risk. In addition, there are tech-
nical changes that may be made to data in this report,
such as using a period greater than just 2010 as a base-
line; including data on CH cases after 2011; and conver-
sion of trends in cases to ra
tes when official numbers of
2010-2011 live births by state and month become avail-
able. Review of CH changes in states with the highest
exposures other than the Pacific/West Coast, which may
include adjoining western states, can also be considered.
The data presented in this paper, including both expo-
sure levels and CH incidence, should be considered as
preliminary. They require
confirmation and expansion,
including long-term follow-up of infants and other chil-
dren. However, the current findings should be noted, and
encourage the conduct of futu
re analyses of health ef-
fects from exposures to Fukushima fallout.
Congenital hypothyroidism can be used as one meas-
ure to assess any potential changes in U.S. fetal and in-
fant health status after Fukus
hima because official data
was available relatively promptly. However, health de-
partments will soon have available for other 2010 and
2011 indicators of fetal/infant health, including fetal
deaths, premature births, low weight births, neonatal
deaths, infant deaths, and birth defects. While any ad-
verse effects would first be ex
pected to affect the suscep-
tible fetus and infant, subsequent review of any changes
in health status of older children and adults can be pro-
Understanding why CH rates have risen in developed
nations such as the U.S. is a complex task, as multiple
factors are likely involved. Exposure to radiation, espe-
cially the thyroid-seeking radioiodine isotopes, should be
considered as one of these fa
ctors. The meltdown at Fu-
kushima Dai-ichi presents an opportunity to analyze this
factor, and studies such as this one should continue.
Guthrie, R. (1963) A simple phenylaline method for de-
tecting phenylketonuria in large populations of newborn
, 338-343.
United States Public Health Service (1994) Newborn
American Family Physician
, 354-358.
Harris, K.B. and Pass, K.A. (2007) Increase in congenital
hypothyroidism in New York State and the United States.
Molecular Genetics and Metabolism
, 268-277.
Kurinczuk, J.J., Bower, C., Lewis, B. and Byrne, G. (2007)
Congenital hypothyroidism in Western Australia 1981-
Journal of Paediatric and Child Health
, 187-
Corbetta, C., Weber, G., Cort
inovis, F., Calebiro, D., Pa-
ssoni, A., Vigone, M.C., Beck-Peccoz, P., Chiumello, G.
and Persani, L. (2009) A 7-year experience with low bl
TSH cutoff levels for neonata
l screening reveals an un-
suspected frequency of congenital hypothyroidism (CH).
Clinical Endocrinology
, 739-745.
Pearce, M.S., Korada, M., Day, J., Turner, S., Allison, D.,
Kibirge, M. and Cheetham, T.D. (2010) Increasing inci-
dence, but lack of seasonality
, of elevated TSH levels, on
newborn screening, in the North of England.
Journal of
Thyroid Research
, Article ID: 101948.
Mengreli, C., Kanaka-Gantenbein, C., Girginoudis, P., Ma-
giakou, M.A., Christakopoulou
, I., Giannoulia-Karantana,
A., Chrousos, G.P. and Dacou-Voutetakis, C. (2010)
Screening for congenital hypothyroidism; the significance
of threshold limit in false-negative results.
Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
, 4283-4290.
LaFranchi, S.H. (2011) Increasing incidence of congeni-
tal hypothyroidism: Some answers, more questions.
nal of Clinical Endoc
rinology and Metabolism
, 2395-
Hertzberg, V., Mei, J. and Therrell, B.L. (2010) Effect of
laboratory practices on the incidence rate of congenital
, 548-553.
Waller, D.K., Anders
on, J.L., Lorey, F.
and Cunningham,

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
G.C. (2000) Risk factors fo
r congenital hypothyroidism:
An investigation of infant’s
birth weight, ethnicity, and
gender in California, 1990-1998.
, 36-41.
Oliveri, A., Medda, E., DeAnge
lis, S., Valensise, H., De-
Felice, M., Fazzini, C., Cascino, I., Cordeddu, V., Sorcini,
M. and Stazi, M.A. (2007) Hi
gh risk of congenital hypo-
thyroidism in multiple pregnancies.
Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism
, 3141-3147.
Buffler, P.A., Kelsh, M.A.,
Lau, E.C., Edinboro, C.H.,
Barnard, J.C., Rutherford, G.
W., Daaboul, J.J., Palmer, L.
and Lorey, F.W. (2006) Thyroid function and perchlorate
in drinking water: An eval
uation among California new-
borns, 1998.
Environmental Health Perspectives
, 798-
Nagayama, J., Kohno, H., Nuni
sue, T., Kataoka, K., Shi-
momura, H., Tanabe, S. and Konishi, S. (2007) Concen-
tratins of organichlorine pollutants in mothers who gave
birth to neonates with congenital hypothyroidism.
, 972-976.
Arey, L.B. (1954) Developm
ental anatomy. W.B. Saun-
ders, Philadelphia.
Howdeshell, K. (2002) A model of the development of
the brain as a construct of the thyroid system.
mental Health Perspectives
, 337-348.
Van Middlesworth, L. (1956)
Radioactivity in thyroid
glands following nuclear weapons tests.
, 982-
Comar, C.L., Trum, B.F., K
uhn, U.S., Wasserman, R.H.,
Nold, M.M. and Schooley, J.C. (1957) Thyroid radioac-
tivity after nuclear weapons tests.
, 16-18.
Beierwaltes, W.H., Cranae, H.R., Wegst, A., Spafford,
N.R. and Carr, E.A. (1960) Radioactive iodine concentra-
tion in the fetal human thyroid gland from fall-out.
Journal of the Aerican Medical Association
, 1895-
Beierwaltes, W.H., Hilger, M.
T. and Wegst, A. (1963) Ra-
dioactive concentrations in fetal human thyroid from
Health Physics
, 1263-1266.
Gardner, R.J. (1960) An assessment of the quantities of
fission products likely to be found in milk in the event of
serial contamination of agricultural land.
Usenko, V., Lepekhin, E., Ly
zogubov, V., Kornilovska, I.,
Ushakova, G. and Witt, M. (1999) The influence of low
doses 131I-induced maternal hypothyroidism on the de-
velopment of rat embryos.
Experimental Toxicology and
, 223-227.
Connelly, K.J., Boston, B.A.
, Pearce, E.N., Sesser, D.,
Snyder, D., Braverman, L.E., Pino, S. and Lafranchi, S.H.
(2012) Congeneital hypothyroidism caused by excess
prenatal maternal iodine ingestion.
Journal of Pediatrics
, 760-762.
Cronkite, E.P., Conard, R.A. and Bond, V.P. (1997) His-
torical events associated with fallout from bravo shot—
Operation castle and 25Y of medical findings.
, 176-186.
Cronkite, E.P., Bond, V.P. and Conard, R.A (1995) Me-
dical effects of exposure of human beings to fallout ra-
diation from a thermonuclear explosion.
Stem Cells
Williams, D. (1996) Chernobyl and hypothyroidism.
, 476.
Goldsmith, J.R., Grossman, C.M., Morton, W.E., Nuss-
baum, R.H., Kordysh, E.A., Quastel, M.R., Sobel, R.B.
and Nussbaum, F.D. (1999) Juvenile hypothyroidism
among two populations exposed to radioiodine.
ronmental Health Perspectives
, 303-308.
MacLeod, G. (1982) A role for public health in the nu-
clear age.
American Journal of Public Health
, 237-
MacLeod, G.K. (1981) Some public health lessons from
three mile island: A case study in chaos.
, 18-23.
Mangano, J.J. (1996) Chernobyl and hypothyroidism.
, 1482-1483.
Tatham, L.M., Bove, F.J., Kaye, W.E. and Spengler, R.F.
(2002) Population exposures to I-131 releases from Han-
ford Nuclear Reservation and preterm birth, infant mor-
tality, and fetal deaths.
International Journal of Hygiene
and Environmental Health
, 41-48.
Halfrick, D.L., Grinzaid, K.A., Brown, A.L. and Fernhoff,
P.M. (1999) Monitoring the prevalence of congenital hy-
pothyroidism for 20 years near the Savannah River site.
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia
, 38-40.
Mangano, J.J. (2009) Newborn hypothyroidism near the
indian point nuclear plant.
Tichler, J., Doty, K. and Lucadamo, K. Radioactive ma-
terials released fr
om nuclear power plants, annual reports,
1970-1993 annual reports. NUREG/CR-2907. Brookha-
ven National Laboratory, Upton.
National newborn screening and
genetics resource center.
(2011) Reactor accident Fukushima—New international
study on emissions of radioact
ive substances into the at-
Meteo France (2011) Accident de la centrale de Fuku-
shima Daiichi: Modelisation de la dispersion des rejets
radioactifs dans l’atmosphe
re a l’echele mondiale—Ver-
sion du 22 mars 2011.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radia-

J. J. Mangano, J. D. Sherman / Open
Journal of Pediatrics 3 (2013) 1-9
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
tion Protection.
Bowyer, T.W., Biegalski S.R., Cooper, M., Eslinger, P.W.,
Haas, D., Hayes, J.C., Miley, H.S., Strom, D.J. and Woods,
V. (2011) Elevated radioxenon
detected remotely fol-
lowing the Fukushima nuclear accident.
Journal of Envi-
ronmental Radioactivity
, 681-687.
Hernandex-Ceballos, M.A., Hong, G.H., Lozano, R.L.,
Kim, Y.I., Lee, H.M., Yeh, S-
W. and Bolivar, J.P. (2012)
Tracking the complete revolution of surface westerlies
over the Northern Hemisphere
using radionuclides emit-
ted from Fukushima.
The Science of the Total Environ-
, 80-85.
Manley, S.L. and Lowe C.G. (2012) Canopy-formiing
kelps as California’s coastal dosimeter: 131-I from dam-
aged Japanese reactor measured in
Macrocystis pyrifera
Environmental Science & Technology
, 3731-3736.
Landis, J.D., Hamm, N.T., Renshaw, C.E., Dade, W.B.,
Magilligan, F.J. and Gartner,
J.D. (2012) Surficial redis-
tribution of fallout 131-Iodine in a small temperate catch-
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
13 March 2012, 4064-4069.
Weatherbee, G.A., Gay, D.A., Debey, T.M., Lehmann,
C.M. and Nillas, M.A. (2012)
Wet deposition of fission-
product isotopes to North Am
erica from the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Incident, March 2011.
Environmental Science and
, 2574-2582.
Hamilton, B.E. and Sutton, P.
D. (2011) Recent trends in
births and fertility rates through December 2011.
US Census Bureau. 2010 cens
us of the US population.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Natality.
US Environmental Protecti
on Agency. Envirofacts.
Stewart, A., Webb, J., Giles,
D. and Hewitt, D. (1956) Ma-
lignant disease in childhood an
d diagnostic irradiation in
, 447.
Stewart, A., Webb, J. and He
witt, D. (1958) A survey of
childhood malignancies.
British Medical Journal
, 1495-
US Department of Health
and Human Services (1997)
Estimated exposure and thyroi
d doses following Nevada
atmospheric nuclear bomb te
sts. NIH Pub. No. 97-4264,
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda.
National Research Council, Committee on Thyroid Screen-
ing (1999) Exposure of the American people to iodine-
131 from the Nevada bomb tests. National Academy Press,
Washington DC.
Alvarez, R. (2000) The risk
s of making nuclear weapons:
A review of the health and mortality experience of US
department of energy workers. The Government Accoun-
tability Project, Washington DC.
National Research Council (2005) Committee on the
biological effects of ionizing
Radiation. Health effects of
exposure to low levels of i
onizing radiation: BEIR VII.
National Academy Press, Washington DC.

February 28, 2013 Leave a comment


Looking closely at this widespread,
 ongoing repudiation and crisis of nuclear power!
Spread the word widely and thanks
rbull.jpg 2 2radbull-bounces@energy-net.org
This past Sunday a program was presented on San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station (SONWGS), featuring urban planner Torgen Johnson, …..and  Tom English who sang:
What part of Fukushima don’t you understand?
Take a quick look at the kind of News releases
from all over the world in only the past  several days. . .
Top story:  Fukushima, Japan
Collapse of spent fuel storage pool at Fukushima Daiichi could be worse than initial accident, says new report..
    * A collapse of the already tilting reactor No 4 building at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant, ¬atop which sits a spent nuclear fuel storage pool containing 1,535 fuel assemblies – including 204 unused ones – would lead to a “significant global impact,”- by far topping last year’s triple meltdown at the plant, a new report says Charles Digges, 03/07-2012. And noting that there are regular earthquakes of substantial impact happening.
Among the latest Updates:
Are we preparing ourselves
to stand up together against  government,  it’s regulatory commission and the Nuclear Power industry?
Nothing less will begin to change all this!
    * Impact to US West Coast from Fukushima disaster likely larger than anticipated, several reports indicate(19/09-2012)
* Japan offers vague, weak nuclear exit by 2040 that could have reactors chugging decades beyond deadline (16/09-2012)
* Scathing parliamentary report accompanies restart of Japanese reactor(05/07-2012)
* Fukushima one year on: Clean up efforts slowly gaining a toe hold as public trust in government remains low(08/03-2012)
* Chain reaction scare at Fukushima only fission incident, say authorities, but environmentalists still fear criticality(09/11-2011)
* In dangerous new development, TEPCO detects nuclear fission occurring in destroyed reactors at Fukushima Daiichi (02/11-2011)
* New Norwegian report says Fukushima radiation releases twice initial estimates(31/10-2011)
* Fukushima reactors nearing cold shutdown but radiation releases continue, and clean up efforts overwhelm(29/09-2011)
* Half of Fukushima children exposed to radiation say leaked data – but is even that too low? (23/08-2011)
* Japan ignored its own radiation forecasts in days following disaster, imperiling thousands(10/08-2011)
* TEPCO report reveals chaos and lack of preparedness in the hours following tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi (20/06-2011)
* TEPCO officials confirm meltdown in Fukushima reactor No 1 while water levels uncontrollably rise and thousands more evacuate(17/05-2011)
* Japan raises Fukushima Daiichi accident to highest rating on international scale, equaling Chernobyl(12/04-2011)
* Fukushima reactor designer turned whistleblower says he knew reactor No 4 has been unsound for 40 years(24/03-2011)
* Fukushima Daiichi’s reactor No 1 was granted 10-year operational extension despite warnings of its frailties: 120,000 imperilled by radiation poisoning(22/03-2011)
* Fukushima spent fuel crisis: What exactly are the risks – and will Russia heed the lesson?(21/03-2011)
* In array of catastrophes at Fukushima Daiichi, dangers at spent fuel cooling ponds come into focus(16/03-2011)
* Mixed plutonium-uranium reactor in Japan loses coolant system as government evacuates 210,000 from area or quake-stricken nuke plant(13/03-2011)
* Japan floods overheating reactor with sea water while 140,000 evacuate area as more coolant breakdowns spread(13/03-2011)
    * Explosion and meltdown possibility at Japanese nuclear power plant may mean worst scenario since Chernobyl(12/03-2011)

Lots of radiation is still coming to the US west coast from Fukushima Daiichi, from the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere.  It’s hard to get information-  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Media-Silent-on-Fukushima-by-Brian-Lynch-130108-588.html 
We recently learned that the cleanup is just spreading radioactivity. 
(The rivers flow into the Pacific ocean.  – CW)
Title: CROOKED CLEANUP (1): Radioactive waste dumped into rivers during decontamination work in Fukushima
Source: AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Authors: From reports by Miki Aoki, Tamiyuki Kihara and Toshio Tada
Date: Jan. 4, 2013
h/t Anonymous tips
    Cleanup crews in Fukushima Prefecture have dumped soil and leaves contaminated with radioactive fallout into rivers. Water sprayed on contaminated buildings has been allowed to drain back into the environment. And supervisors have instructed workers to ignore rules on proper collection and disposal of the radioactive waste. […]
Nuclear power and press freedom
 The Japan Times
Feb 10, 2013
Japan fell from 22nd place to 53rd in the rankings of press freedom last year, according to the nonprofit organization Reporters Without Borders. Japan’s plummet was attributed to a single factor – the lack of access to information related to the disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
DPS says Entergy is not to be trusted
BRATTLEBORO — Entergy is not to be trusted and should not be given permission to continue its operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon.

“Entergy’s assertion that it ‘has not strayed from’ its commitment in the 2002 (sales order) to seek a CPG for continued operation beyond March 21, 2012 is simply false,” wrote Commons. “Entergy did not commit merely to seek a CPG for continued operation … it committed not to operate (Yankee) … unless it sought and received a renewed CPG.”
Wind Power!
“Aha!” “What worries me is if we continue to build an excessive amount of wind and subsidize wind, the unintended consequence could be that it leads to shutting down plants,” said one official.
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0208-exelon-div–20130208,0,2015410.story?dssReturn&gt; the Chicago Tribune, adding that states which have subsidized wind power might see jobs disappear if nuclear plants shut down.
Tax credits for wind keep turbines running at times when there is no demand for power which drives down the price that Exelon charges for nuclear power, meaning that in wind heavy states the company pays customers to take their power.
Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas
It would be a folly to think that there is no hope
 of tackling climate change without nuclear power
Learning to speak knowledgeably and to the  point
 in this atmosphere of Madness! 
 Dr. Caldicott , widely known spokesperson for the antinuclear movement was recently asked about the consequences of an accident at San Onofre.  After noting that the data is already published in her books, she provided a graphic description:

“It depends if it’s like Chernobyl — high in the air — or like Fukushima — close to the ground.  Many will suffer from acute radiation illness: Hair falling out, diarrhea, blood system breaking down.  There are eight million people within a 50 mile radius of that plant.  Many may die in the first two weeks following a release, depending on the size of the release.  Following the acute deaths, there will be a large increase in complications to the immune system — children are particularly vulnerable.  Within five years you’ll see a large increase in childhood cancer, and thyroid problems in children, as we’ve seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima.  15 years later, large increases in cancers of the bodily organs, also babies born with very severe deformities, and spontaneous abortions.  Increases in cataracts.  Premature aging of children and everyone else, increases in diabetes, heart attacks…” her voice drifts off, the list is too long to name them all.
“The land will be radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, the food grown will be radioactive, so people will be eating radioactive food for thousands of years.  The accident never ends, it’s ongoing, there will be an increase in malignancies, and genetic disease, as the genes in the eggs and sperm are mutated, and those abnormalities are passed on for generations.”

Are we preparing ourselves?
Can we stand up together against  government,  it’s regulatory commission and the Nuclear Power industry?
Nothing else will do!
 Highest of government authorities  and those tied to their jobs and its kind of “security” need to hear from all of us!
Reported on by. . .
Communities For Justice and Peace, Humboldt.Co. Ca.
Sending  out  reports  and research studies, exposing media bias,
holding government  accountable to “We The People!”

Report on the Incredulous Nuclear Neglect of our Safety and Health

October 7, 2011 Leave a comment
Knowing the History of nuclear users  and governments refusal
       to report truthful nuclear data has inspired citizens to take things
                 into their own hands in widespread radiation monitoring.
Report on incredulous nuclear neglect of our safety and health- Part 2 of 2
  Fukushima – Chernobyl – Three Mile Island 
    All share similar catastrophes of human errors. . .  warning systems and ignored evacuation plans, failing to organize medical help as well as collect scientific data, denying or ‘un-reported vital informations,  distorted evidences to avoid bad press, while regulators promise and promote new ‘cleaner’ energy in  ‘fast forwarding’ their nuclear agenda!

    In their support, Obama offers his new budget promises of $36 billion Nuke Billions for building reactors,  plus $97 million for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)  untested and unproven, re: public health  vulnerability.

Atomic expert Dr. Busby addressing the Japanese this week spoke strongly of ridding ourselves of  Tokyo Electric Power Company, General Electric officials and policy makers!

    What we must know of national/International  nuclear regulators:
1) The  NRC  – Our own U.S. gov. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
defined by their webpage
   “Protecting  People and the Environment.” 
 Translated means: 
$Dollar value ratio of projected cancer deaths to fix problem!

2)  The  IAEA- International Atomic Energy Agency
 (defined: from there own website!
   “Atoms for Peace” . The IAEA,  world’s center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up in 1957 as the world’s “Atoms for Peace” organization within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.
   In 1991 the IAEA reported that no health problems of those sick after   Chernobyl could be linked to radiation! They maintained  there were only 31 worker deaths, although there were 6.7 million people exposed to the nuclear fallout.  IAEA maintained thyroid cancers could have been avoided had potassium iodide tablets been available.  They continued to encourage building of more reactors, for people to return to contaminated lands and gov. to provide subsidies for  farmers to plant in those areas.

     It’s imperative we know that of 1974, US. nuclear power was a failed technology, with new requests for nuclear power plants almost halted ,even before Three Mile Island. But the IAEA. was promoting and helping to build nuclear power plants in Asia and So. America.  Between 1986 and 1996,  dozens of economically developing countries received money, technical aid, services, experts, equipment and training courses such as  Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Hungary, Pakistan, Mexico and Romania.

   Always secretive. with their movements little known,  the mandate being “If  divulging information may constitute `a violation of the confidence of any of its (IAEA’s) Members or anyone from whom it shall have received such information,’ then such information can be safeguarded as confidential.”
     UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) working with IAEA said that, apart from increased thyroid cancers, “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the Chernobyl accident.”

     The Chernobyl experience, is a totally tragic happening, but a  goldmine for world science,. says Dr. Rosalie Bertell, expert on nuclear industry doings.
      Public Health and safety have never been nuclear’s priority, but rather a bothersome and ignored liability, treated as collateral damage!

     “ICRP), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (for setting standards (by which to judge cancer victims of nuclear users) should not be allowed to blind us to its inability to address the full spectrum of worker and public health problems caused by the routine and/or accidental exposures to ionizing radiation in every  operation of the nuclear fuel cycle, its narrow administrative decisions  to only radiation induced fatal cancers and serious genetic diseases in live born offspring.”

books.google.com/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ…Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – Vol. 34, No. 7 – Magazine
     The IAEA Report of 2005 and UNSCEAR 2000 analysis ignored updated findings. Plus Inadequate record-keeping in this high-technology age is seen as an attempt to cover-up the true effects of the Chernobyl disaster. Clearly, the true damage to health attributable to Chernobyl  has been hidden from the general public through poor and incomplete scientific investigation, obfuscation and poor recording of data and outright lying.
    We’re told in a history of Chernobyl howthis disaster was a unique event   . . and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.” Later it also states;The accident caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation.”   Is this because we’re not expected to have gotten beyond  official unreported or outright lies about Three Mile Island, Santa Susana  in So. Calif. or other reactor accidents that were never reported? Or is this about  military nuclear reactors at Hanover or in Russia, possibly like  the  U.S. Navies McMurdo station in the Antarctic or other unknown sites?

    All such disasters caused cancers deaths and left  long trails of the sordid cover-ups and corruption by plant officials and governments refusals to  cooperate . The Santa Susana disaster was not really exposed for 20 years, while great  efforts of determined people to have such truth of their government crimes known, were carried on, themselves government employees at the plant and victims of cancer,  now facing their  bosses denials, their lies and destroyed files, finally joined by  nearby neighbors and those down-winders in working to make it more public. . .  and with enough evidence to warrant court victories and cash settlements.   

  The same scenarios were covered with numbers of such operations, as in Downey and  Livermore California, nuclear laboratories with frequency of invasive cancers among employees.

 According to Dr. Helen Caldicott,
The World Health Organization  (WHO)’s domination by the nuclear industry has been widely known since May 28, 1959
We have no nuclear  watchdogs, but through our own best  efforts!

Reported in June 
    A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown
Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US. . .  a result of Fukushima Fallout?
    Janette D. Sherman, M. D. is the author of Life’s Delicate Balance;
    Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the        
            Radiation and Public Health Project research group.

Sat Aug 13, NY Times
     New Claim of Cancer cure, ( boon for nuclear energy? ) Assassin cells take on cancer cells. (so consistent with this countries military methods.) Only tried on three people who went through huge flu like sickness, then recovered after cells battled. but it only effects one of some 80 cancers listed.

* * * Citizen Groups  Tracking Down Japan’s Radiation
      DOHA, Aug 11  (IPS)  – The aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis has been marked by an outcry in Japan over radiation leaks, contaminated food and a government unable to put the public’s fears to rest.
  Dahr Jamail* – IPS/Al-Jazeera
  Review: Tepco, the corporate owner took more than two months to confirm the meltdowns and admitted lying about the levels of destruction and subsequent contamination,with mixed  or unreported evidences since.

Most Important Update:  Aug. 5′ 11′
    Experts warn of off-scale levels of radiation, which are at their highest levels since the disaster began almost 5 months ago and infer that hundreds of millions are (in the process of dying) from  nuclear fallout.
    Deborah Dupre, Human Rights Examiner
    Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation recordings so high they went off scale; famous physicist, Dr. Chris Busby tells the Japanese people this week that radioactive air contamination there is now 300 times that of Chernobyl…
 Thirty-nine year nuclear industry veteran Arnie Gunderson of Fairwinds stated Tuesday,”There will continue to be enormous spikes
for at least ten years.”

Origins of ever greater  casualties   
   We must demand full disclosure of all nuclear waste sites and ongoing dumping practices both on land and at sea.  There has been almost altogether  unaccountable generations of  radioactive waste accumulations and dumping with no sense of safety to human or environmental health concerns.
   Ocean dumping was authorized by the former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for Atomics International at the end of 1955. Previously it disposed of waste from experiments at its plant in Downey, where the firm operated California’s first nuclear power reactor.

    As part of Rockwell, Santa Susana Field Laboratory and Canoga Park plants  dumped radioactive waste in 6,000 feet of water south of Santa Cruz Island, part of Channel Islands National Park, the Navy already using this site for its military waste, saying nothing about radioactive waste. The Farallons and three other known Atlantic coast sites far exceeded the volume at all other sites combined we’re told, while there has been ongoing dumping at sea by the Navy  in many undisclosed areas.
   Only battles brought by citizen groups in Kettleman, Ca.  and other local communities staved off nuclear dumps in their backyards. It can be presumed there are many subcontracting nuclear facilities across the U.S. Where have they been dumping their waste?  

It has never been about. . . 
 Regulatory Commissions, protecting people and the environment. 

    There you have it, our greatest threats to life on earth, with our safety
 & health supposedly  protected under expanding nuclear powers
 ongoing disasters / promises of greater cancer tolls until death do us part.

 Strength of coalition is essential now
with it’s more persuasive and formidable solidarity. 

Demanding an end to nuclear power 
 is a question of political will.
Are we going to rid ourselves of nuclear power and its weapons?


 Reported on by…
Communities For Justice and Peace, Humboldt.Co. Ca.
Sending  out  reports  and research studies, exposing media bias,
holding government  accountable.


http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/experts-fukushima-o ff-scale-lethal-radiation-level-100s-millions-deaths#ixzz1Uem3Crqi

Radiation Bulletin <radbull.energy-net.org>
How the first 24 hours shaped Fukushima nuclear crisis


Fire in the Rain: The Democratic Consequences of Chernobyl by Peter Gould (1990)

Why Fukushima can happen here:

Handbook for Estimating the Health Effects from exposure to Ionizing Radiation, compiled by Rosalie Bertell, IICPH Toronto, Canada; MCPH Buffalo, USA; and IRRTI, Birmingham UK. 2nd Edition 1986.

R. Bertell, “Chernobyl: April 1991”, Environmental Health Review, Vol. 14, Fall 1991.

R. Bertell, “Chernobyl”, in Environmental Awareness, Vol. 16 (2) pp 49-55, 1993, The International Society of Naturalists (INSONA), India.

R. Bertell, “Internal bone seeking radionuclides and monocyte counts”, International Perspectives in Public Health, Vol. 9, 1993.

P. Webster, “Lessons from Chernobyl”, New York Times, 8 June 2003, Note: this article was in the 23 April 2003 issue of The Nation, posted to the web on 8 April 2008.

A. Yaroshinskaya, Chernobyl 20 Years Later. The Crime without Punishment. Publishing house is “Vremya” (The Time), Moscow, 2006.



There Is No Safe Threshhold To Low-Dose Radiation

October 7, 2011 Leave a comment
It should be made clear :
There Is No Safe Threshold For Exposure To Low-Dose Radiation
(*calls to help. . .  and a Petition below)

We constantly find reports similar to this:
“After initially saying radioactivity from Japan will not reach the Philippines, government officials now admit radioactive fallout is in fact. . .  there. ” But then we’re told: “levels detected are low and do not pose any health risk.

 By any reasonable standard of proof, the combination
of human epidemiology and track-analysis studies strongly  demonstrate there is no threshold dose or dose-rate below which “repair”
invariably prevents health harm. 
(Track means any traces  of radiation
and how many go through a human cell.)

It’s especially powerful evidence when a common result arises from a variety of radiation experiences. The flagged studies include infants in-utero, children, adolescents, young women, high-energy gamma rays, medical x-rays, acute single doses, acute serial doses, and chronic occupational doses.

Mainstream medical literature includes a number of epidemiological studies showing even minimal doses of ionizing radiation induce extra cases of cancer.

 It’s worth noting that acute serial doses, in women who received repeated low-dose chest fluoroscopies, occurred with plenty of time for the repair-system to complete its work on damaged molecules before the next x-ray exam.

  The evidence of excess breast cancer in the fluoroscoped women is very solid, and shows a positive dose-response. This evidence of radiation-induced human cancer is widely acknowledged and cited

The evidence that there is no safe dose-level of ionizing radiation (no threshold dose) means that…….
. . . journals and other media contribute to cancer (and inherited afflictions) whenever they include dis-proven claims and encourage a casual attitude toward extra exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation.

Our final point concerns the immune response. We’ve heard people speculate like this:   “Even if a fraction of low-dose genetic damage is unrepaired,  unrepairable, or misrepaired at the lowest dose-levels, the resulting cancers would be so few that the immune system and the body’s other defenses against cancer would eliminate them.” If a body’s natural defenses automatically eliminate single cancers, humans would never develop cancer from any cause (including high-dose radiation). But lots of people do develop cancer. Fatal cancer. In the USA, 22% of all deaths are due to cancer.

  Thus we know  there is no dose or dose-rate low enough to guarantee perfect repair of every carcinogenic injury induced by radiation.

 Conclusion:   It is factually wrong to believe or to claim that no harm has ever been proven from very low-dose radiation. On the contrary. Existing human evidence shows cancer-induction by radiation at and near the lowest possible dose and dose-rate with respect to cell-nuclei. By any reasonable standard of scientific proof, such evidence demonstrates there is no safe dose or dose-rate below which dangers disappear.

Serious, lethal effects from minimal radiation doses
are not “hypothetical,” theoretical,” or “imaginary.”
* Noted radiation experts John Gofman [co-discoverer of U-232 and U-233 and author of Radiation and Human Health], Karl Z. Morgan [a founder of health physics] and Edward Radford [Chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ BEIR III committee and advisor to the Nuclear Claims Tribunal] stated that there is no threshold dose for low level ionizing radiation:
 Block all ratical.org results

Making those calls helps this whole process:
End Nuclear Power Now!
We must have a comprehensive safety review of all 104 operating U.S. nuclear reactors,  while ascertaining  the safest way to permanently close them down. Aging nuclear power plants must be first – some of which share a similar or the same design to the reactors in Fukushima, Japan.  Then proceeding to close the rest permanently.

Ist)  Call or write The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Wash. DC , 20500
Telephone: (202) 395-4522


2nd)  ACTION ALERT: Act Now to Prevent Further Radiation Poisoning of Japanese Children via petition below

The Japanese government has made an unconscionable decision to increase the allowable radiation dose for children attending school in Fukushima Prefecture to 20 MilliSieverts/year — or 2 rems/year. This is 20 times the allowable standard for the public in the US — and 20 times above the previous allowable standard in Japan. Please sign the petition, which will be presented to government officials today, April 30, 2011.


We urgently demand the withdrawal of the Japanese Governments inhumane decision:
Forcing children to be exposed to such radiation doses
is an exceedingly inhumane decision.
Therefore, we condemn this in the strongest terms.

3.8 microSv/h is roughly 6 times [the 0.6 microSv/h] of “Radiation Controlled Areas” (0.6 microSv/h or more). The Labour Standards Act prohibits those under the age of 18 from working under these conditions.
20 mSv/y is comparable to the [legally] recognized dose for inducing leukemia in nuclear power plant workers. It is also comparable to the maximum dose allowed for nuclear power plant workers in Germany.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service & Green Action Japan

End Nuke Power Action Now!

Reported on by:
Communities For Justice and Peace, Humboldt.Co. Ca.
Sending  out  reports  and research studies, exposing media bias,
holding government  accountable.


Short History of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

October 7, 2011 15 comments
20,000 people attended an anti-nuclear protest in Bonn, Germany, on October 14, 1979, following the Three Mile Island accident.

Short History of the anti-nuclear movement.
    Inevitably this is tied together with nuclear weapons and atmospheric testings which have covered the earth with greater radiations.
    This governments diplomats, military, scientists and engineers may have debated use of nuclear weapons,  but it did not stop them from beginning this modern day dilemma of cancer malignancies, deaths to humans and all forms of life on earth.

     In 1945 in the New Mexico desert, American scientists conducted “Trinity,” the first nuclear weapons test, marking the beginning of the atomic age. Even before the Trinity test,

    The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the end of World War II quickly followed the Trinity test, and the Little Boy device was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Exploding with a yield equivalent to 12,500 tonnes of TNT, the blast and thermal wave of the bomb destroyed nearly 50,000 buildings and killed approximately 75,000 people.[15] Subsequently, the world’s nuclear weapons stockpiles grew.

     Operation Crossroads was a series of nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean in the summer of 1946.

       A Los Alamos study warned “the water near a recent surface explosion will be a witch’s brew” of radioactivity. To prepare the atoll for the nuclear tests, Bikini’s native residents were evicted from their homes and resettled on smaller, uninhabited islands where they were unable to sustain themselves.

     Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing drew  public attention in 1954 when a Hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific contaminated the crew of the Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon. One of the fishermen died in Japan seven months later. The incident caused widespread concern around the world and “provided a decisive impetus for the emergence of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in many countries”.

    The anti-nuclear weapons movement grew rapidly because for many people the atomic bomb “encapsulated the very worst direction in which society was moving”.

     Peace movements emerged in Japan and in 1954 they converged to form a unified “Japanese Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs”. Japanese opposition to the Pacific nuclear weapons tests was widespread, and “an estimated 35 million signatures were collected on petitions calling for bans on nuclear weapons”.
    While there were protests against testing nuclear weapons, and deploying nuclear weapons, there was little concern over nuclear power, and in fact this period also saw the construction of most of the plants operation to-day

     In the United States, the first commercially viable nuclear power plant was to be built at Bodega Bay, north of San Francisco, but the proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958. The proposed plant site was close to the San Andreas Fault and close to the region’s environmentally sensitive fishing and dairy industries.. The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant.

    Historian Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay. Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.
     In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, about 50,000 women brought together by Women Strike for Peace marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons. In 1963, many countries ratified the Partial Test Ban Treaty which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing.
     Meanwhile the reality of it was that this nation shortly after begin testing again and continued until 1996.
       “Using civil rights protest methods, Clamshell Alliance organized the sit-in of thousands at the Seabrook power plant in New Hampshire, beginning in August 1976 and continuing through early 1977. The demonstrations reflected the impassioned debate over the plant and received considerable national attention,

    The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first full-scale PWR nuclear power plant in the United States. The reactor went online December 2, 1957, and was in operation until October, 1982.
But we had had numerous military reactors busy for years pumping out radiation and,having accidents, leaking and ruining their environments.

    Once the existential threat of nuclear war by accidental or deliberate nuclear strike ceased to be a pressing concern to the public the organizations that had grown around the weapons issue lost membership and income quickly after the signing of the Test Ban Treaties,

     In the United Kingdom, the first Aldermaston March organized by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament took place at Easter 1958, when several thousand people marched for four days from Trafalgar Square, London, to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment close to Aldermaston in Berkshire, England, to demonstrate their opposition to nuclear weapons.[The Aldermaston marches continued into the late 1960s when tens of thousands of people took part in the four-day marches

    In 1959, a letter in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was the start of a successful campaign to stop the Atomic Energy Commission dumping radioactive waste in the sea 19 kilometres from Boston.

    Established in 1959, the Student Peace Union mobilized college students against the nuclear menace and introduced Britain’s nuclear disarmament symbol in America. As concern mounted, citizens formed groups to protest. Women also played an important role in this early antinuclear activism. Alarmed by prospective dangers to their children, a group called Women Strike for Peace (WSP) founded by Dagmar Wilson and other concerned mothers, brought thousands of women into the streets,

In 1966, Larry Bogart founded the Citizens Energy Council, a coalition of environmental groups that published the newsletters “Radiation Perils,” “Watch on the A.E.C.” and “Nuclear Opponents”. These publications argued that “nuclear power plants were too complex, too expensive and so inherently unsafe they would one day prove to be a financial disaster and a health hazard”.

The emergence of the anti-nuclear power movement was “closely associated with the general rise in environmental consciousness which had started to materialize in the USA in the 1960s and quickly spread to other Western industrialized countries”. Some nuclear experts began to voice dissenting views about nuclear power in 1969, and this was a necessary precondition for broad public concern about nuclear power to emerge.

 scientists who were telling the truth and working to save our lives were  Ernest Sternglass from Pittsburg, Henry Kendall from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel laureate George Wald and radiation specialist Rosalie Bertell. These members of the scientific community “by expressing their concern over nuclear power, played a crucial role in demystifying the issue for other citizens”, and nuclear power became an issue of major public protest in the 1970s.

In 1971, 15,000 people demonstrated against French plans to locate the first light-water reactor power plant in Bugey. This was the first of a series of mass protests organized at nearly every planned nuclear site in France.

Also in 1971, the town of Wyhl, in Germany, was a proposed site for a nuclear power station. In the years that followed, public opposition steadily mounted, and there were large protests. Television coverage of police dragging away farmers and their wives helped to turn nuclear power into a major issue. In 1975, an administrative court withdrew the construction licence for the plant, but the Wyhl occupation generated ongoing debate. This initially centred on the state government’s handling of the affair and associated police behaviour, but interest in nuclear issues was also stimulated. The Wyhl experience encouraged the formation of citizen action groups near other planned nuclear sites. Many other anti-nuclear groups formed elsewhere, in support of these local struggles, and some existing citizen action groups widened their aims to include the nuclear issue. Anti-nuclear success at Wyhl also inspired nuclear opposition in the rest of Europe and North America.

In 1972, the anti-nuclear weapons movement maintained a presence in the Pacific, largely in response to French nuclear testing there. Activists, including David McTaggart from Greenpeace, defied the French government by sailing small vessels into the test zone and interrupting the testing program. In Australia, thousands joined protest marches in Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney. Scientists issued statements demanding an end to the tests; unions refused to load French ships, service French planes, or carry French mail; and consumers boycotted French products. In Fiji, activists formed an Against Testing on Mururoa organization.

In Spain, in response to a surge in nuclear power plant proposals in the 1960s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in 1973, which ultimately impeded the realisation of most of the projects.

In 1974, organic farmer Sam Lovejoy took a crowbar to the weather-monitoring tower which had been erected at the Montague Nuclear Power Plant site. Lovejoy felled the tower and then took himself to the local police station, where he took full responsibility for the action. Lovejoy’s action galvanized local public opinion against the plant. The Montague project was canceled in 1980, after $29 million was spent on the project.

The movement against the nuclear plants was one of the biggest mass movements of the 1970s and 80s in Germany. After a slowdown since, it has reappeared now like a phoenix from the ashes, The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was a pivotal event for Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, following the event, the Green Party strived for the immediate shut-down of all nuclear facilities. The SPD pushed for a nuclear phase-out within ten years

By the mid-1970s anti-nuclear activism had moved beyond local protests and politics to gain a wider appeal and influence. Although it lacked a single co-ordinating organization, and did not have uniform goals, the movement’s efforts gained a great deal of attention. Jim Falk has suggested that popular opposition to nuclear power quickly grew into an effective anti-nuclear power movement in the 1970s. In some countries, the nuclear power conflict “reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies”.[37]

In France, between 1975 and 1977, some 175,000 people protested against nuclear power in ten demonstrations.

In West Germany, between February 1975 and April 1979, some 280,000 people were involved in seven demonstrations at nuclear sites. Several site occupations were also attempted. In the aftermath of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, some 120,000 people attended a demonstration against nuclear power in Bonn.[23]

Germany’s largest anti-nuclear power demonstration took place to protest against the Brokdorf Nuclear Power Plant west of Hamburg; some 100,000 people came face to face with 10,000 police officers. A protest against nuclear power occurred in July 1977 in Bilbao, Spain, with up to 200,000 people in attendance. In 1979, an anti-nuclear protest was held in New York City, involving 200,000 people. More citizens joined these types of organizations after the 1978 release of The China Syndrome, a film depicting a near-disaster at a nuclear power plant.
Artists helped stimulate this

At that time Western media, was willing to side with the antinuclear position, and assumed the worst. The British Daily Mail on April 29th 1986 filled half its front page with the words “2000 DEAD.” They further claimed that the dead were not buried in cemeteries but at “Pirogovo in the radioactive wastes depository.” The next day, The New York Post claimed that 15,000 bodies had been bulldozed into nuclear waste pits. Later, the Natural Resources Defense Council claimed there would be 110,000 post-Chernobyl cancers in Central Europe and Scandinavia. Several years later, on October 13, 1995, Reuters announced “800,000 children were hit by Chernobyl, as in a nuclear attack.” Over the following months, the BBC, Greenpeace and the numerous European dailies joined the bandwagon to claim that tens of thousands were

What stands out is how the movement grew and waned on accidents and fairly widespread ino….. of Chernobyl, only to subside and be marginalized

In 2010 the new government of Conservatives and Liberals decided another extension of life span for the plants. But when the respective plans were published, the result was a sudden and unexpected new uprising of the anti-nuclear movement: In April 2010 a human chain of 120 km length was formed between two plants in Northern Germany, 150 000 people took part. The blockades of the nuclear waste-transport in autumn 2010 were the biggest and most popular ones for more than ten years. And in March 2011, just one day after the disaster of Fukushima, another 60 000 people formed a human chain between two reactors in Southern Germany.

 The Federal Government of chancellor Angela Merkel was forced to reinstate plans to shut all German nuclear plants by 2022, reversing the earlier decision to let them continue to run.

In May 1979, an estimated 70,000 people, including the governor of California, attended a march and rally against nuclear power in Washington, D.C.

The Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament took place in 1986 starting in Los Angeles on March 1 and ending in Washington, D.C. on November 15. It was conceived by David Mixner, a professional organizer and political activist, as a protest calling for a verifiable comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the non-militarization of space, a verifiable global freeze on nuclear weapons, and reduction in nuclear arms. In spite of staggering financial difficulties and administra

Of note is the difference in the number of protesters that are involved in Germany when compared to the United States; while small in numbers, U.S. protesters have won some major battles on the local front closing individual plants.

 later the fear of fallout from nuclear weapons testing was added to the mix, but in general everyone was on the same page. Objections to nuclear energy proceeded from these fears at the beginning, while many still play lip-service to the disarmament aspects,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia