Comments on: The cantankerous effects from Japan’s radiation

By: mohandoss

mohandoss — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:39:30 +0000

Though many are concerned about the DNA damage from even the smallest amount of radiation because of all the negative reporting by the press, there is actually another point of view in the scientific community that such concerns are baseless, and are doing more harm than good. Recently I became aware of journal articles reporting concerns about DNA damage caused by normal activities that we all do daily, such as exercise and thinking/learning. These published concerns inspired me to write a couple of satirical pieces (emulating Colbert Report) regarding “Deadly DNA Damage” which you may find humorous, but also instructive, because they show how unwise, short-sighted, and unhealthy such concerns are. Here are the links to the articles in Google Groups, the first one using more scientific terminology, and the second one using simpler language which may be easier to follow:
Doss Report # 1: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgro ups=#!topic/doss-report-1/sYCY7yAIvZI
Doss Report # 2: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgro ups=#!topic/doss-report-1/X721ViDcCLg

By: Homeopathy

Homeopathy — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:26:52 +0000

We need to be prepared for anything including nuclear radiation, plutonium and other poisons entering our environment wherever we are. Radiation effects include cancer, genetic and DNA damage, reproductive damage, hormonal damage, and thyroid damage (that’s why they want you to take potassium iodine, another dangerous toxin) but I wouldn’t. There is a much safer substance (nascent iodine).

There are some natural substances strong enough to protect against radiation. A good article on what you can do is here:

http://thehealingfrequency.com/japan-rea ctor-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-protect ion/

And to make sure the water you drink is safe, look at the following article:

http://thehealingfrequency.com/nuclear-r adiation-and-water-purification-tablet-a dya-clarity-minerals/

By: fallingup

fallingup — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:33:28 +0000

I have read that even if there is a total meltdown at Fukushima, or a fire of spent fuel rods, it would affect only the local area; that there is no chance it would be another Chernobyl. Chernobyl had an explosion of the nuclear fuel which shot a huge amount of radioactive material high in the atmosphere, so it was distributed very widely.
Even the workers in the plant are likely to get away without health effects. 100 millisieverts/year is the usual limit for nuclear workers, a level at which there should be no health effects. For the Fukushima emergency, Japan raised the level to 250 millisieverts/year. So even the workers in the plant aren’t being exposed to huge levels of radiation.
The author is trying as hard as she can to make it sound very bad and scary.
I have also read that distressed areas in Japan are not being helped because truck drivers, afraid of radiation, won’t go there. So this kind of scare talk does real harm, and it’s very irresponsible.
Those factory workers who licked brushes with radioactive paint, before the effects of radioactivity were known, must have gotten gigantic radiation exposures. So did Madame Curie.

By: gepay

gepay — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:36:26 +0000

My readings tell me there really is no safe level of exposure of ionizing radiation. There is just an increasing level of danger that can be statistically quantized into tipping points. The main danger of ionizing radiation below lethal doses is cancer. We don’t know enough about cancer to do a good job of curing it. We don’t know enough to even know what are the minimum conditions for it to occur. Using statistics to characterize risk can be useful but have their limitations. Notice the recent soon to reoccur global financial meltdown from its over reliance on risk algorithms along with the usual greed and corruption.
Nobody really knows whether a single atom or molecule containing plutonium is enough to cause a cancer. Although lower limits are safer if it happens to you or your loved ones, the knowledge that it was statistically unlikely is not comforting.
Life insurance companies can’t even give a good quantification of the risks and damage involved in the probable nuclear accidents. Nuclear plants are uninsurable. What are the added costs for life insurance for workers who actually work there? The nuclear power industry used their political pull to make the owners of plants not liable for the inevitable (as humans are not perfect and although they don’t happen often, there will be days when everything that can go wrong will go wrong) nuclear accidents.
The main difference between a Daiichi and a Bhopal type of industrial calamity is the effects of Bhopal can be easy to discern and are over in a definite time period. This uncertainty in nuclear accidents can be just as disabling as the dreadful real consequences.

By: Ralphooo

Ralphooo — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:49:17 +0000

This article does a great job of highlighting the risk facing Japan. Between the lines, it also shows us how minimal the danger is at this time. People in Japan and around the world, unlike those unfortunates who lived near Chernobyl, desperately need information, paradoxically, on how little direct harm they and their families are likely to experience. Without such reassurance, the prospect of some extra cancers over the next few decades begins to seem like walking through the fires of Hell within the next 24 hours. There is no such prospect at hand.

Aside from those working inside the plant, or somehow directly exposed in the immediate neighborhood, no one is in danger of losing their lives or becoming injured or ill any time soon. For that we can all feel grateful.

Finally, this is not another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those horrible catastrophes — very much deserving to be compared with the fires of Hades — were caused by bombs, designed and built for the express purpose of causing as much harm as possible.