Fukushima Radiation Fatal to US babies.


Location of Fukushima Tokyo=Metropolis

Image via Wikipedia

What is of significance here is that radiation dangers are being taken seriously by health authorities.

In addition, if deaths are resulting in the US, how much more health devastation must be occurring closer to, and inside, Japan.

Health issues have not been readily admitted by the Japanese authorities and press. Perhaps just now, they are being forced to admit that issues exist, and that some action is deemed to necessary. Ref: http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/japanese-government-is-preparing-for-the-rapid-increase-of-sickness-from-radiation/

But they are still claiming safe environments where they are probably are known to be not safe. For example, emissions are still occurring: http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/water-level-is-still-decreasing-at-reactor-4/

(Above references from “Fukushima Diaries“.)

Now, from ‘Natural Health News’:

“Study: Fukushima killed at least 14,000 people in the US, mostly babies, in weeks following disaster”,  by Jonathan Benson.

(NaturalNews) For the very first time, a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal has come up with a solid estimate of the total number of US deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in the weeks following it. Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, and his colleagues say that, based on compiled data, at least 14,000 people in the US were killed during the 14 weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe — and the majority of these deaths were in children under age one.
Published in the International Journal of Health Services, Mangano’s study looked at both infant and adult death rates during the time when Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years. During the 14 weeks prior to Fukushima, for instance, infant deaths had been declining by 8.37 percent, while in the weeks following the disaster they increased by 1.8 percent. Among adults, a 4.46 percent death rate was observed in the weeks after Fukushima, compared to 2.34 percent, which is about half that rate, a year prior.
“This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal,” said Mangano. “It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

.

Let us be extremely grateful that here in Australia, we are further away from the natural movements of airborne radiation particles, than is the US and even Europe. Read the ‘Related Articles’  “Plutonium has circled the Earth..”

Let us learn from these issues, not just what is happening, but also that we cannot rely on the general media for accurate and complete reporting.

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in Cover-ups, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, nuclear, radiation, World Issues and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Fukushima Radiation Fatal to US babies.

  1. unspokenhermit says:

    It is very unfortunate that this radiation caused many deaths in the USA according to the media reports. No accidental death is desirable even so this reports need to be verified by the competent authorities.

    I recently came across these atmpospheric simulations, produced an American independent organization, that indicate TEPCO vastly under-reported radionuclide emissions from the Fukushima Plant.

    http://www.datapoke.org/blog/8/study-modeling-fukushima-npp-radioactive-contamination-dispersion-utilizing-chino-m-et-al-source-terms/

    http://www.datapoke.org/partmom/a=40

    I’ve suspected for some time that the publicly released emissions data had been manipulated – If the models are correct I suppose this re enforces my hunch. Is there anyone here that can help us explain the implications of this model?

    • Thanks for your contribution. I would need much more time to study the simulations properly. It is more complex than I am comfortable with.
      One thing that struck me is the scientific manner this study was written up. Data sources named and accessable, assumptions detailed, error possibilities discussed.
      In stark contrast to the AGW science information.
      TEPCO information release, seen from several sources, can be deemed unreliable and under estimated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s