The Continued Radiation Exposure From Fukushima Needs To Be Taken Seriously

Recently a very reasonable-sounding, moderate, lacto-vegetarian person (who claims to have studied the radiation issue for one day) created a very thoughtful, reasonable assuring statement that the Fukushima radiation may not be a problem.  This is challenging because it assuaged people’s fears around the issue, while leaving them vulnerable to the real threat.  Part of the problem is that this person, being inexperienced, was, and is, unaware of all the literature on this subject making very clear statements.  Consequently, he ignored the major teachers on the subject.

Dr. John Gofman was a physicist hired by the Atomic Energy Commission to investigate the impact of radiation on human beings.  He concluded that radiation exposure produces a direct linear correlation with the rate of increased cancer incidence.  This is a person who was the world expert before leaving his body a few years ago.  Gofman said, “Harm in the form of excess human cancer occurs at all doses of ionizing radiation down to the lowest conceivable dose and dose rate.”  To paraphrase, “There is no moderate or safe dose of radiation.”  Dr. Carl Z Morgan, after 30 years as director of the Health Physics Division of Oakridge Natural Laboratory, wrote in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “There is no safe level of exposure, and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of malignancy is zero… The genetic risk, and especially those associated with recessive mutations, may be as harmful and debilitating to the human race as the increase of cancer.”  I think this is really the problem: what is known as safe dose, in a sense, permissible maximum allowable radiation for the general public is not related to safety or health, but as I would say, what those in power can get away with.  No amount of radiation is safe.

Dr. John Gofman in 1985, after several years of research, suggested the dosage of radiation allowable from nuclear plants, at that time (1985), would result in an additional 16,000 to 32,000 cancer deaths per year.  All exposures are a problem.  Dr. Gofman, in his book X-Rays: Health Effects of Common Examinations, estimated that more than 45,000 fatal cancers are induced yearly by X-rays.  None of his research, in conclusion, has been able to be successfully refuted by any scientist.  As we look at that further, we must review what Dr. Petkau found in 1972 when he disproved the concept of a “permissible safe dose exposure”.  This is not new information.  He stated that there was no safe exposure from nuclear plants, nuclear fallout, and atomic arms plants. What he found was that the low-level chronic exposure to radiation was at least 1,000 times more damaging to health than had been previously estimated.  This was and is a major piece of information.  Petkau’s and Sternglass’ research shows us that at this point we have a low-level of chronic exposure to radiation from Fukushima that will not be ceasing soon. This research finding is an extremely important part of the discussion as it makes the ongoing chronic exposure from Fukushima far more serious than the one-time Chernobyl explosion.

There are other problems in that this lacto-vegetarian, one-day radiation expert was using his equipment with a probable $400 Geiger counter to measure radiation.  This machine cannot really measure what Berkeley radiation research lab is measuring.  One needs a more sophisticated piece of equipment (at least a $10,000 machine) to measure the I-131, the Cesium 137 and so forth. That is the lowest cost piece of equipment.  His conclusions, based on the fact that the radiation he is able to measure isn’t relevant based on superficial readings by his cheap Geiger counter, further skew a rational scientific inquiry into the situation.  This is akin to using conventional blood lab tests for diagnosis purposes.  For me, as an experienced holistic physician over the last 40 years, I do not use laboratory tests for diagnosis because they are only useful for diagnosing gross medical problems. My experience has been that many people come to me having taken these general blood tests, having been told their results are normal, and therefore their clinical symptoms are psychosomatic.  When I use more sensitive testing I am able to pick up on subclinical information and make appropriate diagnosis, which when treated usually make, in 95% of cases, symptoms disappear. By the same analogy, using unsophisticated Geiger counter equipment to measure radiation does not yield accurate data.

The information obtained on San Francisco’s water radiation being 18,200% times greater than normal was determined based on the use of picocuries to determine water safety.  I want to point out that three picocuries is the upper limit.  Keep in mind, again, that according to the world experts there is no safe limit.  When we go from 3 picocuries to 18,200% higher, we are talking about a significant relative increase even though it appears to be very little.  We have to understand that there is no safe dose and every small exposure may become a problem.  This, of course, is what the experts have told us all along and this is my concern.  This whitewashing of Fukushima is creating a climate of unpreparedness for the radiation exposure problem.  It should in no way be considered theoretical.

We have 25 years of research experience at the Chernobyl facility.  This is practical applicable knowledge gleaned by scientists studying the results of this accident since it occurred in 1986.  Experts have estimated that one million people have died directly from Chernobyl’s radiation exposure, and an area the size of Switzerland has now become uninhabitable.  Now, even 25 years later, radiation is leaking from it.  They have just received funds to reseal the facility.  You cannot taste, smell, or feel radiation.  This makes it harder to detect and much easier to deny.  The research from Chernobyl, which was only one nuclear reactor going bad, showed that there was a 40% increase in overall U.S. mortality in the following 8 months after Chernobyl.  Three months following Chernobyl there was a 900% increase in perinatal mortality in the Boston area.  There was also a meansured 245% increase in perinatal mortality in the Seattle region, and a 45% increase in the Southern California region. The actual epidemiological data here is undeniable.

The bad news about Fukushima is that it was 6 nuclear reactors and 6 spent rod pools.  Some physicists speculate that this is the equivalent to 8 nuclear reactors going off, which makes it 8 times the impact of Chernobyl.  With a little applied intelligence we can see that we have two major problems associated with this.  Firstly, we have a massive release from 8 reactors as opposed to 1, and, secondarily, that release is not stopping, so we are having a chronic exposure.  That being established, we must make the clear conclusion that there is a radiation exposure problem.  There is no safe dose of radiation, and we are being exposed.  As a holistic physician concerned with the welfare of the general public, I have to say that it is extremely important that we take this situation seriously and that we apply all the preventative and protective systems I have recommended in my previous blogs for the protection of our families and our loved ones. The good news is that if we follow the recommendations, we can protect ourselves, our families, and our loved ones.