'Million Cancer Deaths From Fukushima Expected in Japan,’ New Report Reveals

'Million Cancer Deaths From Fukushima Expected in Japan,' New Report Reveals

A shocking new report defies the chronically underestimated impacts of the Fukushima's triple meltdown on the risk of cancer in exposed populations, which does not just include Japan, but arguably the entire world. 

A new report from Fairewinds Energy Education (FEE), "Cancer on the Rise in Post-Fukushima Japan," reveals that the ongoing multi-core nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant that started in March 2011 has produced approximately 230 times higher than normal thyroid cancers in Fukushima Prefecture, and could result in as many as one million more cancers in Japan's future as a result of the meltdown.

According to the new report, data provided by a group of esteemed Japanese medical professionals and TEPCO, confirm a direct link of numerous cancers in Japan to the triple meltdown. As transcribed by Enenews.com, Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer at Fairewinds stated, Nov. 4, 2015:

"It's been almost 5 years from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns, and the news from Japan is still not good. Two reports recently released in Japan, one by Japanese medical professionals and the second from Tokyo Power Corporation – TEPCO – acknowledged that there will be numerous cancers in Japan, much greater than normal, due to the radioactive discharges from the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi... I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that there will be at least 100,000 and as many as one million more cancers in Japan's future as a result of this meltdown... [T]he second report received from Japan proves that the incidence of thyroid cancer is approximately 230 times higher than normal in Fukushima Prefecture... So what's the bottom line? The cancers already occurring in Japan are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sorry to say that the worst is yet to come."

You can watch Arnie Gundersen's video by clicking on the image below: 

The content of the new report defies what are chronically underestimated radiation exposure levels and effects produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, TEPCO, and the Japanese government. As we have reported previously, the present day radiation risk model is based on outdated science and a dataset extracted from Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors, and which was arrived at before the discovery of DNA, and knowledge of up to six orders of magnitude higher genotoxicity caused by what is known as photoelectron induction associated with low-dose radioisotope exposure, i.e. the incorporation into our tissue of extremely low doses of radionuclides such as plutonium-239, uranium-238, and over one hundred others produced as a byproduct of the nuclear reactions that produce nuclear power. 

For those unafraid of confronting the truth, I highly recommend reading the 2001 paper published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry titled, "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," produced by the Army's own Radiobiology Research Institute, in order to fully comprehend the implications of photoelectron induction. In a nutshell, it implies that the adverse health effects associated with nuclear fallout may be tens of thousands times worse than present radiation risk models used by the nuclear industry, medical establishment, and government presently project. 

For more information here is an excerpt of my report, written only weeks after the Fukushima meltdown, titled "Why There Is No Safe Dose of Radiation from Fukushima":

The nuclear radiation risk models used by the nuclear industry and the medical establishment and harped upon by the mainstream media and world governments, were created largely by nuclear physicists in the 1950's, before the discovery of DNA, and are based upon the type of high energy external radiation exposures associated with the atomic bomb blast in Hiroshima.

This "old world" risk model, which underpins the policies and recommendations of would-be authorities on radiation safety such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), though relevant in the case of external radiation exposure, severely misrepresents both the type and degree of radiotoxicity associated with the internalization of radioisotopes like Radioiodine 131, Cesium 137 and Uranium 238, and subsequent "non-linear" adverse effects in the human body. The ICRP not only conditions the world's perception on the relative safety of nuclear energy, but is also responsible for underwriting the risk associated with the use of munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) in places like Iraq, and now Libya. The genotoxic Uranium-238 residues left behind will likely cause pain, suffering, birth defects, miscarriages and premature deaths for countless generations to come. 

Although radioisotopes like Uranium-238 give off relatively low doses of ionizing radiation when compared to "high dose" external radiation exposure (such that may occur in a nuclear blast), following inhalation or ingestion these alpha particle emitters remain in affected tissues and cells for days, months, years and in some cases, a (subsequently shortened) lifetime, e.g. Strontium-90.

On a cellular level, particles of Uranium-238, which are weak emitters of alpha particle radiation (and therefore considered relatively non-radiotoxic), strongly bind and incorporate into the DNA in affected cells. Once a DNA-Uranium complex is formed it is capable of amplifying the genotoxicity of natural background gamma radiation (or medical radiation) to the affected DNA though a phenomenon called "photoelectric enhancement" by up to 55,000 TIMES HIGHER than normally occurs. See Chris Busby PhD's video or this document for details.

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Key Research Topics

Popular Threads

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2016 GreenMedInfo.com, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.