Posts Tagged ‘emissions’


updated Sep21st 2016

one Curie -about 37,000.000,000 disintegrations per second

thanks to Maureen Roy for the study

The actual number of leaking fuel rods in the reactor can not be determined with certainty, said Prof. Tsivoglou, a nuclear expert, who made reports and certificates in the nuclear field / for reactors.The emissions to air and water will also depend on the leakage rate. The radioactive output from the chimney and into the water is very different.
The normal continuous reactor operation will generate a chimney emissions of 0,01 to 0,02 Curie per second = 370,000,000 Becquerel to 740 000 000 Becquerel per second – PER UNIT / REACTOR.
_ What is the benchmark, how much is a nuclear power plant allowed to emit?
According to radiation protection regulation nuclear facilities may not irradiate the general population with more than a maximum of 0,6 millisievert per year (0,3 millisievert through the air plus 0,3 millisievert through sewage). This is often misleadingly called a “30-millirem-concept”, using the unit millirem (which was used in the past). In order to estimate the dose of a nuclear power plant that causes (measurable) effects, operators of the facility and the licensing authorities calculate the effects of emissions on fictional local residents, the (a) so-called “reference man”. Hereby a number of more or less well-founded assumptions and realistic models are used – from dilution and spread of the exhaust gases to the living, eating and drinking habits of “reference man”. Which is, by the way, always a young, healthy, adult male. https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/pregnant-avoid-the-nuclear-power-plants/
The upper standard of gross emissions can be achieved: 0,05 Curie per second = 1 850 000 000 Becquerel per second – PER UNIT / REACTOR.
This makes 59,200,000,000,000,000 Becquerel per Year – PER UNIT / REACTOR.
Worldwide this makes: 23,680,000,000,000,000,000 per Year for ALL operating Reactors, EACH YEAR.
This is in ONE YEAR already 13 times the official Emission for Chernobyl (50 million curie) the IAEA has calculated. In ONE year.
Independent sources say the Chernobyl emission was more than 5 billion curie, or 185,000,000,000,000,000,000 becquerel.
Let’s compare the radioactive emissions from the reactors with the Bomb Tests, with a quote from the CTBTO, which operates the global radiation detection network:
“A number of underground tests were also carried out from September 1957, with all testing going underground after 1962. “Storax Sedan” was part of the Operation Plowshare programme to investigate the use of nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes such as mining. It caused more radioactive fallout contamination than any other nuclear explosion conducted in the United States. Detonated on 6 July 1962, Sedan released roughly 880,000 curies of Iodine 131 into the atmosphere.”
That is only the Iodine: 32,560,000,000,000,000 becquerel.
“The total amount of plutonium-239 released to the atmosphere as a result of the 23 atmospheric nuclear tests is estimated at 3,300 curies, approximately 48 kilograms in weight. One millionth of a gram of plutonium-239 can cause cancer if inhaled. The amount of plutonium-239 still contained within the Lop Nor site in 1991 as a result of underground nuclear testing was estimated by IPPNW as 1,800 curies (25 kilograms). A further two million curies of caesium-137 and 1.3 million curies of strontium-90 were released into the atmosphere.” https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-states-nuclear-testing-programme/
and: “According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the tests in the Marshall Islands released 6.3 billion curies (See Chart 2) of I-131 alone, which is 42 times the amount released by atmospheric nuclear testing in Nevada.”
But it can be again compared to a SINGLE REACTOR (remember the 16,000,000,000 becquerel inventory of each reactor) – this time with a Spent Fuel Pool: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm
Let’s compare the bomb tests to reactor emissions (thanks Bob Farquar for all the data!)
“1952 – ‘Fox’ detonated atop a 300 foot (90m) tower on Yucca Flat area 4 at 11:59 GMT with a yield of 11 kilotons from the LANL device, a Mk-5, during Operation Tumbler-Snapper, releasing 1.6 million curies of Iodine-131 into the atmosphere. 28th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.0955, -116.1064″
“1953 – ‘Grable’ detonated 524 feet (160m) above Frenchman Flat area 5 at 15:30 GMT with a yield of 15 kilotons from the LANL device, a Mk-9 cannon shell, after being fired from a 280MM cannon during Operation Upshot-Knothole as part of a weapons effects test, releasing 2.1 million curies of Iodine-131 into the atmosphere. 42nd U.S. test. Coordinates: 36.793, -115.9156.”
1967 – Two hours and thirty minutes later at 15:00 GMT, ‘Knickerbocker’ detonated in a vertical shaft 2,069 feet (630m) beneath Pahute Mesa area U20 with a yield of 76 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Latchkey, causing a 5.54 magnitude ground shock and venting 110 curies of Xenon-133 over a period of 5.6 days during drill-back operations. 503rd U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.24789, -116.48106″
“1970 – ‘Hudson Moon’ detonated in a tunnel 1,386 feet (422m) beneath Rainier Mesa area U12 at 14:16 GMT with a yield of 9 kilotons from the LLNL device as part of a weapons effects test during Operation Mandrel, causing a 5.9 magnitude ground shock and venting 3 curies of Xenon-135 in an uncontrolled release lasting 20 hours. 651st U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.18256, -116.21427.”
“7.18256, -116.21427.– Forty-four minutes later at 15:00 GMT, ‘Flask-Green-1’, ‘Flask-Yellow-2’, and ‘Flask-Red-3’ detonated simultaneously at 15:00 GMT in separate but adjacent vertical shafts beneath Yucca Flat area U2 with varying yields from the three LLNL devices as part of a Project Plowshares fundamental research test on development of clean devices for hard rock excavation during Operation Mandrel, causing a 5.6 magnitude ground shock, creating a 974 foot (297m) diameter subsidence crater and venting 25,000 curies of Xenon-133 from surface ground zero pipes and cables. 652nd U.S. test.
‘Flask-Green-1’ coordinates: 37.11336, -116.06354 Depth: 1,735 feet (529m) Yield:”
“1957 – ‘Boltzman’ detonated atop a 490 foot (150m) tower on Yucca Flat area 7 at 11:55 GMT with a yield of 12 kilotons from the LANL weapons development device – an XW-40 lightweight boosted fission warhead – during the first test of Operation Plumbbob, releasing 1.9 million curies of Iodine-131 and Strontium-90 into the atmosphere. 87th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.0947, -116.0245.”
“1970 – ‘Piton-C’ detonated in a vertical shaft 330 feet (100m) beneath Yucca Flat area U9 at 11:45 GMT with a yield of 2.5 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Mandrel, causing a 4.2 magnitude ground shock and releasing 25,000 curies of effluents over a period of 2.4 hours from surface ground zero. 653rd U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.13842, -116.03079.”
“Fifteen minutes later at 12:00 GMT, ‘Piton-1’ and ‘Piton-2’ detonated simultaneously in separate 775 foot (236m) deep shafts beneath Yucca Flat area U9 with yields of 0.8 kilotons and <20 kilotons respectively from the two LLNL weapons development devices during Operation Mandrel, causing a 3.8 magnitude ground shock and venting >10 curies of Xenon from surface ground zero. 654th U.S. test.
‘Piton-1’ coordinates: 37.14393, -116.03349.
‘Piton-2’ coordinates: 37.14056, -116.03497″
“1963 – Two hours and 58 minutes later at 16:58 GMT, ‘Apshapa’ detonated in a vertical shaft 291 feet beneath Yucca Flat area U9 with a yield <20 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Storax, venting 4 curies of Xenon-133 from surface ground zero for a period of 25 minutes following detonation and for four hours during drill-back operations. 328th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.12459, -116.04092.”
“1968 – ‘Tub-A’, ‘Tub-B’, ‘Tub-C’, ‘Tub-D’, and ‘Tub-F’ detonated simultaneously in separate vertical shafts beneath Yucca Flat area U10 at varying depths with unspecified yields from the five LLNL weapons development devices during Operation Crosstie. ‘Tub-D’ vented 1,600 curies of Xenon and Krypton during gas sampling operations. 550th U.S. test.”
“1977 – ‘Carnelian’ detonated in a vertical shaft 682 feet (208m) beneath Yucca Flat area U4 at 14:07 GMT with a yield of 0.6 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Fulcrum, causing a 3.7 magnitude ground shock and venting 6.8 curies of Xenon-133 during drill-back operations. 814th U.S test. Coordinates: 37.09751, -116.09182″
“1957 – ‘Wheeler’ detonated beneath a tethered balloon 490 feet (150m) above Yucca Flat area B9 at 12:45 GMT with a yield of 0.197 kilotons (197 tons) from the LLNL weapons development device, an XW-51 air-to-air warhead progenitor, during Operation Plumbbob, venting 29,000 curies of Iodine-131 into the atmosphere. 107th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.1347, -116.0417″
“1962 – ‘Raritan’ detonated in a vertical shaft 516 feet (157m) beneath Yucca Flat area U9 at 17:00 GMT with a yield of 2 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Storax, leaving a 196 foot diameter subsidence crater and venting 1,200 curies of radiation for 8 hours during drill-back operations from the post-shot hole casing. 276th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.13026, -116.04561″
“1968 – ‘Noggin’ detonated in a vertical shaft 1,908 feet (581m) beneath Yucca Flat area U9 at 14:00 GMT with a yield of 120 kilotons from the LLNL weapons development device during Operation Bowline, causing a 5.6 magnitude ground shock, leaving a 984 foot (300m) diameter subsidence crater and venting 16 curies of Xenons over a period of 3 hours from the drill-back ventilation system. 574th U.S. test. Coordinates: 37.13597, -116.04824.”
Really there is no difference between a reactor and a bomb. Both emit damaging radionuclides into the world. The bomb only when it explodes, but the reactor explodes in slow motion each second! So slow it is called controlled chain reaction, but basically the same thing happens in it. While a normal reactor houses the radioactivity of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, the “Spent” Fuel Pools even more!.
Not considered even is the emission of Krypton 85 (full decay time is 100 years) from Reactors. It is hold back in the Contaiment furing operation. But the fuel is then send as Spent Fuel to Reprocessing facilities, which release the Krypton from all the reactors fuel. From worldwide reactors where they get it.  So, in the end it IS emitted. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/193/4249/195.extract
The estimated emissions from a facility reprocessing and irradiating 1,400 tons reactor fuel per year is one million Curie TRITIUM (full decay time is 120 years) or 37,000,000,000,000,000 becquerel:

NFCNWCfrom ratical.org

some quotes, showing how the military industrial complex works:

“In 1974 the operators of the huge Savannah River weapons facility at Aiken, South Carolina, accidentally released some 435,000 curies of radioactive tritium in a single day—the largest single tritium emission ever reported in the U.S. Studies of the local water system show serious contamination, and there are preliminary indications of an escalated cancer rate among people living near the plant”


Cobalt 60 fabrication plants, for example, are allowed to expose the public to twenty times more radiation than a commercial reactor. Many of the small radiation by-product plants are also located in thickly populated areas. American Atomics sat just a few hundred yards from a trailer park, a church, a day-care center, a potato chip warehouse, several homes, and the central kitchen for the Tucson public school system. The plant regularly leaked large quantities of tritium gas into the atmosphere—285,000 curies of it in 1978 alone, according to company records. In September of that year a maintenance worker opened the wrong valve and sent into the Tucson air a single “puff” of twenty-one thousand curies, a sizable dose. The public was not informed.”

“In 1958 the military threw an entire atomic reactor vessel, containing thirty thousand curies of radiation, into the Atlantic. It later tried to retrieve the vessel, but could not find it”

FROM: http://www.nucleardemolition.com/Killing_Our_Own.pdf

A normal reactor houses 16 billion curie of radiation, or 1,000 hiroshima bombs.


Among all these radionuclices are some very damaging ones:
STRONTIUM: Worldwide deposition of strontium-90 through 1990: Keep in Mind: Per ton Uranium there is 836,0 gram (29,5oz) of Strontium 89 & 90. ONE gram Strontium 90 (0.035oz) has a specific activity of 5,300,000,000,000 Becquerel: KEEP THAT IN MIND, if you read somewhere: Only 0,5 g Strontium 90… The Becquerel counts! Full decay time is 285 years = 10 human generations… It mimics Calcium and can be measured in Baby teeth and bones, the most important home of stem cells http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/243453
CESIUM : “The relative risks for stillbirth and preliminary malformations are 0,5 – 2 % per 1000 becquerel of Cesium 137 in m² soil.” Page 33: http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/ScherbVoigt_fehlbildungen_fehlende_geburten.pdf by Dr. , Scherb, Institute of Biomathematics and Biometry Germany

Not the bombs on the launch pad irradiate us, the reactors do!

Protest against Nuclear weapons? Do you know what it is?
A distraction. To distract us away from the damage by Nuclear Energy. Not true? Look at only ONE reactor. A normal commercial reactor houses the radioactivity of 1,000 nuclear bombs, or 16 billion curie. And it emits each second parts of it.
Yes, there are two types of nuclear weapons. The one sitting on its launch pad or in the silo / sub. The other type of nuclear weapon is decelerated (controlled chain reaction) and produces electricity and cancer. Now look at the one dimensional protest movement again, It should read: DISARM the NUCLEAR REACTORS!

Read Full Post »

The technical limit requires human sacrifice


Every reactor releases 50 micro curie of radioactive gases: which is 1,850,000 becquerel EACH SECOND!

The Boiling Water Manual from GE, also for TEPCO`s holocaust reactors:

page 73: CLICK!

page 76: CLICK!

1,555,036,000,000,000 Becquerel (water & air) = 42000 Curie. Source: EdF France http://energie.edf.com/fichiers/fckeditor/Commun/En_Direct_Centrales/Nucleaire/Centrales/Fessenheim/Publications/documents/Umwelt%20&%20Strahlenschutz_Juli_August2011.pdf 1,850,000 Becquerel into air – Source: GE USA: https://tekknorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ge-ari2.jpg It can reach 0,01 – 0,02 Curie per Second from Reactor Chimney and even 0,05 Curie – which are 1,600,000 Curie per Year: “Radioactive Pollution Control in Minnesota, Final Report for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – by by Ernest Tsivogloue”. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/detail.jsp?osti_id=16313726&query_id=0

Every reactor releases 0,01 micro Curie of Iodine 131 PER SECOND – which is 370 becquerel.


remember the 1,850,000,000,000,000,000 Becquerel of Chernobyl.


per minute: Iodine 131 = 22,200 becquerel

per hour: Iodine 131 = 1,332,000 becquerel

per day: Iodine 131 = 31,968,000 becquerel

per week: Iodine 131 = 223,776,000 becquerel

per month: Iodine 131 = 671,328,000 becquerel

per year: Iodine 131 = 8,055,936,000 becquerel

= 0.2 curies by ONE reactor in ONE year. “Only” Iodine 131.

It is not primarily about earthquakes or tests. It is the “NORMAL” reactor operation.

NOW: Let’s add the 50 micro curie of radioactive gases: which is 1,850,000 becquerel PER SECOND!

per minute: radioactive gases = 111,000,000 becquerel

per hour:  radioactive gases = 6,660,000,000 becquerel

per day:  radioactive gases = 159,840,000,000 becquerel

per week:  radioactive gases = 1,118,880,000,000 becquerel

per month:  radioactive gases = 4,795,200,000,000 becquerel

per year:  radioactive gases = 57,542,400,000,000 becquerel

= 1555.2 curies of radioactive gases by ONE reactor in ONE year. “Only” radioactive gases.

nuclear-reactor-war reactor-bomb-evolution

A Ractor? A decelerated Bomb.
This is “controlled” chain reaction.
Inside there is so much plutonium as in 40 Nagasaki bombs.
And as much Uranium as in 1000 Hiroshima bombs.
Enough for all of us. In one reactor. A reactor means WAR.

Read Full Post »



The experts talk about radiation.

Where it is, how much is irradiated…

What is radiation?


Atoms are everywhere.

There are no clear boundaries, there are no limits at all.

Imagination is required, not arrogant expertise.

This war takes everywhere, but invisible, in the inner of Matter.

Because we live in the age of the icon we confuse it with reality.
We press the reality into a template until it fits.

We find all the numbers from the textbook.

No one can measure millions of square miles, each cm, every soil layer, every plant, every bee. It’s biodiversity, it’s food chain. It’s dynamic.

I show you 3 examples:

Official (pro nuclear) IAEA data: Chernobyl released 50 million curie into the world: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/Chernobyl@10p2.html

50 million curie are: 1,850,000,000,000,000,000 Becquerel (1.85e+18) released by CHERNOBYL.

1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85… Just remember this number ONE point EIGHT FIVE and the 50

let’s look at the Boiling Water Manual from GE, also for Fukushima:

page 73: CLICK!

page 76: CLICK!

Every reactor releases 50 micro curie of radioactive gases: which is 1,850,000 becquerel PER SECOND!

There is the 50 and the 1,85 again!

It’s all from the textbook!

It’s not the reality!

Can you control atoms?

>>>> A normal reactor releases 1,850,000 becquerel per second. Multiply it with x 10 = 18,500,000 becquerel – these are also the offical MAXIMUM LEVELS of radionuclide activity in the exclusion Chernobyl zone in Belarus (from the 1995 Belarus NATIONAL Report):

Again the 1,85 !

They press reality into their simulation models. Especially Chernobyl. The 50 Mio Curie are used to conceal the fact, that ALL Inventory was thrown out in 1986, thats more than 5 billion curie, not 50 million. But they use the textbook to conceal it, in order to prove that even during an explosion a reactor safe. And now these madmen build a 2nd sarcophagus around and EMPTY reactor, to even underline the 27 years old lie!

From Prof. Pflugbeil (Germany) “Checherow and I went inside the destroyed reactor in Unit IV, as he is there crowled everywhere, even on the bottom of the reactor – accompanied by a small film crew.”

Footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5neBujiFU&feature=related

Look at the Radiation Maps from Japan, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia:

Official BELARUSIAN radiation maps (from the textbook, and not real measurements): http://www.rbic.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256&Itemid=86

Rough and inaccurate radiation maps of BELARUS (Am241, Cs137, Sr90, Pu239 & 240), in Curie per km²: http://chornobyl.in.ua/karta-belorussii.html

and RUSSIAhttp://chornobyl.in.ua/karty-zagriaznenia-rossii.html and UKRAINE: http://chornobyl.in.ua/karta-radionulid-ukraine.html

Everywhere the same: You have the Becquerel and the Curie, the 1,480 kBq are the equivalent of the 40 Curie, but there are areas with 170 Curie, with even more than 1,000 Curie!

HERE: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016862#pone-0016862-g001

No where to be seen on the these maps! TOTAL BLACKOUT! It’s atoms! Nothing you can easily control. You can MEASURE your food!

Read Full Post »



Nuclear power plants make children sick
Questions and answers about cancer risk around nuclear facilities

Original PDF File: http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/atomkraftwerke_machen_kinder_krank.pdf 

translation by: 巣三根 スサンネ  and: Jere Licciardello

When speaking of the dangers of nuclear power plants, most people think of incidents in which radioactivity is released, or they think of large reactor accidents such as Windscale, Chernobyl and Harrisburg. It is less known, though, that everyday normal operations of nuclear facilities and their “tolerable emissions” already are a threat.
The closer children live to a nuclear power plant, the higher is their risk of developing cancer. The until now most elaborate study on this issue from 2007 (LINK & SUMMARY) verified that without doubt. But it had no consequences: Instead, supporters of nuclear power strive to conceal the proven link between cancer and nuclear power plants.
In this issue, its grave results and discussions about them are described.

_Do children who grow up near a nuclear power plant have a higher rate of cancer than other children?
Yes, definitely. The cancer risk increases the closer the infant to a nuclear power plant lives. Thus children who are raised up to five kilometers of a German nuclear power plant, have a by 60 percent increased risk of getting cancer. Their risk of developing leukemia (blood cancer), is even increased by 120 percent – more than twice as high compared to children who do not live near a nuclear power plant. Leukemia is among the cancers that are particularly easily induced by radiation (1). Even at a distance of 50 kilometers from a nuclear power plant the risk of developing cancer in children is increased. The results of the epidemiological investigation are actually highly significant at close range. That is, the proven clustering of cancer cases around nuclear power plants can not be explained by simple “coincidence”. 1980 to 2003 121 to 275 infants across the country only fell ill with cancer, because they lived close to a nuclear power plant.


_What is this study that proved increased Cancer risk?
The so-called KiKK study. The acronym stands for “Epidemiological Study of Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants “(2). It has been commissioned in March 2003, by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), a subordinate to the Federal Environment Ministry Authority. The German Childhood Cancer Registry at the Institute for Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Computer science (IMBEI), University of Mainz, has carried out the study and was scientifically monitored by an external panel of experts from twelve physicians, pidemiologists, physicists and statisticians. The study was published in December 2007. It is the world’s most sophisticated, most accurate and most comprehensive investigation on the topic.

_Was there even earlier evidence of increased cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants?
Yes. Already in 1978, publications on leukemia cases in children who lived in the main wind direction of the NPP Lingen (Ems) caused trouble. In the 1980s, studies in England showed that children, who live in the vicinity of nuclear installations, have an increased risk of developing leukemia.(3)(4) Also in the vicinity of the NPP Gundremmingen there was evidence of diseases and malformations of the extremities or the internal organs in newborns.
In the beginning of the 1990s, an unusual accumulation of cases of leukemia, a so-called “cluster” in the vicinity of the NPP Krümmel in Geesthacht at the river Elbe caused a heated debate. A study of the Mainz Institute for Medical Statistics and Documentation (IMSD) from 1992, using data from 1980 to 1990, has failed to indicate an increase in childhood cancer rates within the 15-kilometer radius around nuclear plants, but showed a significant increase in incidence of leukemia in small children under five years within the proximity of five kilometers.(5) In a second study of the IMSD, the so-called Michaelis-study published in 1997 with data from 1980 to 1995, that result was not alleged any longer.(6) Only until the study of 1998 by the Munich based physicist Dr. Alfred Körblein who reanalysed Michaelis’ data showed again an increase by 54-percent in children under five years and an increased incidence of leukemia by 76 percent within the five kilometer area (7) Following public pressure from the Ulm initiative doctors (“Ulmer Ärzteinitiative”) and other South German initiatives – including 10 000 letters of protest by citizens – and the IPPNW the Federal Office for Radiation Protection comissioned in 2001 a methodologically sophisticated study, which later became the KiKK study.

_What questions should the survey answer?
The panel of external experts and the Federal Office for Radiation protection decided on three questions that the KiKK study should answer: Do cancers in children under five occur more frequently in the vicinity of nuclear power plants than anywhere else? If yes: Does the risk increase with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”)? Are there influencing factors that are able to explain the results of the investigation?

_What were the precise characteristics of the population under study?
What did the study attempt to learn?
All administrative districts located within the 50-kilometer radius of all of Germany’s nuclear power plant sites(15). were studied*, including 21 operating nuclear reactors.
* NPP Lingen and NPP Emsland were regarded as one location, due to their great proximity.


Rate of cancer among children attributable to living close to nuclear power plants 1980 – 2003
dark gray: from; light gray: until – Less than 5 – less than 10 – less than 20 – less than 30 – less than 40 – less than 50 km distance to the next nuclear power plant

Because conclusions have greater statistical power the larger the data base, researchers chose an extended study period: 24 years, from 1980 to 2003.
The Mainz Children’s Cancer Registry registered nationwide all newly diagnosed cancers in children since 1980, eliminating bias of reporting from
multiple regional registries.1,592 new cancer cases cancer, 593 of them from leukemia, were found in the study group of children < age 5. A case-control study, the question needed to be answered as to how many cases might be expected due to chance alone. The control group must be carefully selected. In this case the control group were children
A case-control study is more complex. Hence, the study population from which “cases” were tallied were the children in the 5 km. from a nuclear plant in the same districts.

The control group included a total of 4,735 children. For every ill and every healthy child, the researchers determined the distance between housing and exhaust chimney of the nuclear power plant accurate to 25 meters. This distance served as an approximation (“surrogate”) for the expected radioactivity in the area of the dwelling – because it is simply not possible to measure radioactivity precisely in approximately 6,327 dwellings directly around the clock and for years or even to determine it retrospectively.

_ What are the answers the study gives to the three questions?
Yes, children under five years of age who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants do have a higher rate of cancer than anywhere else.
Yes, the risk of disease increases with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”).
No, apart from the distance between home and nuclear power plant, no other factors were found that could explain the outcome of the investigation, despite extensive search. Thus, there was and is no doubt that the radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants cause the increased cancer rate and particularly the greatly increased incidence of leukemia in young children.

_ Why did the study only investigate the cancer of small children?
Infants are much more sensitive to radiation than adults. Therefore it is more likely one can find “execss cases” in childhood cancer and leukemia given a limited sample size.
There are several reasons for this:
First, a child is steadily increasing weight and size, as it grows from embryo to adulthood; the younger it is the more quickly it grows. Therefore, cells of an embryo, fetus, infant, infant divide significantly more frequently than those of a child, teenager or even adult. Dividing cells(mitosis) are much more susceptible to radiation than cells in recovery phase.
Secondly, the ability to identify (“surveillance”) and eliminate “defective” cellsis not fully developed in childhood. the human embryo is programed for rapid growth. Without this cellular repair mechanism at its disposal, stem cells, such as those that are caused by radioactive exposure, may br induced to continue to divide beyond the programmed point when they might normally be turned off in normal fetal development. This could, and does sometimes, lead to cancer or leukemia, or other birth defects.
Third, a growing child absorbs more matter than it releases – in contrast to an adult. Its body accepts radioactive substances in food, drink and air more avidly.

Particularly dangerous are radioactive cesium and strontium, which emit for a very long time and remain in muscles or bones.
Fourth, children have their whole lives ahead of them. In some radiation-induced diseases, it takes a long time, until they can be detected, sometimes 20 or even 30 years. Children have more than (older) adults this dubious opportunity, to live until the end of this latency period.


_ Can the results of the investigation also transferred to young people and adults?
Certainly not one to one, because children are, as said above, clearly more sensitive to radiation than adults. Disease clusters in older children, adolescents and adults who are living close nuclear power plants are by no means out of question . On the contrary: In the vicinity of the Fermi Reactor in Michigan / USA and the Vermont Yankee reactor in Vermont / USA, for example, health authorities reported recently a general increase in cancer rates.(8), (9) Also a meta-analysis of several studies in the U.S. showed elevated leukemia rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in patients up to 25 years.(10)

_ Cancer can have many causes. Why should radiation from nuclear power plants be responsible for the diseases of children?
The Mainz experts in the KiKK study evaluated about 20 factors that can trigger cancer. The control group andante study group were ‘matched” so as to be the same with regard to: the socio-economic situation of the families of diseased and the control children, exposure to pesticides, tobacco smoke and other toxins, immune diseases, and exposure to radiation other than than the nuclear reactors may be present. Therefore, these “confounders” could not, explain the striking clustering of childhood cancer around nuclear power plants explain – except for the nuclear power plant near the place of residence. Furthermore, the incidence of cancer increased with proximity to nuclear plants. Also incidence decreased with distance from the reactor (“negative distance trend “), a strong indication that the cancer risk has something to do with nuclear power emissions. And what other cause, if not radiation should be eligible for the cancer in question? The sight of the cooling towers, perhaps? In addition, the increase of leukemia (blood cancer), which is known to be inducible by radiation exposure, among those in the vicinity of a nuclear plant is particularly strong evidence.


_ Radiation from the nuclear power plant? Are they not very tight?
No, they are not. Every nuclear plant is already emitting radioactive substances into air and water during the so-called normal operation – quite legally. In the case of nuclear power plants this comprises among others tritium (H-3, heavy hydrogen), radioactive carbon (C-14), strontium (Sr-90), iodine (I-131), cesium (Cs-137), plutonium (Pu-239), radioactive noble gases such as krypton (Kr-85), argon (Ar-41) and xenon (Xe-133). Most of these isotopes emit beta particles, which are high-energy electrons and which are, despite being of small range, very dangerous after absorption into the body (incorporation) through respiration, food and beverages. The aforementioned isotopes have very different half-lives between 5.2 days (Xe-133) and 24 110 years (Pu-239). A nuclear power plant in Germany is usually allowed to emit every years as much as a quadrillion (1015) becquerels of radioactive noble gases, 30 billion (3.10^10) becquerels of radioactive particles and approximately 10 billion (10^10) becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 into the air.(11)
In this context particular attention should be paid to tritium and strontium. Tritium is a beta emitter with a half-life of 12.3 years. Nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities emit it in large quantities over their chimney and its wastewater into the environment. It combines readily with oxygen to “severe water “(HTO). Plants, animals and humans are not able to distinguish tritium from normal hydrogen and heavy water. This means that tritium and water that contains tritium are absorbed as normal hydrogen and normal water are absorbed and used in all parts of the body. Tritium is thus built into all organs and even right into the genes where beta particles – despite their relatively short range – are close enough to radiation sensitive structures to lead to diseases and genetic defects.(12)
Strontium-90, a beta emitter with a half-life of 28.8 years, is indeed released in much smaller quantities to the environment than tritium. However, there is no reason for an all-clear, because strontium is considered to be calcium by the body and therefore incorporated into bones and teeth – especially in children whose bones and teeth are still growing.
Strontium-90 particles which are located close to the bone marrow send their beta particles over years and decades into the bone marrow, where the formation of blood takes place. Even small amounts of strontium-90 are therefore one of the most dangerous triggers for childhood leukemia.


_ What is the benchmark, how much is a nuclear power plant allowed to emit?
According to radiation protection regulation nuclear facilities may not strain <expose> the general population with<to><strain with replace with expose to> more than a maximum of 0.6 millisievert per year (0.3 millisievert through the air plus 0.3 millisievert through sewage. This is often misleadingly called a “30-millirem-concept”, using the unit millirem which was used in the past). In order to estimate the dose of a nuclear power plant that causes (measurable) stress, operators of the facility and the licensing authorities calculate the effects of emissions on fictional local residents, the (a) so-called “reference man”. Hereby a number of more or less well-founded assumptions and realistic models are used – from dilution and spread of the exhaust gases to the living, dining and drinking habits of “reference man”. Which is, by the way, always a young, healthy, adult male.



_ Is the radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant reportedly very low. Can she still many additional cancers explain?
All official information on radiation exposure from nuclear facilities <are> based on computer models and assumptions. How much radiation the residents actually gotten <received> a nuclear plant, <is less clear> No one knows. For the conspicuous accumulation (clustering) of cancer in children around nuclear power plants there are a whole series of (many) possible explanations: 13.14 The actual emissions from the nuclear reactors could be higher than the mostly random and / or nuclides and certain limited types of radiation measurements to believe. (One reason for underestimating dose received may be that routine measurements are obtained from further out from the nuclear power plant operators themselves made while supervisors only occasional control measurements.) conduct
The computational models that allow the dilution and dispersion nuclides of the votes in the simulated environment of the NPP be, may be wrong., and miscalculate the actual radiation exposure of people in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.
Conventional assumptions may be in error , regarding inclusion and retention of radionuclides in exposed plants, animals and humans. If so, the hypotheses concerning the impact of these these nuclides upon the body may also be in error. Biological effects in the body of nuclides are probably undervalued. Tritium is disregarded by the radiation protection authorities, casually understated it seems, at least strongly unterschätzt. We have far to go to have reliable dose-ressponse relationships, relating to most nuclides and nuclide daughters. Special cases are iodine and strontium, which have affinity for the thyroid an done respectively. It is hazardous science to extrapolate from this special case data. The ideas about what dose of radiation to which Damage leads (“dose-response relationship”), could incorrectly be as above (page 15) as described for strontium. Certain population groups, especially children, are extremely radiosensitive. Limits and model calculations take no account of it so far.


_ What kind of reaction did it for publication
the study?

Given the controversial results of the study was the stir in large domestic and foreign. The authors of the study were were obviously scared of their own courage.
In a kind Dementia they recanted their own findings  and wrote: “Due to the current state of the radiation biology and radiation epidemiology, Causal relationships from onizing radiation emissions from German nuclear power plants generally are easily misinterpreted, either in measuring disease associations or in identifying safe exposures or safe proximities. “Munich radiation biologist Edmund Lengfelder considers the current approach “the constituent elements of Forgery or fraud in science “erfüllt.1
Authors argue nuclear plant emissions are thousands of times too low, and to prove the observed cancer rates on the basis of the environment would need to be significantly increased, and suspect “still unknown Factors “,” selection mechanisms “and statistical Coincidence. This in the face of clear and highly statistically significant study results, they provide rather fatuous and far-fetched explanations. Nevertheless, nuclear power supporters attacked the argument.
Authors also admit there was “neither measured nor modeled” data on radiation exposure in children. This may be irrelevant. Scientists had the Mainz Cancer Registry available. Study planning chose the distance between residence and nuclear dose. About their research projects then she wrote: “With the help of a distance law can with an approximate size of the surrogate dose-response Relationship to be estimated. “15

The outside panel of experts reviewing the study trivialized the interpretation of the results immediately in re: relationship between radiation exposure Nuclear power plants and cancer, stating that “because of the particularly high Radiation risk to small children and insufficient emissions data from power reactors (…) an relationship could not be excluded.

In regards to “several epidemiological Causality criteria for such a relationship. “16 The physician and epidemiologist at the University of Greifswald, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann, a member of the external expert panel ruled: “I know few epidemiological studies that have as clear Findings as these. “17 The Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Commissioned recognizes that “due to the significant dependence the risk of the distance to the sites of Reactors ” there are a”t least indications” of possible correlations “.18
The Federal Environment Ministry, however, saw no reason to tighten existing limits upon residence in proximity to German nuclear power plants as a radiation protection measure, and suggests that radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant may not be sufficient explanation for the established leukemia cases rate.

_ What conclusions can we draw from the study?
IPPNW calls not “allowed emissions” from the nuclear plant, to the alleged exposure of a healthy man (“Reference man”) to orient, but in the embryo. A healthy young man with intact cellular repair mechanisms can probably tolerate more radioactivity than a woman and even as a child, not to mention a whole embryo. It is therefore high time that the “reference man” gets replaced by a “reference embryo “ 9, 20

Because embryos can be already damaged by very low radiation doses, it would hardly be technically possible, to reduce the nuclear power plant emissions to the extent that an embryo is not actually at risk. Therefore, the nuclear power plants will be shut down immediately. Everywhere.
Our children are more important than nuclear power plants to maturity. Furthermore, the emissions from nuclear facilities, as long as these still in operation, are continuously measured by the supervisory authorities and are not reviewed by the self instead of talking small about the results of the study, the population in the vicinity of nuclear power plants should be elucidated about the increased Risk by officials. Finally, advocates the IPPNW for a sick child in the nuclear environment Shift the burden of proof: It is not the parents should have to prove that the condition of their child caused by the nuclear power plant was, but the nuclear power plant operators would have to prove that their Nuclear power plant is not the cause of the disease.

_ I live near a nuclear power plant. Should I move? Not every child living near a nuclear plant gets Leukemia. The absolute incidence figures per year, and nuclear are not very large. Panic is not appropriate. We think it is but essential that pregnant women and parents of young children the increased risk are informed so that their living and life decisions can make responsible. The CEO of EnBW, E. ON, RWE and Vattenfall in any case, it was by the way, all live far away from their nuclear power plants.

_ Conclusion
The most extensive, elaborate and careful investigation on cancer near nuclear power plants has a long harbored suspicions confirmed scientifically threaten nuclear reactors already in the normal everyday operation of the health our children. There is no doubt that the radioactive Emissions from nuclear power plants are linked with the exceptionally high Cancer and particularly leukemia rates in young children within an area of up to 50 kilometers. Those who do not want to see the truth have their eyes shut tight.
There is some evidence that the radioactive emissions and effluents of nuclear power plants not only work as demonstrated, har embryos and small children but also adolescents and Adults. More scandalous is that the supervisory authorities yet refuse to draw the conclusions from the results into their own commissioned study, and instead of the obvious connection between Cancer and nuclear power continue to deny. No wonder: If the limit values for radioactive emissions are defined that any risk to unborn children and even less could can be excluded, no more nuclear power plant operation would remain. Rather than haggle for longer maturities and new nuclear capacity, It would be really the task of parliamentarians and Rulers,to protect the people against the dangers of nuclear power, moreover, for 50 years, the cancelation of the Atomic Energy Act. It is our responsibility for future generations that the energy production by nuclear fission is put immediately to end.
Thanks to the persistent, decades-long commitment of citizens and citizens that the KiKK study was made famous. Critical scholars and doctors had to ensure by their publication to ensure that the explosive results were not returnes under the carpet. And only political pressure will ensure that Limits are tightened and nuclear power plants are shut down. We all have our own contributions. Nuclear power plants threaten even in normal operation, the health.

_ What to do?
If you believe the arguments in this brochure, disseminate them further. It is important that many people actively involved in the debate about nuclear power. Because the energy companies have well-equipped public relations departments to to place their claims in the public and parliamentarians take by lobbying for their point of view. No nuclear power produces no radioactive emissions. Change Your current provider, you switch to a real Green electricity provider. So that you personally get out of nuclear out and give you a receipt for the energy companies their actions, that does hurt them. Vote with your consumer also from which energy you want! Convince even more people from the exchange! Environmental and consumer groups and anti-nuclear initiatives have joined forces with the campaign to “make nuclear phase-yourself” help to provide for change. Under
www.atomausstieg-selber-machen.de are independent green electricity provider recommended.From where they can You can easily switch to green power. If you want to do more, get involved in the actions of. broadcasted (more at www.ausgestrahlt.de) that play They organize themselves in a local anti-nuclear group, a
Event on the topic (speakers conveyed the IPPNW) or mingle, as readers with a brief, in the public debate on the energy supply of tomorrow.
Everyone can contribute something.

Verzeichnis der Quellen
1 Lengfelder E.: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Atomkraftwerken / KiKKStudie
(Kritische Analyse KiKK-Wiss-Betrug-Strabi-Le-0802) Strahlenbiologisches Institut der Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, 2.2008.
2 Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schmiedel S, Schulze-Rath R, Mergenthaler A, Blettner M: Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und des Bundesamtes für Strahlenschutz, 2007.
3 Beral V.: Cancer near Nuclear Installations, The Lancet 1, 556, 1987.
4 Cook-Mozaffari PJ, Vincent T, Forman D, Ashwood FL, Alderson M.: Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations, England and Wales, 1959-
1980, Stud. Med.
Popu. Subj. 51, London, H.M. State Office 1987.
5 Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Untersuchungen zur Häufigkeit von Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen 1980-1990. IMSD Technischer Bericht. Mainz: Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation der Universität Mainz, 1992.
6 Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Miesner A, Hoisl M, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Epidemiologische Studien zum Auftreten von Leukämieerkrankungen bei Kindern in Deutschland.
Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, 1997.
7 Körblein A, Hoffmann W: Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power
Plants. Medicine and Global Survival, Vol. 6, 18, 1999.
8 Melzer EJ: Cancer questions grow around Fermi nuclear plant. The Michigan Messenger 17.02.09.
9 Mangano JJ: Radioactive Contamination from Vermont Yankee and Potential Risks to Local Health. Radiation and Public Health Project 2008.
10 Baker PJ, Hoel DG: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities, European Journal of Cancer Care 16, 355, 2007.
11 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Hg.): Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelastung. Jahresbericht 2007, Dezember 2008.
12 Fairlie, I: Tritium – The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard. The Ecologist, Vol. 22, No. 5, A1 178, 1992.
13 Fairlie I: New evidence of childhood leukaemias near nuclear power stations.
Medicine, Conflict and Survival 24:3, 219, 2008.
14 Schmitz-Feuerhake I: Das Dosisargument. Diskussionsbeitrag zur KiKK-Studie, 2008.
15 Schulze-Rath R, Kaatsch P, Schmiedel S, Spix C, Blettner M: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken: Bericht zu einer laufenden Studie. Umweltmedizin in Forschung und Praxis 11, Nr. 1, 20, 2006.
16 Greiser E, Jöckel KH, Hoffmann W: Stellungnahme des externen Expertengremiums des BfS zur KiKK-Studie. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Frankfurt/M, 12.2007.
17 Hoffmann W: (Interview) Kinderkrebs um Atomkraftwerke. IPPNW aktuell 18/08, Berlin.
18 König W: BfS und DKKR stellen sich gemeinsam hinter die Ergebnisse der Kinderkrebsstudie.
BfS-Pressemitteilung 014/07 vom 19.12.2007.
19 Pressemitteilung BMU vom 09.10.2008.
20 Makhijani A: The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 2008.





Read Full Post »


First there is the Life, the Soil, Plants, the Body. They are programmed by Evolution to gather substances and to store them.

This is what Radionuclides use.

Plus: Many Radionuclides mimic vital substances: Cesium = Potassium / Strontium = Calcium / Radio-Iodine = Iodine.

They are gathered, stored.

Automatically Becquerel after Becquerel.

By Food (70 – 90 %).
People talking about Radionuclides in mushrooms remember: we EAT more bread than mushrooms, wheat stores radionuclides intense.

Irradiated parents: The following generations:  Malignant Cancer & expotential increase  with each generation
PLUS: always lower dose limit  tolerance  of each generation.
The SAME Dose Limits


We were able to defy natural radiation by Reproduction and Innovation.

Were able.

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »