First of all, thanks Chris and crew for releasing the information in Part 2. I found it to be helpful in rounding out a bit more of the picture that seems to be so full of missing information and misinformation. I’ve gone to Gundersen’s website http://fairewinds.com a few times but didn’t catch several of the details that were in the interview posted here on CM. I also listened to the videos of epidemiologist Steve Wing’s presentations in 2009 re Three Mile Island, and it was quite surprising and disturbing to me to see the color coded map of the radiation plumes and subsequent cancer cases within 10 miles of TMI from 1976-1985 (18 minutes into the video). The question that it raises is who, if anyone, has tracked cancer cases there over a longer timeframe and why stop at 10 miles? Couldn’t a case be made for a wider area, especially lands that are downwind most of the time? And why were only rare types of cancers tracked? As I mentioned earlier, I live in the area and the people here wonder if they’re not experiencing a higher rate of cancer than normal. The situation in Japan is that one we can, at least in small part, identify with. We know what it’s like to worry about nuclear contamination. It’s silent, it’s insidious and it’s often actively concealed by those who have the power and incentive to do so.
Secondly, from a couple of the members posting above, I learned something about this website that I didn’t know. You can support the effort with small donations if you aren’t in a position to be at the ‘enrolled member’ level of giving. You can do it online or via regular mail. I don’t know how I missed hearing that before but now I’ll be sending in a little money. Here’s the link if anyone else feels likewise: https://peakprosperity.com/help-the-cause
Thanks Chris for all your efforts and dedication. You’re appreciated.
I’m not sure why you think I have any interest in knowing the full details of your situation but I have none. Also, I can assure you that having more details is totally unrelated to any satisfaction or dissatisfaction I would have about anything. The PM I sent you was meant to offer an observation that I thought could be of assistance. It evidently wasn’t and that’s as far as any interest goes. As far as any “right to judge”, I’ve never claimed or expressed such a “right” nor is my judgement or lack of judgement of any consequence or significance but such as statement is often reflective of a certain level of self-judgement. Otherwise, there’d be no need to make the statement.
Enjoy your babies while they’re young. Time passes quickly.
(Crossposted here and in the Daily Digest.)
I’m a little puzzled at the explanation of damage to X chromosomes, because…
As we all know, girls are XX, boys are XY. X-linked genetic issues tend to hit males harder because males only have one X chromosome. Women have two, so if there’s a problem with an X chromosome, the other one is usually going to help make up for it in women.
As an example, color blindness overwhelmingly affects more males than females. Though women can be carriers of the color-blind-linked X, the other X makes up for it. (Interestingly, there are some women who have incredibly rich color vision because they have different genes for color on each X chromosome.)
That said, here is the National Geographic article:
Millions Fewer Girls Born Due to Nuclear Radiation?
“Nuclear radiation from bomb tests and power plant accidents causes slightly more boys than girls to be born, a new study suggests. While effects were seen to be regional for incidents on the ground, like Chernobyl, atmospheric blasts were found to affect birth rates on a global scale. The result: Millions fewer females have been born worldwide than would otherwise be expected, researchers estimate.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110602-millions-fewer-girls-nuclear-radiation-births-science/
Perhaps the radiation-linked damage is something else that affects female embryos in utero. that male embryos may have some kind of resistance to or protection from. Or, the damage could be causing female embryos to express more or make more of a certain protein than normal. Anyways, that’s just conjecture at this point until scientists find out more.
The Russians have a lot to answer for.
“‘The closer the country was to Chernobyl, the stronger the effect,’ said Scherb, a biostatistician at the German Research Center for Environmental Health in Munich.”
Poet -My daughter was born after I had been exposed to about 110 mrem of ionizing radiation from an operating submarine nuclear power plant - accumulated over an 18 month period.
My son was born after I had been exposed to 290 mrem of ionizing radiation from exposure to Co-60 during an extended maintenance shutdown - accumulated in about 90 seconds.
I am convinced that radiation from operating plants causes more girls to be born and radiation from shutdown plants causes more boys to be born.
Admittedly, if you make your sample group small enough you can prove anything…
Poet,
It’d be interesting to read the actual study. I’m always suspicious of the summarizations of scientific studies reported in the media since the reporters usually don’t have a clue. There’s a lot of crappy science nowadays, misinterpretation of data, fudged data, agendas, etc. I’ve seen tons of it in my professional fields.
I’d tend to think the male/female ratio is influenced more by selective abortion than by ionizing radiation. I recently heard a report (which I have not confirmed) that the male/female ratio in China is now up to 120:100, largely due to selective abortion. That is a very dangerous situation that historically is virtually always followed by war, within about a decade.
Dogs,
I’d have to agree with you. An individual that I know personally who was closer to a nuclear blast than anyone I know (close enough to have his helmet blown off) had one boy and one girl. So I guess exposure to a nuclear blast causes a perfect 1:1 male:female ratio. :-)
BTW, the individual is still alive and very healthy, active, and strong for his age (except for a bout of thyroid cancer, which is almost a given for his situation). So possibly ionizing radiation has an invigorating effect. I’d call it the Godzilla Effect.;-)
and maybe I can provide a bit of perspective here.
It is not because we feel “entitled” that we want access to this information. I, for example, pay for 3 investment analysis sites, and now I’m thinking about subscribing to this one because Chris Martensen is alert enough to be following this in detail, when most mainstream reporters are not, and have not yet grasped the seriousness of this nuclear situation – and that with this turn of events, we will see a huge paradigm shift in energy/ nuclear / economics.
I think maybe it’s difficult for many commenters here, who are based in the West perhaps, to understand that, for millions of people who are living in Tokyo/ Japan/ Asia, this is an immediate matter of life and death. And we need to make decisions – like, do I check out of this hotel in Hong Kong today and fly back to Tokyo, or not? Take my situation, for example…I normally work and live in Tokyo; I was there on 3/11 when the earthquake and tsunami hit; I was there until the following Tuesday 3/15 (the highest day of radiation levels btw) when my husband and I left for, first, Singapore (2 weeks), and then Hong Kong (a month in a hotel, and now we have a temp. furnished apartment). I have been living out of one suitcase ever since these nuclear meltdowns started. And it is very difficult to know what to do, when TEPCO and the Japanese government have not been releasing accurate information. Information was only released in small bits, and always in isolation – never painting a larger picture. I have a lot of pressures to go back to Tokyo: my job is there; my apartment in Daikanyama; my two cats that my Japanese teacher is taking care of! But I also am lucky in the sense that I have a global job; I have a creative team in Hong Kong, also, that reports to me, and I’m starting up a team in Korea, and one in Singapore, so I have used this time to do a lot of the travel and “cementing relationships” in different countries that I really did need to do, anyway. And now I have sought, and received permission from my company, to stay in this temporary apartment in HK, until December. But most people – including my whole Japanese creative team – and the whole ad agency I work for, comprised of both Westerners and Japanese, are still in Tokyo. And I need to take business trips, at least, to Tokyo every six weeks or so. So yes – whether Tokyo is safe is extremely important to us. And there has been so little information about it! So of course there was a lot of emotion about Part 2. and now I’m going to go listen to it, myself! ;- ) cheers and thanks again Chris for your clarity and then taking action and actually recording the interview with Arnie Gundersen. Finally, something to move us forward.
As a brand spanking new member who purchased the book today, too, I was thrilled to find the decision to make part II of the interview available to the public. For a few post I felt my blood pressure rise, then, this decision. Have cred with me. Cannot wait for the book and already shared site with my kids. Will be paying member before the weekend is done. Thanks.
One more thing…I note there is a way to publicize the book/site. Where might that info be found?
Welcome to the site. Glad you can afford 3 investment analysis sites. Hope you can afford one more and support the cause. Credit card = enrollment + instant information + satisfaction of knowing you’re helping out.
[quote=Dogs_In_A_Pile]Poet -
My daughter was born after I had been exposed to about 110 mrem of ionizing radiation from an operating submarine nuclear power plant - accumulated over an 18 month period.
My son was born after I had been exposed to 290 mrem of ionizing radiation from exposure to Co-60 during an extended maintenance shutdown - accumulated in about 90 seconds.
I am convinced that radiation from operating plants causes more girls to be born and radiation from shutdown plants causes more boys to be born.
Admittedly, if you make your sample group small enough you can prove anything…
[/quote]
Well, a large sample group covering 40 countries is what they were working with. We don’t know their methodology, but I felt it was of interest to share.
For all we know, it could have been boxers versus briefs.
Poet
Can anyone expand upon Gundersen’s comment that we inhale hot particles all the time? Have US west coast residents been inhaling significantly fewer particles than they are inhaling in Japan? This comment seems to have alarmed many people so I’m trying to figure out how to follow up the observation (as a non-scientist, unfortunately).
[quote=MarkM]I am still trying yo figure how a wind from the Northeast at Fukushima will blow something out over the Pacific.
[/quote]
I think he meant southeast, but whatever, it should wind up in Nigata instead of Tokyo. So, all those people living in Nigata looking for a reason to ditch their shovels, now have an addition reason to leave
Samuel
Hi Tokyoate,
I am currently in Tokyo, and I feel relatively safe, considering that my risk of developing cancer might have gone up… Anyway, one very reassuring thing I heard from Arnie is that they haven’t found any uranium or plutonium in those car filters. I am not be so scared of the other little critters, not as much as Unit #3 blowing up again, or Unit #4 collapsing anyway… So, I got that live feed up 100% of the time whenever possible
I think maybe it’s difficult for many commenters here, who are based in the West perhaps, to understand that, for millions of people who are living in Tokyo/ Japan/ Asia, this is an immediate matter of life and death. And we need to make decisions – like, do I check out of this hotel in Hong Kong today and fly back to Tokyo, or not? [snip]
… So yes – whether Tokyo is safe is extremely important to us. And there has been so little information about it! So of course there was a lot of emotion about Part 2. and now I’m going to go listen to it, myself! ;- ) cheers and thanks again Chris for your clarity and then taking action and actually recording the interview with Arnie Gundersen. [/quote]
tokyokate, thanks for sharing your situation and providing your perspective. Yes, it is easy to understand the emotion about Part2, especially from those who are directly impacted, or are concerned that they might be. But also from others just concerned about the seriousness of the situation and the potential vital nature of the information.
[quote=missy]Can anyone expand upon Gundersen’s comment that we inhale hot particles all the time? Have US west coast residents been inhaling significantly fewer particles than they are inhaling in Japan? This comment seems to have alarmed many people so I’m trying to figure out how to follow up the observation (as a non-scientist, unfortunately).
[/quote]
Missy -
Naturally occurring background radiation surrounds us. More or less depending on where you live. People who live or work in big cities with lots of concrete and granite construction materials typically receive around 40-60 millirem per year. People living near hot springs or areas with near surface groundwater will see a higher exposure to radon and can receive up to 80 mr per year. Pack a day smokers - in addition to all the wonderful things you get from sucking hot, toxic, combustion by-products into their bodies - routinely receive 5 Rem per year.
Everything must be taken in context. You breathe some of these particles in every day. There just aren’t that many of them. Even so, you exhale 90% of any suspended particulates inhaled. The remaining 10% gets captured and eliminated through normal bodily processes. It only gets tricky when a handful of these particles are radioactive and thankfully, most of them aren’t. Even if the occasional radioactive particle gets stuck, the corresponding exposure is so low that the risk of developing cancer is also very, very low. Not zero, but pretty low. People on the West Coast have probably inhaled a few particles released from Fukushima - I probably have here in Virginia, but the levels are nothing to be overly concerned with. I have no doubts a reader or two will find a link to some alarmist website talking about vast, poisonous clouds of radioactive material being dispersed all over the US, but that just isn’t the case. It’s easy to sensationalize the initial spikes in detectable activity (in the US) we saw in the days and weeks following the accident, but it just isn’t that much to be concerned with at this point. You have a higher risk of being injured in a car accident caused by a texting teen than youdo of developing cancer from an ingested particle of radioactive material from Fukushima. I’m not saying Fukushima isn’t something to be aware of, but it needs to be kept in perspective.
The people in Japan are at more of a risk, because simply stated, they will exposed to more radioactive particulates than we are. There is the radioactive Iodine 131, a gas, to be concerned with. But there is also the risk of stirring up distributed solid particulates and ingesting them via respiration or via the food chain or drinking water. That is going to be the nasty part going forward. Obviously the risk is going to be higher in the area immediately surrounding the site, but as we have already seen, there have been survey results fairly far from the accident site with levels of concern.
Unfortunately, the very nature of the beast is that there are many carcinogens people are exposed to over the course of their lives. It will be very difficult to absolutely attribute a cancer case developed 25 years from now to exposure received from the Fukushima accident. At the same time, you can’t completely rule it out.
One additional observation after listening to the interview. Bear in mind that Arnie Gunderson is not an advocate for nuclear power. That said, he is still providing some of the best and most objective material out there - I’ve said that from about the first day he started updating on the Fairewinds site and the posts started making it here at CM.com. I think he has done a great job of providing objective assessments and well thought out subjective opinion. The only thing I would caution readers about is that Arnie goes for the worst case scenario. This is a mixed bag - that downside is that if taken out of context it can get people unnecessarily alarmed, but the upside is that the potential problem is accurately framed in terms of how bad it could get. The hard part is assigning probabilities and estimating the likelihood of the worst case event happening. I think he has overstated both the severity and the likelihood of a steam explosion if molten core fuel material breaches the pressure vessel and concrete floor of the containment buildings. I don’t think the situation involving the damaged fuel matrix is as dynamic as he states it could be this far into the accident. IMO, the greatest threat going forward is the spread of highly radioactive contaminated material, waste, debris, etc., as the Japanese get further in to the accident response, control, clean-up and recovery. There is a lot of highly radioactive water trappped in pockets of debris and every time that leaks or spreads it becomes an exposure concern and a corncern from an internal deposition standpoint. Please don’t misunderstand my comments as dismissing what he is saying offhand - despite his clear position on the nuclear industry he is doing a great job of providing accurate and objective information, IMO some of the best out there.
There’s typos and errors in the transcript; for instance, “now” instead of “know”. With so many reads of this article, and given the importance of the subject matter, I think correcting these errors is well worth the effort. Hire an editor, or recruit a volunteer.
Arnie Gundersen has a new 12 minute video up on his site, http://fairewinds.com, as of June 5. I created a new thread in the Forum for anyone wanting to discuss it, as it deals with US regulations rather than with Fukushima.
In response to anyone who thinks paying $30 a month to have total access to Dr. Martenson’s knowledge and insights, please first take a look at your cable TV bill or Droid bill, then ask yourself where your money might be better invested.
In response to those who think information related to life or death issues ought to be published free of charge, the logical extension of your view is that everything in life related to life or death issues ought to be available free of charge. How many free hospitals are there in your area? How about grocery stores? Yes, there are charities for those who have no resources. But those are not free…somebody, somewhere is paying for them. Besides, this website is not a charity.
I am disappointed by the number of people who questioned Dr. Martenson’s motives in trying to build membership so that his work can continue. Nobody walks on water, but from what I can tell, he has demonstrated a high degree of integrity in that his thoughts, words and actions are in alignment. The world would be a far better place if many more of us, myself included, aspired to his level contribution.
Long hours at work have brought me late to the party yet again, oh well.
LOL at all the non member frustration club members (I’m a previous CM member and current non CM member. By circumstance only)
I think…(you may want to look away now)…that people get concerned when information is restricted when it may be health related. I think …(there I go again)…that when the information is financially related then us non members have more patience and understanding. If you’re like me, I try to glean from the comments following the reports and the daily digest to figure out what may be in the report. That’s the best I can do for now. Going to some of the listed sites helps as well. I noticed the restriction even applies to the member comments in that you can’t read the entire comment unless you’re enrolled. I mentioned over a year ago that I would glean from the member comments and soon after I noticed the restriction (another little LOL).
Anyways, CM and his support staff run a top notch site
I don’t blame them for sticking to the enrolled members only criteria…BUT…when the information has to do with health and safety concerns and the situation is immediate, well then I have to disagree with the site criteria. I don’t feel entitled, I just think there’s a difference between financial and medical. Maybe it’s just me.
That said, thanks to Mr. M and the CM staff and thanks to DIAP–You know I love you guys.
