Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Expert: Already hearing reports of children suffering heart attacks caused by Fukushima radiation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-12-11 10:15 AM
Original message
Expert: Already hearing reports of children suffering heart attacks caused by Fukushima radiation
 
Run time: 08:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Kkuo-IK-A
 
Posted on YouTube: September 11, 2011
By YouTube Member: radioactivebsr
Views on YouTube: 273
 
Posted on DU: September 12, 2011
By DU Member: stockholmer
Views on DU: 2501
 
Dr. Christopher Busby, nuclear chemical physicist, on childrens heart attacks in Fukushima due to radiation exposure, September 11, 2011:

Summary of interview

At :40 in
Yury Bandazhevsky, studied effects of cesium-137 on children in Belarus after Chernobyl
He found that children with just 20-30 Bq/kg of cesium-137 suffering cardiac arrhythmia (heart not beating properly) and were suffering heart attacks and dying
Not a question of cancer or leukemia (although that occurred as well), there were very high rates of heart disease in these children manifesting heart disease usually only found in old people

At 4:00 in
Heart cells are non replaceable by-and-large
Only 1% of heart cells replaced in a year
Cesium-137 goes to muscle, so concentrates in muscle tissue of heart

At 5:00 in
Doctors have been telling me in the Fukushima affected area, is they are actually suffering heart attacks

At 6:40 in
Cesium-137′s effects on heart muscle cannot be repaired, heart tissue cannot be repaired
These children will suffer their whole life and die young

At 7:30 in
Post-Chernobyl Belarus showed an increase in cancer but an enormous increase in heart disease


ECRR, www.euradcom.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-12-11 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. thank you for posting
will bookmark to watch later, i'm at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-12-11 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for posting.
Edited on Mon Sep-12-11 11:00 AM by Divernan
I know a US robotics scientist who was called in by the Russian govt. to help with Chernobyl. He goes back every year and visits, among other places, the two orphanages for the severely deformed children who continue to be born to and abandoned by parents exposed to radiation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-12-11 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Might be a good time for HBO to rerun...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
postulater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-12-11 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good info. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Crap....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. yes, that would be what your drive-by pathetic attempt at nuke shilling is
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Not sure about your response?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. Expert?
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 01:21 AM by Confusious
More like quack.

perfect example of confirmation bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Busby is very much a valid source, post anything other than ad hominem that shows him to be wrong in
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 02:11 AM by stockholmer
the past. You put in no effort to your attack post, that is a warning sign of a collaborator with the pro-nukers. The only bias I see here is your normalcy bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. what else can you say about a person
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 02:40 AM by Confusious
who can't get his papers published in a reputable scientific journal, so he starts his own to get them published?

Most of the scientific community thinks he's a quack. Except the other quacks.

You can look him up on Wikipedia. It's all listed there.

"Christopher busby quack" draws a million hits on google. You can probably go to any of the pages and find his rape and murder of the scientific method to fit an agenda.

Here's a good one

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/04/time-for-the-green-par... /

Of course, maybe he's a rebel who the scientific community wants to silence because he speaks the truth, Just like the guys who deny climate change, or say the moon landings didn't happen, or the the towers were brought down by explosives, or......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. more sophistry, nice attempt to link Busby to lunar landing deniers,+ Mark Lynas, (your link) stands
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 04:44 AM by stockholmer
by a report that claims only SIXTY-FIVE people have died as the result of Chernobyl. What a deadly load of bollocks! Lynas is also pro-GMO foods. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8108090/What...

to quote Lynas----- "the effects of the radioactive contamination on people are much less serious than previously thought. That is what the science says, yet many green groups continue to spread myths about tens of thousands of people dying because of Chernobyl when the actual death toll so far according to a major UN report published in 2006 has likely been only around 65."


I am a member of Miljpartiet de Grna (The Swedish Green Party), and I can assure you, that we are thriving (we had the biggest gains of any political party in the latest Swedish elections in the fall of 2010, PRE-FUKUSHIMA), and I am proud to say, we remain staunchly anti-nuclear power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A more accurate figure for Chernobyl would be at least 250,000, possibly up to 1 million deaths over the last 20 to 25 years. (main naysayers of this are the pro-nukers)

The study (From The New York Academy of Sciences) that shows 1 millon deaths:


http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid...

This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. According to the authors, official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.

Posted 4/28/2010

NEW YORKChernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center. With a foreword by the Chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, the 327-page volume is an English translation of a 2007 publication by the same authors. The earlier volume, Chernobyl, published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A review



Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long-involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

snip

Further worsening the situation, she said, has been the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization in which the WHO is precluded from publishing any research on radiation effects without consultation with the IAEA. WHO, the public health arm of the UN, has supported the IAEAs claim that 4,000 will die as a result of the accident.

How fortunate, said Ms. Slater, that independent scientists have now revealed the horrific costs of the Chernobyl accident.

The book also scores the position of the IAEA, set up through the UN in 1957 to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy, and its 1959 agreement with WHO. There is a need to change, it says, the IAEA-WHO pact. It has muzzled the WHO, providing for the hiding from the public of any informationunwanted by the nuclear industry.


snip

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3146

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/health/chernob... /

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.h...

http://www.alternet.org/environment/146619/book//\'s_as...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greenpeace , in 2006, came out with study showing at least 250,000 cancer cases from Chernobyl as of 2004

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/feature...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chernobyl also caused a dramatic increase in cancer here in Sweden, especially Norrbotten (the northermost part, where my partner's family is from)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stm

The study :

http://www.liu.se/en/news-and-events/news/1.10658?l=en

Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/0705300809...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chernobyl in heartbreaking picture essay

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl


-----------------------------------

65 deaths my arse, and anyone who agrees with this IS a quack or a shill, probably both.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Like I said, confirmation bias
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 05:53 PM by Confusious
I give you facts, you don't agree with them, and decide something completely different. You have that in common with Republicans.

The Greenpeace report is crap. The 1 million deaths is crap. The other report ( from where your partner if from ) used a lot of words like "may" "possibly" "inconclusive." Just so you don't misinterpret, 'cause you seem to have that problem, do I believe deaths occurred? yes. Will there be more problems? yes. How many is a question of time.

You take those words as definite, I take it as inconclusive. You seem to have a little problem understanding what the words mean. That confirmation bias coming up again. You're going to believe what you want to believe, facts be damned.

You'll probably take my saying "inconclusive" as there's no way in hell it related, because that's what people like you do. Look up the definition.

Most people like Greenpeace will take ANY occurrence of cancer and lump it into the report. Even when they aren't related. But facts be damned, science be damned, there's an agenda to be pushed. THAT is what pisses me off more then anything.

If anyone is the sophist, It's you. You're argument lies not in facts, but belief sans facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. that's before the kids turned purple with yellow polka dots
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 03:26 AM by trud
I must have missed the articles in the reputable press about kids keeling over in droves in Japan. Never fear, though, the looney tunes are still doing their thing. Next up, giant radioactive ants in the subways.

Really, as annoying as the birthers and global warming deniers are, at least they aren't generally Democrats. This sort of unscientific hysterical nonsense is a disgrace to DU.

Strange that the PA Dept of Health found zero health effects after 18 years of tracking residents near Three Mile Island. That was just that pesky science, of course, no match for the loonies who'd rather see the planet fry from global warming as a result of their promoting the far more lethal oil, gas, and coal vs. nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Lancaster County PA(downwind of 3MileIsland)50% increase in thryoid cancer in some yrs.
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 04:26 PM by Divernan
Pennsylvania's inept Dept. of Health didn't even start gathering statistics on thyroid cancer until six years after three mile island. At the conclusion of their 18 year "study" they concluded that "given the long latency period for the development of thyroid cancer after exposure to low-level radiation exposure, it is plausible that an increase in thyroid cancer incidence might just now be occurring." Heck of a time to end the study, wasn't it?

I worked in the state capitol of Harrisburg (Dauphin County) and can tell you there were a lot of settlements made with people for both personal injury and injury to their livestock from Three Mile Radiation. People signed no-disclosure, confidentiality settlement agreements.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18300710

Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS:

On March 28, 1979, the worst nuclear exposure incident in U.S. history occurred near Harrisburg, PA. Small quantities of xenon and iodine radioisotopes were released into the environment from the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant. The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDoH) implemented a TMI Population Registry, including 32,135 individuals within a 5-mile radius of TMI, to track possible health effects to the local population. Although no increase in cancer mortality has been noted in this cohort, cancer incidence has not been tracked. Given the long latency period for the development of thyroid cancer after exposure to low-level radiation exposure, it is plausible that an increase in thyroid cancer incidence might just now be occurring.
Eighteen years of data (1985-2002) on thyroid cancer incidence were obtained from the PDoH. The three at-risk counties of Dauphin, York, and Lancaster were analyzed with regard to observed numbers of thyroid cancer cases versus expected incidence. Although the nuclear accident at TMI occurred in 1979, 1985 was chosen as the starting point for data analysis because that is when the PDoH began maintaining cancer incidence records.
RESULTS:

In the first year available for evaluation (1985), there were 11 new thyroid cancer cases in each of the at-risk counties (Dauphin, York, Lancaster). By 2002, the incidence had increased to 29 in Dauphin County, 81 in Lancaster County, and 69 in York County. The increase in thyroid cancer in Dauphin County is not above what would be expected for both the local population growth and the increase in thyroid cancer incidence in the U.S. population in general. Thyroid cancer incidence was greater than expected in York County for all but 1 year between 1995 and 2002. Lancaster demonstrated a marked increase in thyroid cancer incidence over expected norms throughout the study period. An increase greater than 50% was noted in certain years.
CONCLUSIONS:

Thyroid cancer incidence has not increased in Dauphin County, the county in which TMI is located. York County demonstrated a trend toward increasing thyroid cancer incidence beginning in 1995, approximately 15 years after the TMI accident. Lancaster County showed a significant increase in thyroid cancer incidence beginning in 1990.

Another article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/...

"The cancer findings, along with studies of animals, plants and chromosomal damage in Three Mile Island area residents, all point to much higher radiation levels than were previously reported," said Steven Wing, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina and co-author of the study. "If you say there was no high radiation, then you are left with higher cancer rates . . . that are otherwise unexplainable."

The findings appear in today's edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science. In a letter accompanying the article, the Columbia University researchers who initially analyzed the cancer data disagreed sharply with Wing's conclusions and labeled the new study "tendentious and unbalanced."

Reports of low levels of radiation outside the plant didn't jibe with accounts of severe symptoms -- vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss, dying pets -- by some of the plant's neighbors, Wing said. After re-running the data, he concluded that exposed neighbors suffered two to 10 times as many lung cancer and leukemia cases as those who lived upwind.

In Pennsylvania, activists who have been fighting the nuclear plant for nearly two decades viewed the new study as a vindication. "No one knows how much radiation escaped," said Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert. "The study confirms what people have been reporting for 18 years."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chalfont Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. Already Hearing Reports?
Funny, I'm in Japan and I'm not hearing anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC