Monday, April 11, 2011

How many nuclear engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

April 11th, 2011

Dear Readers,

It's been one awful month. Full of tragedy, lies, and obfuscations. Most of this newsletter consists of links to items on the web, for example Helen Caldicott responds to journalist-cum-zealot George Monbiot in the Guardian, in her most succinct and powerful manner.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman
Nuclear Archivist
Carlsbad, California USA (images added 2025)



(1) How many nuclear engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? by Ace Hoffman
(2) Helen Caldicott responds (again) to George Monbiot
(3) Arnie Gundersen: "Core melt in fresh air"
(4) Conrad Miller: "An error in the criteria of judgement..."
(5) Knolls Atomic Power Labs: Disaster brewing in our own back yard
(6) Protest Diablo: Living and Dying Under the Shadow of a Nuclear Power Plant
(7) Canadian Uranium Mining: A Calamity Threatens Your Happiness
(8) Consequences of Chernobyl: Video interview with U.S. editor Janette Sherman
(9) Karl Grossman: Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at One Month: The Explosion of Nukespeak
(10) Contact information for the author of this newsletter


(1) How many nuclear engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?:
April 11th, 2011

Dear Readers,

Fukushima is a real SNAFU. Situation Normal: All Fouled Up. (The polite definition of the term.)

Radioactive poisons will continue to spew from Fukushima for months, years... poisons will remain in our environment... "forever."

I'm burned out. We're all burned out. We're all burned from the inside out and the outside in by this tragedy. Fukushima WAS and IS "the big one."

It will kill for the rest of our lives. Kill fish. Kill birds. Kill people.

Not just in Japan, but all over. The deaths will not be televised. They will not be You-Tubed. They are too vile to watch, too painful, too personal, too humbling, too sickening. But you MUST know they will happen. They are happening. They will always keep happening because radiation causes cancer. It has no lower threshold, and billions upon billions of cancer-causing doses were distributed to the world. Gazzillions of billions. Uncountable trillions. Needles pegged. Detectors and dosimeters lost in the hydrogen explosions. And probably, nothing's been calibrated in a month, they're too busy....

For $1,000 a day, maybe more, maybe less, people are willing to go into Fukushima and get a dose. Thank goodness. When they run out of Japanese nuclear workers, they will surely import them, probably from India, where wages are low and nuclear power is (or at least, was, up until Fukushima) highly regarded by the government and largely unopposed by the people of India, who are up to their necks in other problems, like a polluted Ganges, monsoon flooding or lack thereof, poverty, internal terrorism, depleted natural resources, and just about every other problem you can imagine. They do, however, still have a thriving film industry.

How many workers will Fukushima Daiichi require by the time it's all entombed -- probably not the best solution, and certainly not doable yet -- or whatever they do with it?

Chernobyl required about three quarters of a million Russian workers, most of them young military conscripts and firemen. Things are different in Japan. Allowable doses were much higher for the Chernobyl workers and generally, doses only estimated, not actually measured.

On the other hand, in Japan Tyvek suits are the norm, with breathing apparatus that might even be working somewhat! Oh, how I wish I had invested in "Tyvek" in February (that, and radiation detector companies)! These workers can stay longer. But the radiation levels at the plant are very dangerous and some of them might exceed what the workers at Chernobyl had to endure. AND yes, dosimeters don't always tell the whole story even if everyone has one, and nor do any but the most sophisticated of radiation detection equipment.

In other words, almost everything, once again, is being estimated. And Tyvek leaks, either by being torn, punctured, or improperly used. And of course, only some radiation is blocked by the Tyvek, not all (chiefly among what is blocked are alpha particles, among what is not, gamma rays).

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA


(2) Helen Caldicott responds (again) to George Monbiot:

We've all been waiting for this, of course, and we're glad the Guardian has published it:

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

By Dr. Helen Caldicott, M.D.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation


(3) Arnie Gundersen: "Core melt in fresh air":
v=b1U_lwdSzRM&NR=1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1U_lwdSzRM&NR=1


(4) "An error in the criteria of judgement...":

Dr. Miller has been making regular Fukushima updates. He's new at this, and didn't correct his audio volumes to standard levels (I'm one to talk...) on this one, so remember to TURN THE VOLUME BACK DOWN after you play this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeYPrf2OBM

Here's a statement from Dr. Miller, which is included in the comment section of the video:

"Hate to tell you that I do not know what specifically can repel radioactive particles/radiation. The healthier you are, and live, the better chance you'll have. One example: you have cilia in your lungs, little hairs that wave the foreign particles up and out of your lungs. If you smoke, you kill the cells with these cilia along the bronchial tree, so a particle of plutonium would have a better chance to get deeper down into your lungs. Otherwise obvious answer: close nukes "

Dr. Conrad Miller is also the author of a wonderful book about nuclear follies and other errors in technological judgement called: The Most Important Issues Americans THINK They Know Enough About... Edition III. Visit Dr. Miller's web site to read Chapter One online, and for more information:

http://www.crestofthewave.com

-- Conrad Miller, M.D.


(5) Knolls Atomic Power Labs: Disaster brewing in our own back yard:

Let's face it: Containment domes aren't all they're cracked up to be. Especially when they're cracked up, as one or more apparently are in Fukushima.

Chernobyl, they said, was different because it didn't have one. But Fukushima's containment domes have not stopped the radiation, because -- as we've always warned -- containment domes, containment vessels, containment buildings, reactor pressure vessels, and zirconium fuel cladding ALL leak, or the pipes to them leak, which amounts to the same thing. Especially after hydrogen explosions, earthquakes, tsunamis, or all three. At Fukushima things are either leaking very badly or are now missing completely. In probably all three reactors that had fuel in them at the time, much of the zirconium shielding that protected the public from the fission products that had been created as the plant operated is gone. The fission products have been released, and hot blobs of molten fuel remains. Perhaps this is true in one or more of the spent fuel pools, too.

Plutonium-laden fuel has been found a mile from the site, apparently blown there in the hydrogen explosions.

1700 square miles is uninhabitable by humans, who can read, in Russia because of Chernobyl. Wildlife, who can't read, or visit a doctor when they're sick, appears to flourish in the "forbidden zone" because for one thing, species can adjust to a surprising number of assaults by, for example, having larger litters or having them younger in life, and for another, where the humans have left, wildlife does, indeed, flourish (in a sense) in comparison to whatever it had been. This is nearly universal: Other than pigeons and cockroaches, humans and wildlife don't co-exist very well. Sooooo. What happens? Deformed young get left for dead by their mothers and eaten by vultures and vermin, dying older animals get eaten and make way for the younger animals from the larger litters, and life goes on. It's hell on the individuals, but the species actually do appear to "thrive" to those who want to see it that way.

Oh, how the pro-nukers love this! They see more deer in the forests and think, "AH HA! What fools the anti-nukers are!" A slightly closer look reveals the truth, but pro-nukers never take those closer looks. The Guardian's George Monbiot started to read the Chernobyl book but couldn't finish it, but even if he has since done so, it's a reasonable bet that he's more than a thousand newsletters behind if he wants to catch up with my own newsletter subscribers... let alone all the Nuclear Monitors and Beyond Nuclear bulletins he would have to absorb. He could spend the rest of his life watching informative You-Tube videos about the damage Chernobyl alone has done, let alone, what is already coming out of Fukushima and what REALLY happened at Three Mile Island, (yes, Monbiot, people died...).

Meanwhile...

In upstate New York there are two nuclear reactors that have NO containment building at all! I don't mean they're under tents or out in the open, but they're not protected against anything substantial such as terrorism, tornadoes, accidental airplane strikes, or anything else. They are protected only from public scrutiny, being on Naval property, away from prying eyes. Built by?

General Electric.

Not only that, but they lack proper Emergency Core Cooling Systems as well as Containment Vessels. The control rooms are located too close to the reactors, as well. Like on a ship; but these are located in a well-populated residential area of New York. They could destroy much of New York State if anything went wrong.

For more information visit Jack Shannon's KAPL web site:

http://www.mindspring.com/~kapl/index.html


(6) Protest Diablo: Living and Dying Under the Shadow of a Nuclear Power Plant:

I read this book a while back, while it was in proof format. It was impressive then. A powerful and personal journey. In short, no wonder we can't get San Onofre or Diablo Canyon shut down! No wonder concerned citizens all over the world can't accomplish these seemingly-obvious environmental tasks: Money, greed, power, callousness, subversive tactics that undermine the activists...

Here is what happened in central California. It's part warning and part history lesson, and totally a call-to-action:

Protest Diablo: Living and Dying Under the Shadow of a Nuclear Power Plant

by Judith Evered

Forward by Helen Caldicott. Inspired by Charles Perrow, Jay M. Gould and Helen Caldicott.

ISBN-13: 9781453636190; ISBN-10: 1453636196

Published 12/5/2010 by Create/Space (available from amazon.com )


(7) Canadian Uranium Mining: A Calamity Threatens Your Happiness:

Meanwhile, protests continue ever-stronger in Canada, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere against uranium mining, where the trouble all starts (by poisoning the mine workers, the watershed, the land, and the air). Uranium mine tailings are the largest source of radon gas poisoning in many cities and a contributor in thousands of others.

This book is authored by a very gifted writer. In fact, the quality of the writing here reminds me of Mother Country: Britain, the Welfare State, and Nuclear Pollution (Marilynne Robinson, 1989; which should be "required reading" in schools, much like "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson sometimes is). This is quite a document, as well.

A CALAMITY THREATENS YOUR HAPPINESS, being a Viewpoint from the Eagle Watch near Sharbot Lake, Nishnaabe/Ongwehonwe Territory by J. "Kittoh" Stanley, Spring, 2010

For copies, distributed at cost or by donation, please send enquires to: kittoh@storm.ca


(8) Consequences of Chernobyl: Video interview with U.S. editor Janette Sherman:

An excellent interview (one of a series):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krFQbUJMsqw&NR=1


(9) Karl Grossman: Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at One Month: The Explosion of Nukespeak:

Karl in peak form as usual:

http://www.indypendent.org/2011/04/11/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-at-one-month/


(10) Contact information for the author of this newsletter:




Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Thursday, April 7, 2011

Press release: Carlsbad California resident's comedy routine about Three Mile Island reappears... unfortunately...

April 7th, 2011

Press release: Carlsbad California resident's comedy routine about Three Mile Island reappears... unfortunately...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ace Hoffman, a 54-year old cancer survivor who has lived in Carlsbad the past 20 years, has been a computer programmer and educational software developer for the past 31 years.

But this week, he'll wear an old hat:  Comedian.

An odd comedy routine he created 32 years ago will be played again this Saturday night nationwide on the Dr. Demento Show, marking the fourth decade the routine has been played on the Dr. Demento Show (70s, 80s, 00s, and now the 10s).

Is it an old comedy standard?  Hardly.

But it's very timely again.  Unfortunately.

The routine is called "Three Mile Island Beatles" and features "cut-ins" of Beatles songs interspliced (actually done with spliced tape, back in the day) with a simulated "War of the Worlds" news commentary about the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island.

Aliens never landed, but nuclear power plants have continued to have trouble.  And the Beatles have continued to reign supreme.  And comedy still makes everything better.  So the routine's come back again.

"TMIB" also aired on several other stations when it was first released, but has found a recurrent theme on the Dr. Demento Show as first Chernobyl and now Fukushima Daiichi occurred.  The routine also aired on Dr. Demento's nationwide radio show in 2008 during a Beatles (comedy) special.

The author adds, "If meltdowns are the criteria for playing it, let's hope it never airs again!"

Hoffman has also created a You-Tube video to accompany the Three Mile Island Beatles comedy routine and has posted it online at his You_Tube channel:

www.youtube.com/user/AceHoffman

He notes that he has never had any problem with copyright issues over his use of snippets of Beatles songs.  He has never heard from the Beatles or their (numerous, no doubt...) attorneys (knock on Norwegian Wood).  This may be, in part, because Hoffman had the routine checked carefully by professionals who determined that the shortness of the clips meant that prior law had indicated such use was permissible.  Others had done cut-in tapes before, although this was the first known instance of anyone doing a cut-in tape using songs from just one band.  Several other such tapes followed on the Dr. Demento Show.

Or perhaps the Beatles just like(d) it, too.  A lot of people did -- it made it onto Dr. Demento's Funny Five in the summer of 1979, while Three Mile Island was still high in people's minds.  Who knows what might happen this time if enough people hear it again and hear its haunting relevance to today's tragedy in Japan?

Hoffman knows it's not the same as being voted Performer of the Year, but for anyone who always wanted to be a comedian (like Hoffman has, but he also wanted to be a brain surgeon and that didn't work out either, and for similar reasons: He faints at the sight of blood) being on the Dr. Demento Show is "the top of the charts" as Hoffman puts it.

Dr. Demento is now on the Internet as well as on many radio stations:

www.drdemento.com

In the intervening 31 years, Hoffman has continued to study nuclear issues and now has a book out, highly acclaimed by activists all over the world, explaining the technical concepts of nuclear energy to lay people.  It's called The Code Killers, referring to the damage to DNA code (our reproductive cellular instructions) caused by radiation.  The book is available as a free download from his web site:

www.acehoffman.org

Hoffman also has been writing a blog about nuclear issues for 15 years, one of the longest-running blogs on the Internet.  He has been releasing new blogs on a near-daily basis since the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy began unfolding.  They are available online at his blog spot:
www.acehoffman.blogspot.com

Hoffman also is the owner and sole employee of The Animated Software Company, which develops and distributes educational software.  His four award-winning software publications, all of which he programmed and animated himself (some he had help writing), are available online at his company web site:

www.animatedsoftware.com

Software includes tutorials about pumps, statistics, the periodic table of the elements, and the human heart.  Hoffman's software is used in thousands of universities, as well as by governments and industry.  "Strange they won't listen to me about nuclear issues" says Hoffman.  So occasionally, to get the message out, he tries comedy.  And anything else he can think of.

In addition to the Fukushima-oriented video Hoffman created from the Three Mile Island Beatles routine he wrote in 1979, he has also posted an educational Fukushima-related video to accompany another comedy routine he wrote in 1986 about (you might have guessed by now...) Chernobyl.  That video has been viewed hundreds of times on You Tube in the few days it's been online, and other Fukushima-related educational (and sometimes somewhat humorous) videos Hoffman has posted in the past few weeks have already received over 6,000 views.  Hoffman's Shut San Onofre web site received over ten thousand "hits" in the first week after Fukushima:

www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

"Hits at the web site spiked about as much as the Iodine-131 concentration around Fukushima" Hoffman deadpanned.

If anybody can find something funny in this tragedy, Hoffman probably can.  One thing's for certain: he's had more than enough practice.

Photo of Mr. Hoffman:


###

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

A slow, agonizing death...

Ace Hoffman's Nuclear News Blog for April 5th, 2011

Today's items:
(1) A slow, agonizing death... (by Ace Hoffman)
(2) By George, is dilution your only solution to Fukushima's pollution? (by Ace Hoffman)
(3) George Monbiot's column in today's Guardian
(4) Suggested reading from today's Washington Post for George Monbiot
(5) Frying blind: Frustrated monitor finds levels "immeasurable"
(6) Chernobyl book available NOW in printed form for only $10.00!
(7) Contact information for Ace Hoffman, the author of this newsletter

Readers are encouraged to republish, repost, or retransmit these newsletters without further permission. Thank you in advance.


(1) A slow, agonizing death... (by Ace Hoffman)

April 5th, 2011

Dear Readers,

It's been more than three weeks now, and things are STILL getting worse at Fukushima Daiichi. The world's news media, and the tired public, may be trying to move on, but Fukushima is still spewing radioactive poisons at ever-increasing rates, pushing itself back onto the headlines day after day...

Now there are confirmed radiation readings around the plant that are millions of times higher than the legal limits. Not just higher than background or "normal" limits, but millions of times higher than legal limits. The mega-catastrophe we all hoped to avoid forever is unfolding, and not one bright nuclear scientist or engineer seems to know how to stop it.

So much for the experts.

According to physicist Dr. Michio Kaku -- one of the good guys -- three reactors are either already melting down or in eminent danger of doing so, and a spent fuel pool may be, as well. He doesn't seem to think anything can stop it now: Molten fuel, dripping from broken reactor pressure vessels, spewing radioactive smoke and steam for years to come...

But it could still get even worse than that: There could be a violent steam explosion. Or two, three, four... Oh God, or six. And then Daini will be unapproachable, just a few miles way. So there will go four more. In preparation, are they emptying the spent fuel pools at Daini at this time? No. They are happy to have achieved cold shutdown of those four reactors, and just keep riding out the aftershocks and the radiation wafting over from Fukushima Daiichi, waiting until somebody says they can turn the reactors on again. That's their new plan. Go back to being stupid as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, it's a slow, agonizing death of the reactors at Daiichi, and for those trying to stop it, many, perhaps all, of them will go through their own slow, agonizing death because of their efforts, as well. For the sake of others.

Despite their "heroism" -- and I put the word in quotes only because, the day before the "natural" disasters that led to the manmade failures, these are the same people who could have REALLY done something to prevent this tragedy, like blow the whistle on the safety violations and the illogical locations of the diesel generators and all sorts of other things. But now, truly, they are heros, and let's hope their efforts succeed. Otherwise, or rather, even in spite of it, many others will also suffer and die because of this tragedy that is unfolding in our lifetimes.

Other species will suffer, too. Birds fly by the reactors constantly. They have not obeyed the evacuation orders one bit.

How far do they get after they fly directly in the plume, or drink the water from the ponds and puddles? Or feast on the radioactive corpses that litter the area?

Do the birds then fall into the sea, to be eaten by fish which we then will consume, still hot with radioactivity?

Do they fall on the land, to spoil the ground dozens or even hundreds of miles away -- thousands, if they are migratory species of birds?

There are radioactive "hot spots" all over the reactor site.

And why are they dumping 350,000 barrels of radioactive water into the oceans when an empty tanker could have been brought nearby during the past few weeks, and the water could have been put there and held for decades or filtered of large particles and left long enough to let the fast-decaying products emit their deadly particles and rays, before releasing to the oceans? An old tanker wouldn't cost all that much! Of course, then they'd need another... and another... and another...

I realized, late last night, that the reactor operators at TEPCO at the time of the tsunami and I have something in common. No really, we do!

You see, they called their colleagues and coworkers offsite and told them they the plant was going to melt down if they didn't get help quickly. Big help. Generators, pumps, and people. They called the government. They even asked for the U.S. military to come help them protect the public because the reactors are going to melt down if you don't come help!!!

People at the other ends of the lines -- people who should be on trial today for, at the very least, negligent mass murder -- told the plant operators they were "on their own" and would have to solve their problems themselves.

Undoubtedly, the plant operators said the plant would melt down if you don't listen to us! Again came the response, for we all know the result.

But you know what? That's JUST what I've been saying all along! "The plants are going to melt down unless YOU do something! I can't do it myself!" That's been my exact message all along, too!

San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, Davis Besse and all the rest: They'll all melt down sooner or later, if we don't shut them down instead. But no one activist, citizen, whistleblower or politician can do it themselves. We need to all pull together on this. Improving safety won't be good enough. Oh sure, it's a good idea. But it won't suffice. Shut-down might not even suffice, but it's much, much more likely to keep us all safe.

The odds are currently approximately 100% that this will happen again and again. The arrogance of the pro-nuclear side right now, less than a month into this tragedy, proves it.

It doesn't require an earthquake plus a tsunami plus poor design plus the arrogant indifference of key people on the ends of the phone lines. All those are just the triggers THIS time. Davis Besse almost melted down in 2002 without any of THOSE triggers, it was just an overlooked leak that went on for a surprisingly short amount of time, which almost cost America half of Ohio. (Maybe more. There is an incredible amount of spent fuel stored there, as at every reactor.)

What it really takes for a meltdown is just public indifference. If the plant near you isn't shut down, then it will melt down sooner or later. Might it make it to the end of its license? NO! Because its license WILL BE EXTENDED. There is a 100% track record on license extensions so far.

These plants won't be shut down by their operators. They won't be shut down by the regulators.

If there is one "lesson to be learned" that we can all take away already, it's that the nuclear power plant operators will stop at NOTHING short of meltdown. Consider that dozens of exactly-similar nuclear reactors to the ones in Fukushima, in at least as dangerous and as populated areas, are still operating 24/7 all around the world, it's obvious that the next reactor to be shut down permanently will probably do so of its own accord, on its own schedule, whenever it pleases.

Damned reactors.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA (images added 2025)

###


(2) By George, is dilution your only solution to Fukushima's pollution?

April 5th, 2011

Dear Readers,

According to British uber-pro-nuker George Monbiot in his column in today's Guardian (shown below), anyone opposed to the madness that caused Fukushima is a member of a "lobby"!

I suppose that means we have lobbyists, corporate funding, SEC and PAC violations, the whole nine yards.

He says we're all cherry-picking the data and basing our opposition on utterly unscientific conclusions.

Apparently, according to Monbiot, ANY additional radiation ANY member of the public EVER gets from Fukushima, in any dose, no matter what other radiation you receive in your life, and regardless of the prior condition of your immune system, is good for you! Or at the very least, harmless. That's Monbiot's stance, and he's sticking to it. He says it's what the science proves, and only conspiracy theorists disagree.

It appears that George Monbiot completely missed the distinguished Dr. John Gofman's entire career!

He missed Gofman's peer-reviewed studies of x-ray damage to humans (extremely "low" level radiation by most standards).

He missed Joe Mangano's career too, and his (peer-reviewed) analysis of increased cancer rates around operating nuclear power plants.

He obviously completely missed Ernest Sternglass and Alice Stewart and Jay Gould and Chris Busby's and... well, you know. All of them. Far more than I can name. There's lots of scientific studies about radiation Mr. Monbiot had to avoid to reach HIS conclusions. Not that he's the only one who's avoided them.

And of course, George Monbiot had to completely overlook -- or rather, had to consciously avoid -- the thousands -- yes, George, thousands -- of scientists from Russia who have come forward to say that the facts are being actively suppressed about just exactly how much damage Chernobyl really did. And why it needs such a large exclusion zone. And why that zone ought to be even larger.

Mr. Monbiot never saw the sorry state of the liquidators and the downwinders as anything but normal. He wears rose-colored glasses and then denounces those who see clearly. He even accuses them of committing "a great wrong" that can only be righted by building thousands of new nuclear power plants as quickly as possible!

How many Fukushimas will it take for Mr. Monbiot to smell the caffeine in the coffee?

Let me try to explain a few things about statistics to Mr. Monbiot, who will surely claim he knows them already, but he acts like he doesn't, so I'll explain it anyway: Confounding Factors and Variance.

In any study of any randomly chosen population of a thousand people, perhaps 300 will get cancer. We all know the base cancer rate is between about 1 in 4 and 1 in 3, which, by the way, is a huge variance right there.

However, the variance between one randomly chosen population of a thousand people and another group of a thousand, also randomly chosen using exactly the same criteria, is likely to be much greater than the additional cancers caused by Chernobyl, even among those living fairly close to the reactor site. I think every scientist involved in studying Chernobyl would agree with that statement. But when there are hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people affected, the aggregate ADDITIONAL damage to the whole population can be quite substantial. And yet, hard to prove.

One reason for the variance from one sample group to the next might be "confounding factors:" Things the scientist didn't notice that affected the outcome of the study. Another might be the actual random variance among the possible populations that might be studied. No study can look at everyone, so samples must be taken -- a thousand people, for example -- and estimates concerning millions of people are then made, based on the carefully-analyzed data obtained from the sample population.

In any sample population of one thousand people, a single extra cancer out of the several hundred that will occur anyway would be statistically very difficult to measure, and impossible to notice any other way. One person, and their family, will notice it very much, but they won't know they're an "extra" cancer that shouldn't have happened. (Like the others should have, of course.)

10 extra cancers in a population of a thousand people, where several hundred will get cancer anyway, would ALSO probably be unnoticeable -- except to a very careful statistician.

Even a hundred extra cancers might be called an anomaly (certainly Mr. Monbiot would have such an explanation) or the result of poor data collection -- confounding factors -- and discarded.

Fault can be found with ANY study. That's one reason the Russian scientists who wrote the 2009 Chernobyl book reviewed THOUSANDS of studies. The IAEA reviewed a few hundred. Talk about cherry-picking...

I suppose one can look at the number of "potential" lethal doses being released at Fukushima and just simply assume that they will all be rendered harmless by the combined processes of dilution and radioactive decay.

For Iodine-131 released into the water, after 150 days or so, it will essentially all be gone and won't have made it to many foreign shores, except in fish caught off the waters of Japan and then flown elsewhere. And the doses will be so low, so soon... There's lots of water out there to dilute, dilute, dilute!

But what about the Iodine-129, with a half-life measured in millennia? What about the I-131 that is released into the air and is now falling on America's crops? What is the aggregate amount of radioactive Iodine being added to our nation's food supplies (let alone, to Japan's) and what quantities of what isotopes? Does Monbiot know or care? He can't know, because nobody knows exactly. He's shown that he doesn't care. If releases were ten times what they are, he still won't care. (This has actually been somewhat born out today because, in fact, there was a ten-fold increase in local contamination levels at the site, over yesterday, and I haven't heard that he's suddenly changed his mind.)

How many people will ingest these "low doses" of radioactive particles in their leafy greens, their root vegetables, their milk, water, or meats (if they eat meat)?

We are all filters for the environment. We breath in whatever is there. Some of it lodges permanently in our lungs, or enters our body some other way. Radioactive particles from Fukushima will be in everyone's bodies for a thousand thousand generations. Who signed on for this? I sure didn't! Our children and their grandchildren sure didn't, yet they are taking on the largest burden!

No matter what study George might find that says radiation doesn't harm fetuses, it does.

Mr. Monbiot is surely willing to admit -- okay, maybe not -- that vast quantities of poisons are being released. If actually given to humans directly (undiluted) enough poison is being released to cause thousands of lethal cancers EACH! That's thousands of cancers PER PERSON! We have to guess at the total. TEPCO's data is unreliable.

But everyone know what they say about a pound of plutonium, if distributed in everybody's lungs? That's basically what's happening right now. Japan is distributing highly carcinogenic radioactive particles into everybody's lungs. Yours. Mine. Everyone's. However, Monbiot welcomes them into his lungs, as does Ann Coulter here in the U.S..

Thousands of billions of lethal doses worth of fission products, activation products, uranium and plutonium have already escaped or been purposefully released from the plant, and deadly releases might continue for years, and might even get horribly worse.

Multiple reactor meltdowns might already be occurring, slowly. Slowly isn't much help. It's just slower.

Mr. Monbiot could admit that the real reason the evacuation zone isn't 50 miles, as the U.S. Government has been officially advising U.S. citizens, is probably that three enormous cities fall within that zone... You just can't evacuate that many people without trauma... and ensuing poverty... perhaps it would even cause riots and violence... Is New York ready to do the same thing at a moment's notice? And wait patiently in traffic as the winds from Indian Point blow over the city?

Mr. Monbiot could also admit, while he's at it, that Depleted Uranium is a cruel weapon, devoid of heart for the people who will breath its dust, years after the conflict it is used in. Even if he only believes in heavy metal poisoning, he should denounce such weaponry.

Mr. Monbiot wants peer-reviewed studies of low level radiation damage, and there's an abundance of that. Mr. Monbiot wants official studies sanctioned by the "scientific community" as if there is such an official organization that can sanction such things, and no scientific fact had ever been "hotly" debated before. What he doesn't want is an abundance of caution, or even a healthy dose of it.

But if all he wants are peer-reviewed studies, there's plenty of that. And there's plenty of evidence of cover-ups. Is it an "organized" crime, like The Mob or Wall Street? It all depends on your definition of organized, I suppose. DOE, IAEA, WNA and many other organizations certainly actively promote the crime against humanity of nuclear power. Pro-nukers don't need rallies in order to do their dirty work: They just need a few back-room deals, some taxpayer-backed government loan guarantees, and an unconstitutional law that shields them from culpability (known as the Price-Anderson Act in America, all nuclear countries have similar laws).

It's all very clean and polished. Like using a sterile needle to inject a lethal poison into a prisoner. What's the point of such antiseptic treatment? People are dying. Why?

Trees changed color, as shown on the cover of the book about Chernobyl which George Monbiot denounces. Why did they do that, George?

Children are suffering horrible deformities and meanwhile, radiation IS blamed by the scientific community as one of usually many causes of hundreds of different kinds of cancers, including bladder cancer which this author survived once already and doesn't look forward to a recurrence. WHY DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO SUFFER, MR. MONBIOT?

What if we're wrong? What if Stewart, Gofman, Sternglass, Gould, Mangano, Busby and all the others are wrong but the world follows their warning anyway?

That's not such a bad outcome: If the world's following their advice, we wouldn't turn to coal, as you suggest we would instead of nuclear. We would build solar solutions, which are perfectly capable of providing electricity for the population, without the risk. And we would stop creating enormous piles of fission products which have a proclivity to get out into the environment despite all the best assurances in the world.

That's the worst-case scenario! It's not a denial of global warming, as Monbiot claims it is. Instead, it's a BETTER solution whether global warming is real or not! It removes both the threat of global warming AND the threat of meltdowns. And anyone who thinks it can't happen just hasn't looked at the facts about renewable energy.

Maybe Monbiot is right: It's not a conspiracy. We're just all really stupid.

Whether Busby and all the others are right or wrong is almost irrelevant at this point. Any fool can see that a poison that the scientific consensus agrees there is no threshold dose to, no Hormesis effect except in very unscientifically "controlled" conditions and for limited observations of the full effects, no benefit whatsoever except electrons in wires, which can be obtained safely a thousand other ways -- any fool can see that such a poison shouldn't be created here on earth if possible (and it's very possible to live without nukes) and shouldn't be released into the environment if possible (and it's NOT possible to STOP such releases with nukes).

Any fool can see we've poisoned nearly seven billion people alive today, and all the billions who will come later, and George Monbiot, for one, isn't the least bit apologetic.

An activist posted an interesting question a few days ago on her Facebook page. What if "civilized" humans had created, say, 15,000 years ago, long before written records were kept, all this spent nuclear fuel that the rest of us had to take care of and stay away from for the past 15,000 years? What if?

Would we curse those people who created this problem? Of course we would!

Our generation will be cursed. Thank you for that, George Monbiot. Not.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

The author's book on nuclear issues, which Mr. Monbiot has undoubted not yet read but will probably suddenly glide through it and denounce, is available online for free here: www.acehoffman.org . His essays for the past 15 years are available online as well. (Please see additional URLs below.) The author is a 54-year old educational software developer. His products, which he programmed himself and in some cased also wrote, include tutorials about pumps, statistics, the periodic table, and the human heart, and are used at over 1,000 colleges and universities around the world.

###


(3) George Monbiot's column in today's Guardian:

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce

George Monbiot
The Guardian,Tuesday 5 April 2011
Article history

Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made areungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week withHelen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me.

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so ­ all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink ­ in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world's leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation. The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, including four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia.

In the rest of the population there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children ­ arising "almost entirely" from the Soviet Union's failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131. Otherwise "there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure". People living in the countries affected today "need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident".

Caldicott told me that Unscear's work on Chernobyl is "a total cover-up". Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention.

In a column last week, the Guardian's environment editor, John Vidal, angrily denounced my position on nuclear power. On a visit to Ukraine in 2006, he saw "deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards … adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers". What he did not see was evidence that these were linked to the Chernobyl disaster.

Professor Gerry Thomas, who worked on the health effects of Chernobyl for Unscear, tells me there is "absolutely no evidence" for an increase in birth defects. The National Academy paper Dr Caldicott urged me to read came to similar conclusions. It found that radiation-induced mutation in sperm and eggs is such a small risk "that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

Like Vidal and many others, Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases ­ including many which have no known association with radiation ­ were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate-change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don't suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced.

We have a duty to base our judgments on the best available information. This is not only because we owe it to other people to represent the issues fairly, but also because we owe it to ourselves not to squander our lives on fairytales. A great wrong has been done by this movement. We must put it right.

###


(4) Suggested reading from today's Washington Post for George Monbiot:

Note to George: I admit that the Washington Post is not peer-reviewed, either...

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/at-chernobyl-a-warning-for-japan/2011/03/31/AFLGWeXC_story.html

By Will Englund, Sunday, April 3, 9:05 PM

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine ­ Forbidding under a cold, gray sky, the dead atomic power plant here is a living enterprise.

Graphic: A look at what has happened to some of Chernobyl's radioactive substances after 25 years.

The explosion that struck 25 years ago this month, in the world's worst nuclear accident, set in motion a major undertaking that today bears on the life of the entire country. It is a model, or a warning, for what could await Japan. The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant will at some point be contained ­ but then there begins a national project from which there is no exit strategy.

Though the turbines are still, and cranes dangle above two unfinished reactors, just as they have for the past 25 years, too radioactive to be moved anywhere else, this is not a ghost town. Trains arrive on freshly laid tracks, workshops in an un-Soviet shade of blue dot the grounds and steam billows from the chimney of a new gas-fired heating plant that sends hot water throughout the complex.

About 3,000 people work here, in decontaminated areas, maintaining and decommissioning the plant. An additional 4,000 work nearby, providing security in the 19-mile-deep exclusion zone ­ from which residents were evacuated and where entry is possible only with a permit. (The Fukushima zone has a radius of 12 miles.) Exclusion zone workers also handle water-management and forest-fire-suppression duties, part of the never-ending effort to keep contamination from spreading.

And beyond the exclusion zone lies the vast social structure of evacuees, former emergency workers and their families, farmers whose dwindling villages are contaminated but habitable ­ survivors, many in ill health, battling an implacable government for the care and assistance they believe they deserve.

"I so much hope the Japanese liquidators will be treated better than we were," said Yuri Andreyev, who was a chief engineer at Chernobyl and now heads the Chernobyl Union, an umbrella group of advocacy organizations.

In its particulars, the Chernobyl disaster differs from Fukushima's. A badly executed test, rather than a tsunami, led to the explosion at Chernobyl. Open to the air, a graphite fire burned for 10 days, spewing huge amounts of radioactive material; at Fukushima, with a different type of reactor, that couldn't happen.

But the significance of Chernobyl for Japan lies in the question of what happens next. Even if the scope of contamination is smaller, Fukushima will demand of the Japanese a commitment of unforeseeable dimensions.

"My wife told me, you know the sarcophagus better than you know your own apartment," said Grigory Panchuk, who until he retired worked to maintain the tomb encasing Reactor 4.

Panchuk lives in Slavutych, a planned community across the Dnieper River from Chernobyl. With its wind-whipped and featureless plaza, it is a model of late Soviet urban planning ­ except that in place of the usual war memorial stands one to the 30 workers who died after the April 26, 1986, explosion.

Slavutych residents commute by train to the power station. As they arrive, they pass the wide cooling pond, where pumps run full time to keep the water level above dangerously contaminated sediments. Farther on, they should soon be seeing a new sarcophagus.

Panchuk has a ready smile, but he is an unhappy man. Unable, at 60, to work because of poor health, he hasn't received the full pension he is entitled to as a Chernobyl veteran with a related disability, which in his case is thyroid disease. So like thousands of others, he is going to court to try to make the government pay what it owes him.

The government fights these cases. It says it has no money. About 130,000 people were evacuated from the exclusion zone, and they are entitled, in theory, to an array of benefits. So, too, are those who responded to the accident ­ the liquidators ­ and people in villages just outside the exclusion zone.

"One day we'll lie down and die. And that's it."

Even if money were not an issue, other realities would be the same. Definitions have to be drawn up, medical examinations pursued, year after year, and distinctions made between the natural effects of aging and the consequences of radiation exposure. The worst issues don't necessarily appear right away: The steepest rise in thyroid cancer in neighboring Belarus came nearly two decades after the explosion.

Panchuk tends to believe that the Japanese will do a better job of it: that the government will uphold its promises, that people won't be deprived of their due, that corruption won't warp the entire system.

Maria Krivolapova, 61, worked in a pig-iron plant near Chernobyl. Her husband, Mikhail, was at the power station. After the accident, she loaded sand into helicopters that were trying to put out the fire and she cooked for the crews. The pilots had reported directly from the war that the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. She saw one pilot vomit as he stumbled out of his chopper, then fall to the ground.

After eight days, they were ordered to evacuate.

"They told us it would be for three days, and the result was forever," she said. She was assigned to work on a state farm in a village called Obukhiv, south of Kiev, the capital. She and Mikhail built a rough concrete house, without running water, and she lives there today with her daughter Yelena and her family. They keep goats, pigs, chickens, a cow.

Mikhail died of lung cancer 13 years ago. Yelena, who was 13 in 1986, has a vascular disease that state doctors only recently affirmed as Chernobyl-related, after years of denial.

"We're not rich, but we're happy," Maria said in her unfinished kitchen as she wrestled a batch of her homemade farmer's cheese into shape. She has thyroid disease, heart disease and high blood pressure. She said she was diagnosed with radiation sickness in June 1986 but her medical records were taken from her. She doesn't know how much of a pension she is supposed to receive, but she knows she isn't receiving it.

So one day in March found her in Kiev, at the cramped offices of the Chernobyl Union. Others were there on the same mission: Tatyana Kirilchuk, 53, thyroid disease; Galina Dubrova, 55, who along with her husband and five grown children has thyroid disease, as well as liver and vascular ailments; Tamara Perebeiniz, 62, thyroid disease; Lyudmila Vinokur, 62, thyroid disease. Perebeiniz and Vinokur have disabled husbands at home.

They had come for legal help against the government. They were not optimistic.

In fact, the government plans to cut the benefits that it hasn't been fully paying anyway.

"There is indignation everywhere," Andreyev said. "They're doing this even as the whole world is watching the disaster at Fukushima, and admiring the work of the liquidators there."

Svetlana Protsyk is head of Ukraine's Children of Chernobyl committee. The government is supposed to provide finances but has made no payments this year, she said. Her husband was at Chernobyl for three days in 1986, working three-minute shifts as a liquidator. He was back for 10 days in 1987. He was recently paralyzed on one side by a stroke. Her thyroid was removed in 2000. Doctors deny that her health problem is related to Chernobyl.

The question of Chernobyl's connection to illness is a thorny one. The liquidators are an aging cohort, and Ukraine is not a healthy society. One resident of Slavutych, Lyudmila Leshkovych, said her health might be worse if she had stayed in the heavily polluted industrial city of Zaporozhye to which she was originally evacuated.

A recent United Nations report, drawing on studies by Western researchers, said that 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer could be linked to Chernobyl but that evidence regarding other diseases is inconclusive.

Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusan researchers, however, say their studies show increased incidence of high blood pressure, stroke, vascular disease and non-malignant thyroid diseases among liquidators.

The uncertainty is wearing, though it fades.

"One day we'll lie down and die," Leshkovych said. "And that's it."

"They just want people to die off quicker"

The village of Kosachivka stands just outside the exclusion zone. Most of its houses are abandoned. Because it was moderately contaminated, its 400 remaining inhabitants receive government assistance ­ 20 cents a month ­ to enable them to buy "clean" food.

"They just want people to die off quicker," said Vladimir Stepanyets, 54, who spends his time tinkering with an old motorcycle and collecting spent tank shells from a nearby army firing range.

Near Pripyat ­ the abandoned and now overgrown dormitory city for Chernobyl, where moss grows on the central square and the wind thrums through the rusting Ferris wheel ­ lies a more haunting place. It was once the village of Kopachi, which happens to mean "Gravedigger" in Ukrainian. Every house there was buried in 1991 because of contamination. When Gravedigger was interred, only a nursery school was left standing, with a memorial to the Soviet soldiers and the fierce battles they fought here in World War II.

"No one forgets. Nothing is forgotten," reads the plaque on the memorial. But because of Chernobyl there is now no one here to remember.

englundw@washpost.com

###


(5) Frying blind: Frustrated monitor finds levels "immeasurable":

From: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_38.html

Plant radiation monitor says levels immeasurable

A radiation monitor at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says workers there are exposed to immeasurable levels of radiation.

The monitor told NHK that no one can enter the plant's No. 1 through 3 reactor buildings because radiation levels are so high that monitoring devices have been rendered useless. He said even levels outside the buildings exceed 100 millisieverts in some places.

Pools and streams of water contaminated by high-level radiation are being found throughout the facility.

The monitor said he takes measurements as soon as he finds water, because he can't determine whether it's contaminated just by looking at it. He said he's very worried about the safety of workers there.

Contaminated water and efforts to remove it have been hampering much-needed work to cool the reactors.

The monitor expressed frustration, likening the situation to looking up a mountain that one has to climb, without having taken a step up.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 19:51 +0900 (JST)

###


(6) Chernobyl book available NOW in printed form for only $10.00!

Chernobyl ­ Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, by Alexei V. Yablokov, Vastly B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Yesterenko. Consulting Editor: Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger. 327 pages.

Originally published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences at $150.00, the right to reprint has been transferred to the authors and is now available for $10.00, plus postage. This includes a separate index that was not part of the original book.

Number of Books Postage Total Cost
One @ $10.00 $2.77 $12.77
Five 50.00 4.72 54.72
Ten 100.00 7.45 107.45
Etc.!

Please order directly from:


GREKO PRINTING
260 W. Ann Arbor Rd.
Plymouth, MI 48170
734-...-....

e-mail: TONY@GREKOPRINTING.COM
Include credit card number and expiration date, number of books and address where they are to be sent.
Orders from foreign countries welcome ­ postage will be additional.


As we watch events unfold at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan, radioactive nuclides are spreading around the entire northern hemisphere. Prof. Yablokov and his colleagues cite some 5000 studies of wild and domestic animals, birds, fish, plants, trees, mushrooms, bacteria, viruses, and yes- humans - that were altered, some permanently as a result of the Chernobyl radioactive releases. Animals and humans developed similar abnormalities and diseases, including birth defects and cancers. Radioactive releases from Chernobyl continue today ­ 25 years later. This book documents the never-ending perils from nuclear power, Fukushima the most recent.

###



(7) Contact information for Ace Hoffman, the author of this newsletter:


Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Sunday, April 3, 2011

Gamma sponges, glow boys, suicide squads, jumpers, bio-robots and liquidators: It's all the same...

April 3rd, 2011

Dear Readers,

They call them "gamma sponges" and "glow boys." The teams are called "suicide squads."

Richard "Rich Rad" Meserve, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- and now head of a mindless Washington pro-nuclear lobbying think-tank -- calls them "jumpers" as if it were something fun to do. Or perhaps he considers the job healthy exercise. The suits are certainly very heavy, the work arduous, tedious, and dangerous.

Everyone learned to called them "liquidators" after Chernobyl, but there, they called themselves "bio-robots."

Why? Because they had to replace the robots that didn't work, on account of the fancy electronics don't work in highly radioactive environments. That's true today, too.

Their job? In Chernobyl it was to do things like: Heave sand and lead from a helicopter. For a total time over the reactor of just a minute or two.

A couple of trips. Then it's someone else's turn.

Or shovel radioactive graphite off the roof of the building for 45 seconds.

Then it's someone else's turn.

Or run in and turn a valve part way.

Then it's someone else's turn.

It required approximately 800,000 such young men to "clean up" Chernobyl (and I use the term "clean up" very, very loosely!). Virtually all were conscripted.

Now, they're dropping like flies. It's called the Chernobyl Syndrome:

"Heart, stomach, liver, kidneys... nervous system... our whole bodies were radically upset [by the radiation and chemical exposure]." -- testimony of a liquidator, from the movie Battle for Chernobyl (highly recommended):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

Their children and the children of people who were downwind from Chernobyl often wear what's called the "Chernobyl Necklace". It's the scar across their throat, left over from thyroid surgery.

Far worse abnormalities and deformities await many others, as well. Thyroid cancer is just the tip of the iceberg, though perhaps the easiest one to prevent and to cure.

The authorities supposedly kept track of everyone's radiation exposure, but really it was bogus. Needles on radiation detectors were pegged on "high." Radiation detectors themselves were in short supply. Cumulative dose badges were practically unavailable. Nearly everyone's exposure was projected, estimated, and calculated instead. These bogus records were then used by the Soviet state later, to deny that Chernobyl was the cause of their comrades' illnesses.

In Japan it's happening again: Needles are pegging on "high", detectors are in short supply, and exposures are being crudely estimated.

The "heros" -- as the media have aptly dubbed them -- who are working at the highly-irradiated Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant right now -- are reportedly receiving 20 times their normal day's pay for a day at Fukushima Daiichi.

And perhaps a thousand times their normal daily radiation dose.

Hardly worth it, but thank goodness somebody is willing to do it at any price. The world appreciates their effort. The problem is, nothing's working. Polymer sponge diapers (I kid you not, that's what they're trying) aren't working. Concrete isn't working. Sawdust and shredded newspaper (I kid you not...) isn't working. The plant is still leaking enormous amounts of radioactivity.

And they say that could go on for years.

Every nuclear power plant has the potential to become the next Fukushima. The next Chernobyl. Or the next "worst industrial accident ever" -- worse than Chernobyl. Worse than Fukushima.

Shut 'em down. This is crazy. We sacrifice our fellow citizens. We sacrifice ourselves. We sacrifice our future. We sacrifice our children. Shut 'em down forever.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA (images added 2025)

Today's items:
(1) Fukushima cancer forecast underlines need for evacuation (from Richard Bramhall, llrc)
(2) The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot
(3) The U.N. Cover Up of Ionizing Radiation Health FX
(4) "Three Mile Island Beatles" to be heard this Saturday on the Dr. Demento Show!
(5) Contact information for the author of this newsletter


(1) Fukushima cancer forecast underlines need for evacuation (from Richard Bramhall, llrc):
417,000 cancers forecast for Fukushima 200 km contamination zone by 2061

Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), Professor Chris Busby, has released calculations of the cancer incidence to be expected in fallout areas of Japan. Using data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and official Japanese web sites he has used two methods to estimate the numbers of cancer cases. He compares these results with estimates derived from ICRP modelling.

The "Tondel" Method is based on a conservative study by Martin Tondel in northern Sweden. This examined cancer incidence during 10 years after Chernobyl. It differentiated the varying levels of land contamination and found that the disease increased by 11% for each 100 kiloBecquerels of fallout per square metre of land surface. Professor Busby has applied this factor to the zone up to 100 km from the reactors, where IAEA has reported, on average, 600kBq per sq.m radioactivity. In the 3.3 million population of this 100 km zone a 66% increase over and above the pre-accident rate is predicted in 10 years. This implies 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures between 2012 and 2021.

Similarly applying the "Tondel" method to the ring between 100 km and 200 km from Fukushima (population 7.8 million but lower concentrations of fallout) 120,894 extra cancers are to be expected by 2021.

Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the "Tondel" method is thus 224,223 in ten years.

The second method is derived from weighting factors advised by the ECRR on the basis of the different ways in which different radionuclides behave in biological systems. This predicts 191,986 extra cancers in the 0 - 100km circle and 224,623 in the outer ring. Probably half of these will be expressed in the first ten years and the remainder between 10 and 50 years. Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the second method will be 416,619 of which 208,310 will appear in the first ten years. There is thus good agreement between the two methods.

The ICRP method predicts 6158 additional cancers in 50 years which, among the 2½ million cancer cases expected normally in that population over half a century, would be invisible and deniable.

The report with all methods, assumptions and data is a pdf linked from the front page: http://www.llrc.org/

Professor Chris Busby on Russia Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFRXHEeUUPQ

Professor Busby deconstructs media favourites Wade Allison, George Monbiot and other "experts": http://counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html

An acknowledgement about Dr. Richard Wakeford is included.

###


(2) The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot
By Joe Giambrone, Op Ed News

Quite the nauseating display on DemocracyNow the other day. Renowned doctor and scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott, with more than 3 decades intense study on this issue to her credit, attempted to school the British journalist on the gross ignorance and misinformation that guides his rationale. So, now Dr. Caldicott is a conspiracy theorist, fair game for snide rebukes and silly faces.

If Monbiot isn't a shill for the nuclear industry, then I could certainly get him set up there in about five seconds. Monbiot reveals his anti-intellectual agenda by repeatedly resorting to a false dichotomy:

"But I'm very worried that the global response to what's happening in Fukushima will be to shut down nuclear power stations around the world and to cancel future nuclear power stations, and that what will happen is that they will be replaced by coal." (Monbiot)

Thus begins a discussion of coal, which nobody suggested in the first place -- except Monbiot. This false choice, which I have heard time and again recently (like a PR script), is that our only decision is between nuclear and coal. Utter nonsense on its face. Monbiot leads with nonsense.

But it gets much worse, as you'll see.

Monbiot and his cult of technofascism either fail to understand the difference between radiation that is outside the body vs. radiation that is trapped internal to the body, or else they know full well and just don't give a damn.

Dr. Caldicott:

"You don't understand internal emitters. I was commissioned to write an article for the New England Journal of Medicine about the dangers of nuclear power. I spent a year researching it. You've bought the propaganda from the nuclear industry. They say it's low-level radiation. That's absolute rubbish. If you inhale a millionth of a gram of plutonium, the surrounding cells receive a very, very high dose. Most die within that area, because it's an alpha emitter. The cells on the periphery remain viable. They mutate, and the regulatory genes are damaged. Years later, that person develops cancer. Now, that's true for radioactive iodine, that goes to the thyroid; cesium-137, that goes to the brain and muscles; strontium-90 goes to bone, causing bone cancer and leukemia."

Bitchslapped, but does Monbiot accept basic medical facts from a specialist in the field? Of course not. It's time to obfuscate by appealing to a clearly unreliable United Nations study of Chernobyl (notably published by the IAEA). This study, blessed by the U.N., is greatly disputed by the doctors and scientists who actually live in the contaminated regions and have dealt directly with this catastrophe since 1986 (not tourists).

When directed to the New York Academy of Sciences compendium of 5,000 of these translated studies on Chernobyl, George Monbiot simply dismisses these numerous studies as "cherry picking."

"Well, we have to use the best available science, not cherry-pick our sources..."

He uses this buzzword at least three times, as he also uses the "climate change deniers" smear again and again. This is Monbiot's style of so-called "debate."

That U.N./IAEA report however relied on a specific 350 studies and used criteria to ignore increases in the cancer rate statistics post 1986. Their approach uses a minimum threshold of radiation exposure as an apriori condition to exclude everyone that -- in their opinion -- didn't receive enough of a radiation dose to be made sick (whether they actually were made sick or not). This U.N./IAEA "study" set the parameters such that they would only look at a specific demographic and exclude the rest of the population despite its ongoing exposure to lower levels of radiation and free floating radionucleide particles in the dust, crops and water.

In their own words:

"Because many organs and tissues were exposed as a result of the Chernobyl accident, it has been very common to use an additional concept, that of effective dose, which characterizes the overall health risk due to any combination of radiation. (emphasis in original)" (U.N./IAEA, 2006, p.12)

This statement reveals an unscientific bias, straight off the bat. Why should the U.N., while finding out how many people actually died from Chernobyl, need to rely on a fictional concept called "effective dose?" And further, this assumption that they can characterize someone's "overall health risk due to any combination of radiation" is a second fiction. They were supposed to be looking at just the facts on the ground, no (or below it)?

The U.N./IAEA does concede (unlike George Monbiot) that their numbers are not definitive, and that the true death toll cannot be known very accurately, particularly with the methodology they chose to employ:

"It is impossible to assess reliably, with any precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused by radiation exposure due to Chernobyl accident." (IAEA, p.7)

George Monbiot instead tells the world that this study produced the "official death toll from Chernobyl in 25 years."

The actual study also left room for the tally to grow, without directly admitting that it was surely much higher:

"The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures... the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent." (IAEA, p.15)

The "few per cent" are not included in what George Monbiot calls the "official death toll." Neither were the tens of thousands of stillbirths. And there is yet much dispute over spikes in nearly every type of cancer in those regions after 1986.

"Some radiation-induced increases in fatal leukaemia, solid cancers and circulatory system diseases have been reported in Russian emergency and recovery operation workers." (IAEA, p.16)

Again, not reflected in Mr. Monbiot's magical "official" toll of "43."

The IAEA exercise was a rigged study. It violated the scientific method. First you collect the data, and then you make sense of the findings. In the UN study, they first went to lengths to make sure data was restricted to only people whom they said had received certain exposure levels. That is the standard practice there.

Who's doing the "cherry picking" in this equation?

If George Monbiot's real concern is the "cherry picking" of studies and the corruption of science, he would be all over this situation and in agreement with Dr. Caldicott.

But, that's not the case.

Again Calidicott tries to educate Monbiot on the basic Nuclear 101 freshman introduction, to no avail:

"Nuclear power, George, creates massive quantities of radioactive waste. There is no way to put it on earth that's safe. As it leaks into the water over time, it will bioconcentrate in the food chains, in the breast milk, in the fetuses, that are thousands of times more radiosensitive than adults. One x-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the incidence of leukemia in the child. And over time, nuclear waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease, and random compulsory genetic engineering. And we're not the only species with genes, of course. It's plants and animals. So, this is an absolute catastrophe, the likes of which the world has never seen before."

Monbiot's moronic conclusion to all this:

"Now, on these questions that Helen raises, I mean, if she's honestly saying that the World Health Organization is now part of the conspiracy and the cover-up, as well, then the mind boggles. ... If them and the U.N. Scientific Committee and the IAEA and--I mean, who else is involved in this conspiracy? We need to know."

Of course Monbiot should know about the agreement between the WHO and the IAEA, May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, clause No. 12.40:

"whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement..."

The IAEA's purpose is:

"to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world."

So yes George, pure science takes a back seat to other interests as you should well know.

So whose "consensus" are we talking about?

In Monbiot's own newspaper, The Guardian from March 25th of 2006 (yes he worked there then):

"UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths

"United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month." (John Vidal)

"Leading scientists and researchers," George? In 2006? In your own newspaper?

George, did you follow up with these "leading scientists and researchers?" No, you could not have since you pretended to be so surprised by what Dr. Caldicott told you during your "debate."

The Guardian (2006) continues:

"An IAEA spokesman said he was confident the UN figures were correct. 'We have a wide scientific consensus of 100 leading scientists.'"

Wait a minute! An "IAEA spokesman" is handling this supposed "consensus" of just 100 "leading scientists?"

I thought it was a health issue, not a promotion of nuclear energy worldwide issue.

The IAEA flack tells The Guardian:

"If they have data that they think are excluded then they should send it."

Data that "they think" are excluded. That's cute.

"'At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine,'said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine. ... 'We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They've not said why they haven't accepted it.'" (Vidal)

So who are the true "leading" scientists, and who's got the real "consensus?"

Dr. Janette Sherman who edited the translated 5,000 European studies said:

"On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl." (Sherman, 2011)

Just how does the United Nations IAEA manage to ignore half a million to a million dead Eurasians?

It just so happens I've been going through some of the aforementioned excluded studies, and I found some interesting commentary pertaining to just that question.

"These findings indicate that the spectrum of developmental defects generated by incorporated radioactivity in humans may be much greater than derived by international radiation committees from the follow-up of Japanese A-bomb survivors. The findings are compatible with a particularly high radiosensitivity of the fetus... In contrast to this, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP has postulated a threshold dose as high as 100 mSv in Publication 90 of 2003 for effects after prenatal exposure. They and other committees exclude radiation effects by Chernobyl fallout referring to the very low doses which were derived for the population." (Wolfgang Hoffmann, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake: Malformations, Perinatal Deaths and Childhood Morbidity after In Utero Exposure by Chernobyl Fallout. Observations in Europe and Turkey, Institut für Community Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald and Universität Bremen, Fachbereich Physik und Elektrotechnik (i.R.), 2006)

The "threshold dose" concept is used as the determinant of who is counted and who is not. That's how the IAEA/WHO manipulates the data on Chernobyl and in-effect lies to the world on the horrors of radiation poisoning.

Multiple official sources confirm that there is no safe dose of radiation, at all:

Environmental Protection Agency: "" any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk."

Department of Energy: "" the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: "any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer ... any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk."

National Academy of Sciences: "... it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ...." (John LaForge: Dangerous Disinformation About Radiation, 2011)

It's not surprising that the UN is in favor of promoting nuclear power and glossing over its faults. All the powerful nations are pro-nuclear. It is these nations'governments who provide the "leading scientists" to write up the manipulated faux "consensus."

By the way, George Monbiot, cherry picking 100 experts (why not 99? Or 101?) is not the definition of a "consensus." I'm afraid I'm going to have to call that one out as a lie. You don't get to redefine the language.

The real consensus comes out of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and thereabouts:

"These results challenge the assumption of thresholds for genetic effects of low level ionizing radiation as well as the assumption of relatively high doubling doses for genetic effects as propagated by pertinent international commissions." (Hagen Scherb: Statistical Analysis of Genetic Effects after the Chernobyl Disaster, GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Biomathe-matics and Biometry, Neuherberg/Munich, 2006)

"They showed that the existence of the effect at the low foetal doses which had been received defined an error in the current ICRP risk model for this kind of exposure of upwards of 100-fold. ... The finding effectively falsifies the current radioprotection system for these kinds of internal exposures to fission products and suggests urgent reappraisal of the nuclear site child leukaemia clusters..." (Chris Busby: Infant Leukemia in Europe after Chernobyl and its Significance for Radiation Protection. A meta-analysis of three countries including new data from the United Kingdom, University of Liverpool, Dept of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, And Green Audit, Aberystwyth, UK, 2006)

"Deteriorated radiation situation in Ukraine has adversely affected the brain tumor incidence in infants thereby leading to over 2.3 times growth of total patient population and 6.2 times growth in the number of patients under 1 year." (Yuri Orlov, Andrey Shaversky, V. Mykhalyuk: Intracranial Neoplasms in Infants of Ukraine. An Epidemiological Study, Institute of Neurosurgery named after acad. A.P.Romodanov, AMSU, Kiev, 2006)

"It should be noted that earlier made prognosis for thyroid cancer failed, and real picture has surpassed all expectations." (A. E. Okeanov 1 , E. A. Sosnovskaya: Incidence of Malignant Tumors Among Different Groups of Belarusian Population Affected to the Chernobyl Accident, International State Environmental University, Minsk, Republic of Belarus and Republican Research-Practical Center of Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology, Gomel, Republic of Belarus, 2006)

"Thus, it was shown that small doses of radiation are statistically significant risk factors of malignant development." (Emilia A. Diomina: Radiation Epidemiological Studies in a Group of Liquidators of the Chernobyl Accident Consequences, R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of Na-tional Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, 2006)

We hear a lot of chatter from pundits like Monbiot how we are surrounded by background radiation. Have you once seen them distinguish between the radiation source outside the body vs. one emitting inside your body and jammed up against your cells and DNA?

You don't hear them concede that pregnant women aren't allowed to receive x-rays either. Their arguments tend to fall apart under scrutiny. These findings were quite sobering:

"The wrong general assumption of a constant linear radiation effect from high to zero (half a dose, half the effect) is unfortunately even today still the base of the radiation protection laws, although supralinear effects in vivo (Petkau effect) are today confirmed on all levels of [life] including man." (Ralph Graeub, Langnau, Schweiz: The Petkau Effect, Chernobyl - 20 Years Later - Experiences and Lessons for the Future, 2006)

"Chernobyl's radioactive contamination at levels in excess of 1 Ci/km2 (as of 1986 -1987) is responsible for 3.8 -4.4% of the overall mortality in areas of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. In several other European countries with contamination levels around 0.5 Ci/km2 (as of 1986 -1987), the mortality is about 0.3 -0.7% (see Chapter II.7). Reasonable extrapolation for additional mortality in the heavily contaminated territories of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus brings the estimated death toll to about 900,000, and that is only for the first 15 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe. " (Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko, Alexey Nesterenko: Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, New York Academy of Sciences, VOLUME 1181, 2009)

And then we finish up with DemocracyNow, March 30 2011, live...

"GEORGE MONBIOT:--that so far the death toll from Chernobyl amongst both workers and local people is 43. Am I--sorry, are you saying you didn't know that they had examined this--

HELEN CALDICOTT: That's a lie, George. That's a lie."

In sum: If you believe that less than fifty people died after the greatest nuclear meltdown in history, then I've got a fantastic house to sell you, mansion, pool, hot tub, everything. It's a steal... just outside Fukushima, Japan. Ocean view, stunning. Email me (George).

Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker, troublemaker, and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits the Political Film Blog. polfilmblog at gmail.

###


(3) The U.N. Cover Up of Ionizing Radiation Health FX:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-UN-Cover-Up-of-Ionizi-by-Lynda-Williams-110402-173.html?show=votes

By Lynda Williams

April 3, 2011 at 10:25:42

I watched this video click here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/1/MognnB0g56Y earlier today on Russian TV in which Dr.Chris Busby, British scientist and expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation, says that what is most similar between Fukushima and Chernobyl is how much we are being lied to about the seriousness of the consequences. He actually said that Fukushima may be worse because of the high population in the area. Sadly, I spent the rest of the day learning about one of the most evil and horrific scientific and political coverups of all time.

First stop I found this article http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/busby_radiation.htm by Dr. Busby on the Fukushima Radiation Risks. In it he says that an independent european group of scientists working on the The Low Level Radiation Campaign (http://www.llrc.org) predict that

"Radioactivity from the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the ICRP radiation risk model is unsafe for this purpose. 17,000 cancers will be caused by Fukushima within the 200 km contamination zone by 2061."

So why do we keep hearing 'experts'say that ''the radiation levels are safe'" It is because they are basing the risk on an old outdated and wrong model. It is the ICRP http://www.icrp.org/) risk model that the UN and its organizations such as IAEA and UNSCEAR uses to determine the risk due to low level radiation. The ICRP risk model was developed after the Hiroshima nuclear blast and includes exposures and dosages due only to EXTERNAL gamma radiation, not any INTERNAL RADIATION!! It is an entirely outdated model and has been falsified over and over again but these scientific results are suppressed. So. every time you see a chart that shows the health consequences of radiation doses, they are all WRONG because they are based on the ICRP model which is what IAEA and every agency at the UN uses and as well as text book, every reporter and every educator, including me. Up until today. I will no longer perpetuate the lies and coverup.

The European Commitee on Radiation Risk (ECRR http://www.euradcom.org/ ) has developed and tested a new risk model that is based on internal absorption and exposure to radiation. Their model correlates higher cancer rates due to low dosages that are 100x greater than the ICRP model. They have made their study available online http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf free due to Fukushima. Here is what Dr. Busby says about the different models:

"Take the dose which is published by the authorities. Multiply it by 600. This is the approximate ECRR dose for the mixture of internal radionuclides released from Fukushima. Then multiply this number by 0.1. This is the ECRR 2010 cancer risk."

Most of this is clearly explained in this video http://vimeo.com/15382750 which took place in Stockholm, 22nd April 2009. The recently resigned Scientific Secretary of the ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin concedes to Dr. Chris Busby, that the ICRP model can not be used to predict the health effects of exposures and that for certain internal exposures it is underestimates the risk by up to two orders of magnitude (100 times). He also said that as he was no longer employed by ICRP he could agree that the ICRP and the United Nations committee on radiation protection (UNSCEAR) had been wrong in not examining the evidence from the Chernobyl accident, and other evidence outlined below, which shows large errors in the ICRP risk model. Transcript of the video here: http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvostranscript.htm

The UN's report on the health consequences of Chernobyl from UNSCEAR is here: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html . It is full of lies: 31 workers dead, 2000 children from leukemia. What is astounding to learn is that the IAEA only counts deaths that have been verified by Los Alamos and its equivalent in France - two nuclear bomb makers!! This is madness. Did you know that?

The independent European Group published a study you can download for free and the New York Academy of Science published a study based on Russian science research that claims that 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. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

you can read on google books or here is a review: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23745

Another VERY important video to watch is "Nuclear Controversies" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826 a film made by acclaimed Swiss journalist Wladimir Tchertkoff in which he shows scientists debating the science at the UN regarding the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident.

If you are a self proclaimed 'realist'or 'rationalist'you may not like this video because it does show sick children.

(Image: Russian 14 year old, sick, because of exposure to Chernobyl Radioactive exposure (screen capture from movie).)

Many of you all think that this somehow disqualifies an argument, if there is anything emotional or human about it. So get over it. We are all human. Buck up and watch the Russian scientists rage at the UN liars. They know the consequences. Their families are dying. And Russian scientists are jailed for publishing their scientific studies that dispute the political line. It doesn't make them irrational. It makes them passionate. And there is a huge real difference.

Why is this information suppressed? Why do these agencies keep using the ICRP model when it is clearly false and underestimates risk? I think it is partly due to greed and technology worship. We want to believe that technology and science can save us. We are in a nuclear quagmire. And who is going to pay to clean up the radioactive mess around the world? We are in a nuclear quagmire and we have no idea how to get out of it. So underestimate the risk and keep going business as usual.

And let us never overlook that GE, who pays no taxes, built the Fukushima reactor and 23 'sister'reactors in the US. Are they liable for any of this? No. You can see here if there is one near you. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

###


(4) "Three Mile Island Beatles" to be heard this Saturday on the Dr. Demento Show!
I wrote to Dr. Demento yesterday and asked him if he happened to have a digitized copy of my comedy routine about Three Mile Island called Three Mile Island Beatles, which I created in 1979. I wanted to create a video montage to go along with it, and post it on You-Tube along with No Cause For Alarm which I posted a few days ago.

This morning Dr. Demento responded by sending me a copy! He also informed me that the routine is already in the pipeline to be aired Saturday, April 9, 2011 on his nationally-syndicated comedy radio show! To find out more;

www.drdemento.com

My thanks to Dr. Demento for holding onto the tape, for sending me a copy so promptly, and, of course, for playing it several times on his show, the last time as recently as 2008!

-- Ace Hoffman



(5) Contact information for the author of this newsletter:


Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Friday, April 1, 2011

Comedy about Fukushima and Chernobyl: "No Cause For Alarm"

April Fool's Day, 2011

Dear Readers,

I've posted a short "new" comedy routine about the similarities between Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's available on YouTube:

The audio track is from a comedy routine I released about Chernobyl shortly after it happened nearly 25 years ago, which was played on the Dr. Demento Show. The images are from Chernobyl and Fukushima mixed together.

See the YouTube description for more information.

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman

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

Ace Hoffman
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org

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