Date: November 04, 2015 at 15:51:02 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: radiation kills people
I'm going to put this very simply: Radiation kills people. It does this in a very simple and very effective way, it alters DNA. When radiation collides with molecules in living cells it can damage them. If the DNA in the nucleus of a cell is damaged, the cell may become cancerous. The cell then goes out of control, divides rapidly and causes serious health problems. […] Just because the intensity of the radiation received is reduced over distance it is not safe due to the much wider area the radiation covers. Those particles that do not decay in the time it takes the wind to blow them from Japan to the United States or anywhere else are still there. There is the same amount of particles, but spread over a wider area, and they are just as damaging if they get into your body. -- Lizzie Bennett
Date: December 07, 2015 at 14:53:44 From: trapper/austin, [DNS_Address] Subject: that is the goal. whats the problem?(NT)
(NT)
Responses:
None
9192
Date: November 05, 2015 at 13:20:15 From: Candace/Denver, [DNS_Address] Subject: Re: radiation kills people
the gamma ray radiation coming in from the center of the Milky Way in fact enhances God based life... and is part of the cycle of life in fact here and other places.
Date: November 05, 2015 at 13:40:35 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: yes ... and this "part of the cycle of life" can be lethal (NT)
(NT)
Responses:
None
9187
Date: November 05, 2015 at 02:22:36 From: Nasirah, [DNS_Address] Subject: Re: radiation kills people
Ramsar, Mazandaran Iran
Ramsar's Talesh Mahalleh district is the most radioactive inhabited area known in the world, due to nearby hot springs and building materials originating from them. A combined population of 2000 residents from this district and other high radiation neighbourhoods receive an average radiation dose of 10 mGy per year, ten times more than the ICRP recommended limit for exposure to the public from artificial sources. Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/a, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/a. This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation.
The prevailing model of radiation-induced cancer posits that the risk rises linearly with dose at a rate of 5% per Sv. If this linear no-threshold model is correct, it should be possible to observe an increased incidence of cancer in Ramsar through careful long-term studies currently underway. Early anecdotal evidence from local doctors and preliminary cytogenetic studies suggested that there may be no such harmful effect, and possibly even a radioadaptive effect. More recent epidemiological data show a slightly reduced lung cancer rate and non-significantly elevated morbidity, but the small size of the population (only 1800 inhabitants in the high-background areas) will require a longer monitoring period to draw definitive conclusions. Furthermore, there are questions regarding possible non-cancer effects of the radiation background. An Iranian study has shown that people in the area have a significantly higher expression of CD69 gene and also a higher incidence of stable and unstable chromosomal aberrations. Chromosomal aberrations have been found in other studies and a possible elevation of female infertility has been reported.
Radiation hormesis was not observed in a study that also recommended that Ramsar does not provide justification to relax existing regulatory dose limits. Pending further study, the potential health risks have moved scientists to call for relocation of the residents and regulatory control of new construction.
The radioactivity is due to the local geology. Underground water dissolves radium in uraniferous igneous rock and carries it to the surface through at least nine known hot springs. These are used as spas by locals and tourists. Some of the radium precipitates into travertine, a form of limestone, and the rest diffuses into the soil, where it is absorbed by crops and mixes with drinking water. Residents have unknowingly used the radioactive limestone as a building material for their homes. The stone irradiates the inhabitants and generates radon gas which is usually seen to promote lung cancer. Crops contribute 72 µSv/yr to a critical group of 50 residents.
Date: November 05, 2015 at 16:06:18 From: Polydactyl in N. Bay, [DNS_Address] Subject: Re: radiation kills people
Do you have a link? TY.
Responses:
None
9195
Date: November 05, 2015 at 16:04:56 From: Polydactyl in N. Bay, [DNS_Address] Subject: Re: radiation kills people
It'd be interesting to know if the people's immunity is lessened by additional environomental pesticides and metal toxicities. Maybe it takes a 'cocktail' of toxins harmful to humans to show massive or even subtle symptoms over time (the combo being the key)? The study would have to be looked at carefully for mitigating circumstances to the radiation, time periods when symptoms show up, and making sure a careful history is taken from foetal to old age results. Other cultures near say, Russian dumping grounds in Siberia, had terrible results from possibly manmade isotopes coming up into their water and swimming pond, dumped nearby.
I gather the combination of chemicals, metals, and ionizing radiation in good amounts, are lethal in dose, proximity, and amount, either by causing illness and early death due to depressed white cells and/or other cancers, numerous lesser health issues that won't kill them but will be cause dysfunction like cataracts, and outright early abortion in the womb, infant death within a week after birth, or later early childhood cancers.
Small samples need to be repeated and at least, studied further. It's a fond fantasy to think there's some way to beat ionizing radiation! Who wouldn't want to know how to do that- :)
Responses:
None
9189
Date: November 05, 2015 at 12:02:21 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: if you were serious you'd report on the health effects of plutonium (NT)
(NT)
Responses:
None
9188
Date: November 05, 2015 at 12:01:10 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: you cite a report with levels many orders of magnitude smaller
this is an apples and oranges comparison which has no relevance to the levels at Fukushima ... try again
Responses:
None
9184
Date: November 04, 2015 at 15:55:50 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: and ingestion of a "fuel flea" puts a source right in the lung tissues
Date: November 04, 2015 at 16:00:31 From: horst graben, [DNS_Address] Subject: "hot particles" also known as "fuel fleas"
Of the Reactors 1-3, one, or more, or all, have likely sustained damage to their nuclear fuel rods. Which is why iodine, cesium, and plutonium are leaking out. [...] Tepco mentioned they don’t think the current level will affect human health [...] We have to be very careful. Compared to iodine and cesium, plutonium would have a substantially larger adverse effect on health if taken into the human body. -- Yoshiyuki Yamazaki
The scary part of finding one hot particle, they’ve actually found several, well there’s got to be more. They’re very hard to detect, they’re very potent. [...] the thing is if you’ve got one particle, there’s going to be more, a lot more. Because we know that the core, at least out of Unit 3, was squeezed out and spread all over the place like a virus. -- Chris Harris