1. Rod,

    Thanks again! This is exactly the type of information that calms fears. It was your record of the medical benefits of and lack of harmful effects of radiation that led to my own AHA moment a few years ago.

  2. Interesting stuff Rod. I have never depended on anecdotal reports, even if they support my leanings.

    More importantly, this shows that there are many years of data waiting to be mined, by comparing survival rates for conventional vs. unconventional therapy. Let us know if you come across such studies.

    1. @Bill

      There is a difference between “depending” on anecdotes and sharing them as items of interest. One of the communications challenges that many technically trained people have is their reluctance to tell stories that help their audience connect and understand the technology on a human level.

      When I bear witness to the incredible experiences that I had living in an all nuclear world, do you consider that “anecdotal” evidence that nuclear energy can directly replace oil?

  3. BUTTERFLIES mutations from 311

    known since 1927

    and the damage of Cesium alone to the heart tissue (all organs, but in this ex, heart)
    we can rightly consider the Cesium-137 in relatively small doses (20-30 Bq/kg); a breach of the regulatory processes in the body: PAGE 2 – 3: http://chernobyl-today.org/images/stories/BANDAJEVSKI_UNSCEAR_-_REUTERS_Sept_22nd_2010_Eng_V2.pdf

    Death Rates among 15-19 year old, especially of cardiovascular disease

    No amount of propaganda can hide the truth – the increase of radioactive contamination from Fukushima is unprecedented and deadly – worst for Japan – but all the world is receiving fallout from Fukushima http://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/the-11-march-japan-disaster/

    1. The Butterflies study has no bearing on human mutations and has been shown to have a dubious sample size. Anti-nuclear advocates love to smack down the mice exposed to 400x safe levels of radiation and had no ill effects because they are mice, so why not butterflies?


      Cesium-137 is known to deposit in mussel tissue, such as the heart, however the paper provided as a source attempts to dispute a body made up of professors and doctors whose speciality is radiological effects on the body (link 1). Also we know the lifetime risk, that is shown in an Argonne National Labratory publication on risks of radiological agents (link 2). Also Cesium can be flushed out of the body by consuming Prussian Blue.

      1) http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html
      2) http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL_ContaminantFactSheets_All_070418.pdf

      The death rates in cardiovascular disease can not be only attributed to radiation. The United States and Australia have heart disease as a major cause of fatalities. One has Nuclear Plants the other doesn’t. Fatty foods and lifestyle have much more of an effect on heart disease than Radiation ever will.

      The radiation fall out is 1/10th of what Chernobyl released and in most areas comparable to places like Denver in Colorado. The risk of cancer is negligible.

      There is higher risk of an individual consuming some tasty Kobe beef in Fukushima prefecture every day and having an increased risk of bowel cancer than from the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi and the amount of Cesium deposited.

      Also lets not forget the routine exposure to radiological dies that assist doctors in diagnosing and locating issues within our vascular system, and to treat cancers.

      Propaganda is showing one side of the debate to influence the public. Ignoring the mountains of academic literature and professionals who study radiological effects on the body that state that radiological agents in low doses pose no threat is dangerous and negligent to the mental health of those effected. As the UNSCEAR showed in it’s Chernobyl report. Don’t mention Yablokov report either, it was endorsed by Greenpeace and included their logo. Greenpeace has an anti-nuclear agenda, the report is to be taken with a grain of salt when compared to an independent professional body such as UNSCEAR.

      Aside, is it just me or is there a surge of Japanese anti-nuclear activity online?

  4. Radioactive isotopes have ben used to treat cancer for over 40 years. This is not news, However, comparing a medical use radioactive isotope to a Nuclear Power Plant, is ridiculous. Jun Takeda talks of the strong containment vessel at Daichi. Doesn’t he know that the containment vessel was breached and all 4 reactors continue to spew radioactivity on every living thing for miles? Only time will tell how many get sick and/or die. I have a feeling that the people will be on the losing end…

    1. The “breach” in the containment vessel you state Scooter is in the RPV, PCV, or concrete containment?

      Looking at TEPCO opening up reactor 4 (see link below), that is a lot of steel and concrete in which to rupture through. Interestingly they show what earthquake damage was done to the reactor in photo numbers 9 and 10. Some scuff marks, scary stuff.

      If you’re going to assert a breach can you show me the scientific modelling that was conducted with the stresses (thermal and physical) that caused the specific grade of steels and concretes that failed? Otherwise it’s anecdotal without proof. Then if it is used as reason to promote an agenda in it’s current context (“spewing out nasties, you’ll all die!!!”), it’s fear mongering.

      Hydrogen gas vented through the systems in place and blew out the cover over the containment areas because it wasn’t neutralised efficiently, considering the stresses the engineers just went through I can see why they didn’t prioritise it.
      What I cannot see, unless modelling or real measurements dictate otherwise, is how the meltdowns (partial or full) caused the RPV, PCV, and the concrete hatch to rupture as shown in the following pictures. Look how thick the steel is!

      Link: http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201209-e/120924-01e.html

      1. It should be pointed out that those photos are from Fukushima Daini, not Daiichi. I don’t think they are anywhere close to opening up any of the reactors at Daiichi.

          1. As I remember, Unit 4 at Daiichi was defueled when the earthquake hit. Therefore the reactor head was probably already off and laying on the refueling deck. But it is good they have progressed far enough to start removing these pieces.

        1. @ Pete51,

          Do not forget that out of the six reactors at Daiichi, two have been relatively left undamaged.

          They are ready to be started back. TEPCO has indicated it is part of their wish to do so.

  5. By the way, the Canadian healthcare system is still using Caesium 137 but has stopped purchasing it because it is hard to manage and has a long half life. It has proven to be very effective for radiotherapy over the years and has saved many lives.

    It is being replaced in some procedure, not all, by Iridium 192. It has a half live of 70 days and is a Beta emitter.

  6. You can see here the reason why Saudi Arabia is building nukes. They will start being oil importers in 2030.


    So these guys can anticipate basic supply and demand gaps and see that nuclear is the only way to go. (They do have a lot if sun and did not choose that route)

    Who is sleeping on the job in the western world ? That’s right and this is what the ‘all of the above’ strategy is based upon. Not doing what is right, not having the courage to look at the performance of wind and solar in the last 10 years.

    Want to know where China, Russia, Czech Republic, England, India, Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France will be in 2030?

  7. There is a difference between “depending” on anecdotes and sharing them as items of interest.

    Right, that is why I began my comment with, “Interesting stuff Rod.”

    When I bear witness to the incredible experiences that I had living in an all nuclear world, do you consider that “anecdotal” evidence that nuclear energy can directly replace oil?

    No, fission has been replacing large quantities of fossil fuel for decades. There is a vast accumulation of data that proves that; it is irrefutable.

    Claims that cold fusion cells or LENR will provide unlimited supplies of cheap, clean, dispatchable energy have been made by many people based on anecdotal evidence. I’m waiting for long term independent test results.

    People have claimed cancer cures from apricot pits, carrot juice, aroma therapy, gene therapy, meditation etc. In those cases where alternative methods have been used on a large number of people, and claims of high success rates are made, I think it would be unethical to not compile enough data to verify or refute the claims.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts