http://www.mediafire.com/?prc4n1x1b99z52o lallies story.pdf Blackmist Incident.
http://www.mediafire.com/?02ziy8as8eo05th sacred ground.pdf Hiroshima Day.
http://www.mediafire.com/?1p8hgg13nj9ciz4 Prof. Shimizu’s 1945 survey.
http://www.mediafire.com/?1p8hgg13nj9ciz4 Submission to UN.
http://www.mediafire.com/?1p8hgg13nj9ciz4 In the Best Possible Light .pdf Hiroshima.
Which is it?
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html
“Doctors in Japan are already treating patients suffering health effects they attribute to radiation from the ongoing nuclear disaster.
“We have begun to see increased nosebleeds, stubborn cases of diarrhoea, and flu-like symptoms in children,” Dr Yuko Yanagisawa, a physician at Funabashi Futawa Hospital in Chiba Prefecture, told Al Jazeera.
She attributes the symptoms to radiation exposure, and added: “We are encountering new situations we cannot explain with the body of knowledge we have relied upon up until now.”
“The situation at the Daiichi Nuclear facility in Fukushima has not yet been fully stabilised, and we can’t yet see an end in sight,” Yanagisawa said. “Because the nuclear material has not yet been encapsulated, radiation continues to stream into the environment.” ”
end quote.
Is available for download here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1cebcb4a64039629ed24a2875c7fa58eddc4447877056e5a759e682a8cd2154a
The late K . Totem 1 beta radiation skin burn never officially recognised. Photo: Coober Pedy circa 1990s. By Michele Madigan.
Conclusion: Nuclear authorities are either totally disorganised or they tend to assume ordinary are ignorant and on that basis fail to disclose the truth. Nuclear authorities fail to accept the findings of courts of law. Accept when it suites them. The Commonwealth of Australia tends to impose information control when nuclear victims are accepted as on the basis of the evidence. Evidence may be suppressed by the Commonwealth of Australia.
This tendency towards secrecy and resultant propaganda may not be confined to Australia. Indications are that this tendency of fear of discovery (truthphobia) is endemic throughout the global nuclear industry. I observe.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html The Word Radiophobia has been used by people paid by the Japanese government in the usual attempt of nuclear industry to compel consumers to accept their offer of Freebie radinuclides, so Im posting this again.
If you live near a power station deemed imperative for national electrcity supply, your expendible and have to take what the powers dish out to you.
IMO That’s not good enough. Evacuate Fukushima.
* 1 curie = amount of material that will produce 3.7 x 10^10 nuclear decays per second. (1 gram of Radium 226 = 1 curie)
* 1 becquerel = amount of material which will produce 1 nuclear decay per second.
1 curie = 3.7 x 10^10 becquerels.
nuclear decays per second = number of radiation tracks per second.
Tick tick tick tock. As each second passes, the absrobed dose increases.
Get the children out of Fukushima.
Amount of cesium 137 vented so far by the Fukushima reactors:
> 600,000 curies.
“The NYT and NRC both supposedly reported that pieces of spent fuel rods were found over one mile from the reactor. The NRC then allegedly said that these were actually from one of the cores. However, I find this later scenario unlikely until I see further evidence. Most likely it is from Reactor 3 which means there is plutonium everywhere.
Wouldn’t the govt actually show us pictures of the spent fuel pools if they were actually there? My guess is that they are severely damaged at least in 1 – 2 of the reactors. These pools each contain larger quantities of radioactive material than Little Boy, although kg comparisons are difficult as they are different materials.”
My reply: These are good questions and observations Adam.
I am not a reactor expert myself, and was stunned to learn of the very peculiar (understatement) practice in Japan of storing the spent fuel pools high in the air, and the cooling system pumps in the basement. That, coupled with the inadequate containment design (regardless of what GE says) caused and amplified the disaster.
It also remains a delaying factor and is shortening the lives of TEPCO workers. It is tragic. The GE inspired practice of concentrating multiple reactors in one location meant the fate of 1 became the fate of many. (The concept of the “reactor park” was originated by GE in order to aid economy and to make it easier to site 6 reactors while having to confront only 1 set of local residents.)
As I am not a reactor expert – I have the bomb history and am familiar with several reference texts – I would defer to those experts. The scenario of one of the reactors blowing its head off had crossed my mind. I have no idea what has actually occurred and no doubt the world nuclear industry and that industry in Japan will continue to do all it can to obscure the facts. As it has done so far. In my opinion. I think your thoughts are very valuable, right or wrong. For such honest thinking and expression must surely induce the new mult-million yen excersize by which the Japanese government will attempt to “correct the internet” to contact us with the true facts.
We should not actually hold our breath though mate. Because the biggest source of mis-information on the internet is generated by authorities in Japan and the world nuclear industry.
“Happy people are not affected by radiation”, “2mSv is safe for children”, “100mSv is safe for pregnant women” , fission product emission is “Just like a CT scan”, “Radiation is good for you.” All of these crap statements and many more, including “There is no meltdown” (March 2011) were issued by Japanese authorities.
I quake in my boots (not) at being corrected by such idiots.
Let’s graph that, bearing in mind the limits of a spot value in regard to continuing emissions and in relation to the one isotope mentioned. Which omits the other 250 or so.
Full references and graph – its only a rule of thumb which will need updating as more emissions are admitted in the coming months. Or years if TEPCO is unsuccessful in January 2012.
Fukushima caesium leaks ‘equal 168 Hiroshimas’
Japan’s government estimates the amount of radioactive caesium-137 released by the Fukushima nuclear disaster so far is equal to that of 168 Hiroshima bombs.
From the following link we see that in terms of radioactivity, 1 gram of Cesium 137 is equal to 87 grams of radium. and “It comprises some 3-3.5% of total fission products – 200 curies/kt.” So that gives us the creation rate per kiltoton of cesium 137. 200 curies . 87 curies per gram. So note that this is what enables experts to say “Not much cesium present in meat or whatever.” DICEMEN. So anyway, Fukushima throws out dice with “137” written on each face. Feeling lucky? http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html#nfaq5.3
Effects of Nuclear Explosions
nuclearweaponarchive.org
The Japanese government estimates, based on their 168 Hiroshima bomb estimate, that Fukushima has emitted Cesium 137 as follows: Cesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30.0 years (specific activity 87 Ci/g). Its deca…y energy is 1.176 MeV; usually divided by 514 KeV beta, 662 KeV gamma. It comprises some 3-3.5% of total fission products – 200 curies/kt. It is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries.
200 x 18 3,600 curies per bomb.
3,600 x 168 = 604,800 curies. So far.See More
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
Note that the cesium 137 yield represents a mere 3.5% of the total fission product yield. So I would ask the Japanese government again, please explain what the total amount of fission product released into the biosphere from the Fukushima reactors actually is in grams and curies (1 curie = 1 gram radium) and the names of each of the fission products so released off site into air, land and sea.
The fission products and fuel at Fukushima were on the ground. Most bombs are detonated in air. To be released the fuel and fission products must have a release mechanism. The explosions provided some. At the time, Throughout March and part of April, conventional nuclear industry paid experts were strongly denying any meltdown or damage to containment had occurred. When the Japanese data indicated that 3 reactors had melted down, that the fuel coriums were outside of the pressure vessels and that the reactors had breached pressure vessels, the nuclear industry paid experts shut up and a news blackout descended.
None the less, the nechanism for release of 250 different fission products and fuel has yet to be explained by Japanese authorities. Cesium has a low melting point. We can gather a list of released fission products from a labourious search of the net. It consists of about 22 fision products tops. I myslef can only find 8 measured fissioned products. Im still looking for the source documents for the rest.
In the atomic test era, Libby drew attention to Sr90, one of the less radioactive forms of strontium, though the one that persisted the longest. That became the star fission product. The other 200 odd however contribute to the total dose and its the total dose that is important.
What was actually released from Fukushima? What is in the ground water? The sea ? The air? We still do not know with any precision.
The graph looks like this, assumes no further emissions. Will need to be revised as Japanese Government is forced to add more bomb equivalents. How much more by January 2012? Who knows? 50 bombs worth?
https://nuclearhistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cesium-137-fukushima.jpg stand alone link.
Primary reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/
“The Effects of Nuclear Weapons Compiled and edited by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan
Third Edition
Prepared and published by the United States Department of Defense
and the Energy Research and Development Administration”
Emeritus Professor K Donald AO
Chair
Repatriation Medical Authority
GPO Box 1014
Brisbane QLD 4001
Dear Professor Donald
I would like to express my concern about those SOPs where a minimum ionising radiation dose is one of the factors required by nuclear veterans as proof of a carcinogenic outcome when making a compensation claim. A correct determination of this problem becomes highly improbable when an internally deposited alpha or beta radiation emitter is the source. Measurements of inhaled or ingested radioactive material were not made during the nuclear weapon tests and are still outside accepted procedures, except possibly after an autopsy or organ replacement.
The origin for introducing these minimum dosage levels can be found in “Report of the RMA Subcommittee on Ionising Radiation Dose – July 2000” where they are identified on pages 5 & 6 of the Preface. The Report did not examine the vastly different distribution dynamics, contamination types and distributions, or health effects of the British nuclear tests in Australia. The automatic transference of unsupported figures to the Australian test environment without any attempt to provide an association is unscientific and lacked epidemiological support. No valid reason is provided for the application of the average doses assumed in the Report being applied to an individual as required in the subject SOPs.
The Report did not include a possibly related examination of the strontium-90 assessments of human bone tissue gathered from hospitals and morgues across Australia after the tests. This was carried out under the control of the National Radiation Advisory Committee. These collections, including milk samples, continued from Dec 1957 until about 1974 with some of the samples and donor names still held by ARPANSA. (See National Archives Series Notes B1008, B1010 and B1012). Some of the hospitals and doctors involved, together with individual strontium units, are named in R030/008. It is possible that the cancellation of free milk to schoolchildren at the latter end of this period resulted from the detection of strontium-90 in some of the milk samples.
This approach has avoided a discussion on such contaminations as the “dirty bomb” exploded at Tadje and the work, including the delivery of a meal, to the Taranaki site a few days after it had been covered by fallout from Biak. Also avoided were such consequential occurrences as Operation Sunshine, the Black Mist and the suppressed Health Department Report concerning the deaths of 68 children (including 22 stillborn and 34 newborn) contained originally in the Woomera Cemetery.
You should also note that Dr Loy of ARPANSA was a member of the RMA Subcommittee mentioned above.
It is also fact that different distribution mechanics apply to fission products (subjected to minimum and above critical compression) when compared with those external to the fission zone (did not reach critical compression). The latter includes the left over fission material (about 88% of the original plutonium-239) and the tamper material (about 120 kg of natural or highly enriched uranium). The left over material was explosively ejected from the fireball by the Debris Shock Wave and then the Mach Stem. Plutonium (and uranium) is ejected as an oxide in a near aerosol format that can be easily inhaled or ingested if present during a dust raising activity. The amount distributed will be in much larger quantities than any of the fission products and much more likely to be present in the workplaces adjacent to the GZs. Considering that alpha radiation from plutonium has an RBE 20 times that of gamma radiation and was virtually undetected during the tests, it is unfortunate for nuclear veterans that the RMA has determined in its SOPs that a recordable dose exists. Surveys carried out by ARL/ARPANSA many years later, after the test complexes had been subjected to the severe environmental factors experienced in the Central Australian deserts, as well as after several clean-up attempts, cannot be assumed to be representative of earlier conditions.
Because it has a biological half- life of approximately 90 years, plutonium is unlikely to be detected in urine analysis.
Australian research concerning the doses received from internally fixed ionising radiation emitters (particularly alpha and beta) has been selective, ignoring those studies that do not agree with the dose rates derived from the ICRP risk model. An unbiased assessment would have included comment on the non-supportive findings of Professor Chris Busby. The following example is taken from “CERRIE Minority Report 2004” [ISBN 0-9543081-1-5] .A single particle of plutonium oxide measuring 2 microns in diameter emits 8,000+ alpha particles/day within a sphere of tissue measuring 30 microns in radius. The resulting dose is 1,000+ Sv/day. Depending on the size of the emitter, a large number of the cells close to the emitter will be destroyed; the remainder may become carcinogenic according to the Second Event Theory. The fractions of a Sievert used in the SOPs are overwhelmed by these figures and, because none of these figures can be verified during a normal examination by a doctor or compensation delegate, the dosage factor should be replaced by the possibility of being exposed to an internal alpha or beta emitter.
The use of dose figures derived from the ICRP Risk Model is also open to serious question as identified in the 2003 Recommendations of the ECCR where 46 eminent researchers and advisors stated that:
“they are concerned that the ICRP system of modeling seriously underestimates the risk from low level ionising radiation exposure from anthropogenic sources.”
Also, the ICRP has indicated that doses derived from its model are not suitable for use in a number of areas including retrospective epidemiological studies. This applies in particular to the 2006 Cancer and Mortality Study of Nuclear Veterans sponsored by DVA, where the dose estimates rely on the figures derived from the ICRP Risk Model. At the time of the Study, the ICRP stated:
“Effective dose has been widely used in radiological protection and is a valuable quantity for demonstrating compliance with dose limits in relation to exposure to external radiation and intakes of radionuclides. It is not appropriate in all circumstances and guidance is given on where its use is not appropriate, for example in retrospective assessments of organ/tissue dose for epidemiological studies, in individual risk assessments after exposures over dose limits and especially after exposures to high radiation doses. Further guidance will be given in a forthcoming report being prepared by a Working Part of members from Committees 2, 3 and 4.”
The consequential but non-carcinogenic effects of ionising radiation have been routinely overlooked in SOPs. e.g.
• Accelerated aging;
• Psychological damage;
• Loss of immune system competence;
• Short and long term sterility, often followed by miscarriages and stillbirths;
• Hereditary defects and deformities in subsequent generations.
Not included in the above discussions are the carcinogenic effects of non-ionising materials such as asbestos (filters in protective clothing face masks) and beryllium (neutron reflector in some weapons).
Given the preferential lodgment of plutonium in the surface of bone tissue, it seems obvious that radiation induced damage to the blood marrow cells should have been included as a factor in a number of possible immune system disorders. Myasthenia gravis is an example of a chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disease where anti-bodies produced by the body’s immune system block, alter or destroy the transmitters of nerve impulses to the muscles.
My conclusion is that eligibility for exposure to ionising radiation has been based on the political climate and not on sound medical scientific principles. An earlier SOP requirement was based on time and distance from the Japanese GZs resulting in the exclusion of BCOF personnel. All Immediate and Early Re-entrants during the British tests would have qualified under these conditions. When the compensation potential became apparent, the rules were changed by the introduction of the misdirected RMA Report.
Because the ionising radiation dose factors required in the SOPs cannot be physically measured in the normal course of medical examinations, they should be replaced by a requirement “to be possibly exposed to inhalable or ingestible carcinogenic material.” Priority should be provided to follow-on effects, such as those resulting from a defective immune system. The carcinogenic effects of non-ionising materials present during the tests in dangerous amounts, needs further examination.
Yours sincerely
Major (Ret’d) Alan Batchelor MBE AMIET psc
