Human Experimentation: Next round of Radiation Experimentation begins in Japan

[Satyagraha]

The next round of human experimentation using radiation exposure has begun in Japan:

===================



Radiation leaks from Japan's quake-hit nuclear plant
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-idUKTRE72A0SS20110312
FUKUSHIMA, Japan | Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:43pm GMT

(Reuters) - Radiation leaked from Japan's earthquake-crippled nuclear plant on Saturday after a blast blew the roof off, and authorities prepared to distribute iodine to people in the vicinity to protect them from exposure.

===================

The Aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
The Emergence of the Cold War Radiation Research Bureaucracy
http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_6.html

While promoting the beneficial uses of radiation, the government also wished to continue and expand research on its harmful effects. Three days after the destruction of Hiroshima, Robert Stone wrote two letters to Stafford Warren's deputy, and Stone's former student, Hymer Friedell. The first expressed hope that the contribution of medical researchers could now be made public, so that people would know what they had done during the war.[57] The second letter described Stone's "mixed feelings" at the success that had been achieved and his fear that the lingering effects of radiation from the bomb had been underestimated: "I could hardly believe my eyes," Stone wrote, "when I saw a series of news releases said to be quoting Oppenheimer, and giving the impression that there is no radioactive hazard. Apparently all things are relative."[58]

Friedell and other researchers, including Stafford Warren and Shields Warren, soon traveled to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to begin what became an extensive research program on survivors. The data from that project quickly became and still remain the essential source of information on the long-term effects of radiation on populations of human beings. It was not long, however, before there were additional real-life data on the bomb, from postwar atomic tests. In 1946, the United States undertook the first peacetime nuclear weapons tests at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Operation Crossroads, conducted before journalists and VIPs from around the world, was intended to test the ability of a flotilla of unmanned ships to withstand the blast. Since most of the ships remained afloat, the Navy declared Crossroads a triumph.[59] (continued)

===================

The Manhattan Project: A New and Secret World of Human Experimentation
http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_3.html

In August 1942, the Manhattan Engineer District was created by the government to meet the goal of producing an atomic weapon under the pressure of ongoing global war. Its central mission became known as the Manhattan Project. Under the direction of Brigadier General Leslie Groves of the Army Corps of Engineers, who recently had supervised the construction of the Pentagon, secret atomic energy communities were created almost overnight in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and in Hanford, Washington, to house the workers and gigantic new machinery needed to produce the bomb. The weapon itself would be built at the Los Alamos laboratory, under the direction of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Plucked from campuses around the country, medical researchers came face to face with the need to understand and control the effect upon the thousands of people, doctors included, of radioactive materials being produced in previously unimaginable quantities.

In November 1942 General Groves, through the intermediation of an Eastman Kodak official, paid a call on University of Rochester radiologist Stafford Warren. Rochester, like MIT and Berkeley, was another locale where radiation research had brought together physicists and physicians. "They wanted to know what I was doing in radiation. So I discussed the cancer work and some of the other things," Warren told an interviewer in the 1960s. Then "[w]e got upstairs and they looked in the closet and they closed the transom and they looked out the window. . . . Then they closed and locked the door and said, 'Sit down.'"[22]

Soon thereafter, Dr. Warren was made a colonel in the U.S. Army and the medical director of the Manhattan Project. As his deputy, Warren called on Dr. Hymer Friedell, a radiologist who had worked with Dr. Stone in California. Dr. Stone himself had meanwhile moved to the University of Chicago, where he would play a key role in Manhattan Project-related medical research.

Initially, researchers knew little or nothing about the health effects of the basic bomb components, uranium, plutonium, and polonium. [23] But, as a secret history written in 1946 stated, they knew the tale of the radium dial painters:

    The memory of this tragedy was very vivid in the minds of people, and the thoughts of potential dangers of working in areas where radiation hazards existed were intensified because the deleterious effects of radiation could not be seen or felt and the results of over-exposure might not become apparent for long periods after such exposure. [24]

The need for secrecy, Stafford Warren later recalled, compounded the urgency of understanding and controlling risk. Word of death or toxic hazard could leak out to the surrounding community and blow the project's cover. [25]

The need to protect the Manhattan Project workers soon gave rise to a new discipline, called health physics, which sought to understand radiation effects and monitor and protect nuclear worker health and safety. The Project was soon inundated with data from radiation-detection instruments, blood and urine samples, and physical exams. The "clinical study of the personnel," Robert Stone wrote in 1943, "is one vast experiment. Never before has so large a collection of individuals been exposed to so much radiation." [26] Along with these data-gathering efforts came ethical issues.

Would disclosure of potential or actual harm to the workers, much less the public, impair the program? For example, a July 1945 Manhattan Project memo discussed whether to inform a worker that her case of nephritis (a kidney disease) may have been due to her work on the Project. The issue was of special import because, the memo indicated, the illness might well be a precursor of more cases. The worker, the memo explained, "is unaware of her condition which now shows up on routine physical check and urinalysis." [27]

As this memo showed, there was an urgent need for decisions on how to protect the workers, while at the same time safeguard the security of the project: "The employees must necessarily be rotated out, and not permitted to resume further exposure. In frequent instances no other type of employment is available. Claims and litigation will necessarily flow from the circumstances outlined." There were also, the memo concluded, "Ethical considerations":

    The feelings of the medical officers are keenly appreciated. Are they in accordance with their canons of ethics to be permitted to advise the patient of his true condition, its cause, effect, and probable prognosis? If not on ethical grounds, are they to be permitted to fulfill their moral obligations to the individual employees in so advising him? If not on moral grounds, are those civilian medical doctors employed here bound to make full disclosure to patients under penalty of liability for malpractice or proceeding for revocation of license for their failure to do so? [28]

It is not clear what was decided in this case. However, the potential conflict between the government doctors' duty to those working on government projects and the same doctors' obligations to the government would not disappear. Following the war, as we see in chapter 12, this conflict would be sharply posed as medical researchers studied miners at work producing uranium for the nation's nuclear weapons.

Another basic question was the extent to which human beings could or should be studied to obtain the data needed to protect them. The radium dial painter data served as a baseline to determine how the effects of exposures in the body could be measured. But this left the question of whether plutonium, uranium, and polonium behaved more or less like radium. Research was needed to understand how these elements worked in the body and to establish safety levels. A large number of animal studies were conducted at laboratories in Chicago, Berkeley, Rochester, and elsewhere; but the relevance of the data to humans remained in doubt.

The Manhattan Project contracted with the University of Rochester to receive the data on physical exams and other tests from Project sites and to prepare statistical analyses. While boxes of these raw data have been retrieved, it is not clear what use was made of them.[29] Accidents, while remarkably few and far between, became a key source of the data used in constructing an understanding of radiation risk. But accidents were not predictable, and their occurrence only enhanced the immediacy of the need to gain better data.

In 1944, the Manhattan Project medical team, under Stafford Warren and with the evident concurrence of Robert Oppenheimer, made plans to inject polonium, plutonium, uranium, and possibly other radioactive elements into human beings. As discussed in chapter 5, the researchers turned to patients, not workers, as the source of experimental data needed to protect workers. By the time the program was abandoned by the government, experimentation with plutonium had taken place in hospitals at the Universities of California, Chicago, and Rochester, and at the Army hospital in Oak Ridge, and further experimentation with polonium and uranium had taken place at Rochester.

The surviving documentation provides little indication that the medical officials and researchers who planned this program considered the ethical implications of using patients for a purpose that no one claimed would benefit them, under circumstances where the existence of the substances injected was a wartime secret. Following the war, however, the ethical questions raised by these experiments would be revisited in debates that themselves were long kept secret.

In addition to experimentation with internally administered radioisotopes, external radiation was administered in human experiments directed by Dr. Stone at Chicago and San Francisco and by others at Memorial Hospital in New York City. Once again, the primary subjects were patients, although some healthy subjects were also involved. In these cases, the researchers may have felt that the treatment was of therapeutic value to the patients. But, in addition to the question of whether the patients were informed of the government's interest, this research raised the question of whether the government's interest affected the patients' treatment. As discussed in chapter 8, these questions would recur when, beginning in 1951, and for two decades thereafter, the Defense Department would fund the collection of data from irradiated patients.

Ensuring safety required more, however, than simply studying how radioactive substances moved through and affected the human body. It also involved studying how these substances moved through the environment. While undetectable to the human senses, radiation in the environment is easily measurable by instruments. When General Groves chose Hanford, on the Columbia River in Washington state, as a site for the plutonium production facility, a secret research program was mounted to understand the fate of radioactive pollution in the water, the air, and wildlife.[30]

Outdoor research was at times improvisational. Years after the fact, Stafford Warren would recall how Manhattan Project researchers had deliberately "contaminated the alfalfa field" next to the University of Rochester medical school with radiosodium, to determine the shielding requirements for radiation-measuring equipment. Warren's associate Dr. Harold Hodge recalled that a shipment of radiosodium was received by plane from Robley Evans at MIT, mixed with water in a barrel, and poured into garden sprinklers:

    We walked along and sprinkled the driveway. This was after dark. . . . The next thing, we went out and sprayed a considerable part of the field. . . . It was sprayed and then after a while sprayed again, so there was a second and third application. We were all in rubber, so we didn't get wet with the stuff . . . then Staff [Warren] said that one of the things we needed was to see what would be the effect on the inside of a wooden building. So we took the end of the parking garage, and we sprinkled that up about as high as our shoulders, and somebody went inside and made measurements, and we sprinkled it again. Then we wanted to know about the inside of a brick building, and so we sprinkled the side of the animal house. . . . I had no idea what the readings were. . . I hadn't the foggiest idea of what we were doing, except that obviously it was something radioactive.[31]

Outdoor releases would put at risk unsuspecting citizens, even communities, as well as workers. There were no clear policies and no history of practice to guide how these releases should be conducted. As we explore in chapter 11, this would be worked out by experts and officials in secret, on behalf of the workers and citizens who might be affected. (Continued)

====================

Human Experimentation at the Chernobyl site:
http://www.whale.to/b/sea.html

On April 26, the number three unit at the Chernobyl nuclear energy station explodes, and melts down.

Diamond leaves to cover the accident. I leave Cincinnati and head for Kansas City, where, on May 5, Dotte Troxell and I hold a press conference. We say that U.S. criticism of Soviet secrecy on Chernobyl is hypocritical and call on the U.S. government to release all data on human experimentation. In our press release we attack the credibility of Dr. Saenger -- who has quickly been hired to advise the U.S. government on Chernobyl's impact on U.S. personnel stationed in Europe and has become the media's authority on Chernobyl's health effects.

Our press release also details the U.S. human experimentation program "that has, at various times, included the exposure of prisoners, mental patients, terminal cancer patients, and paid volunteers to 'non-therapeutic' radiation doses . . ." Again, we show the Buchenwald memo (*** See below: can't find this yet) to the press. The press responds with silence. A number of us start working our congressional contacts. Cliff Honicker, Dorothy Legarreta, and I all had a close working relationship with the House Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power when it had been under the chairmanship of Representative Richard Ottinger of New York. Near the end of his tenure, Ottinger had authorized a full-scale staff investigation into the DOE's human experimentation program.

By 1986 chairmanship of the subcommittee has passed to Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Eager to see some result of the investigation, we press the subcommittee to go public inhearings and a report. No hearings are held -- a curious fact given the magnitude of the issue -- but in October the staff issues its report. "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens." Markey simultaneously issues a press release that states: "The purpose of several experiments was actually to cause injury to the subjects . . . American citizens thus became nuclear calibration devices for experimenters run amok."

The Markey report, which contains all the relevant facts that would be treated as major revelations seven years later, results in minor and often misleading news stories in several papers. The New York Times's Matthew Wald extracts a single strand from the ninety-five-page report -- news that some of the releases of radioactive iodine from the Hanford, Washington, nuclear facility had been intentional -- and turns it into a story that runs on page A-20. The other ninety-plus pages of the report, which deal with unethical clinical experiments, are downplayed in a small, unbylined piece headed VOLUNTEERS AROUND U.S. SUBMITTED TO RADIATION. Contrary to the Markey report and to fact, the headline and article imply that all subjects had volunteered for the experiments and that they knew they were subjected to radiation. Neither article mentions the Buchenwald memo.

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3312956


***NOTE on the MISSING IMAGE***
Photobucket deleted a screen capture of a post from democraticunderground.com where the poster discusses his inability to find the actual memo that has been called "the Buchenwald memo". So even mentioning this gets a censor from Photobucket. Jesus how obvious is that?

I've typed the post below:

=================================
Post:
No one talks about this anymore. Why? It's being SCRUBBED!

Tried finding the "Buchenwald Memo." Here's where it used to be:

The HREX website is currently closed down for two reasons: (1) After the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal
Government undertook a review of all information on its websites to determine the appropriateness of the information
on the websites. The database for the HREX website currently undergoing a review in light of the events of 9/11 to
determine whether all of the information in the database is appropriate. (2) The HREX website was hosted by antiquated
technology. After the review of the information in the database is complete, it will be moved to the OpenNet website which
is a  platform composed of current technologies. The timing of when the HREX information will be available on OpenNet is
unknown, therefore you may wish to periodically visit the OpenNet website at http://www.osti.gov/opennet.
Thank you for your patience.

http://hrex.dis.anl.gov/
===================================

Note: they have not put the memo back online.

[Satyagraha]

You can see from the post above at the democraticunderground forum, the "Buchenwald Memo" was deleted from the
http://www.osti.gov/opennet website.

The US government deleted this document after the 911 false flag.
Why did the government think it was necessary to delete the "Buchenwald Memo"?
What did radiation experiments on US citizens have to do with 911?

The memo is referred to as "the Buchenwald memo" because in it, the author compares the human experimentation being performed in the U.S. as having a "little of the "Buchenwald touch".

They were likening the treatment of human beings living in the United States to the treatment of Nazi concentration camp medical test subjects.

"Suddenly, at the close of 1993, the public was bombarded with "news" about the feeding of radioactive substances to pregnant women and mentally retarded students, about the unethical irradiation of workers, soldiers, medical patients, and prison inmates, and about the government's own internal fears that these experiments had "a little of the Buchenwald touch."

==================================

Meet Dr. Egilman, a physician practicing in Braintree, Massachusetts, who spoke out about human experimentation with radiation in 1995. He wrote, " For almost ten years I have tried to raise my voice about some of the experiments conducted by our Government on its own citizens, and I am grateful for this opportunity today."

==================================

Statement to Congress, Subcommittee on Administative law and Governmental Relations
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16006520-57UaoV/16006520.pdf
April 11,1994
by David S. Egilman MD. MPH.
759 Granite Street, Braintree, Massachusetts.

Chairman Bryant, Subcommittee Members. Good Afternoon.

My name is David Egilman. I am a physician. I am primarily a practicing doctor in Braintree,
Massachusetts. I am also a member of the faculty at Brown University. In that role I teach and
conduct research on the history of the development of medical knowledge in the 20th century.

I want to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me here to speak. For almost ten years I have
tried to raise my voice about some of the experiments conducted by our Government on its own
citizens, and I am grateful for this opportunity today.

I would like to begin by reviewing some contemporaneous comments of the colleagues of the
University of Cincinnati (UC) researchers. There is little that I can add to these, however some
still defend these experiments so I will endeavor to explain the bases of the criticisms later in my
comments.

"It is not certain from the (consent form] narrative whether the patient is advised that no specific
benefit will derive to him and that there are, indeed risks involved in the procedure proposed."
- Edward Gall MD, May, 1966

"I believe a twenty-five percent mortality is too high.' All patients should be informed not only
that a 'risk exists" but of, 'a 1 in 4 chance of death within a few weeks' of treatment"
- George Shields MD, 1967

"The applicants have apparently already administered 150-200 rads to some 18 patients with a
of malignancies and to their satisfaction have not found a beneficial effect. In fact, as I
understand it, they found considerable morbidity associated with this high dose of radiation.
Why is it now logical to expand this study?

Even if this study is expanded, its current design will not yield meaningful data. ... It will be
difficult if not impossible to observe a beneficial effect in such a small sample containing a
variety of diseases all of which share only CANCER in common.

This gross deficiency in design will almost certainly prevent making meaningful observations.
When this deficiency in experimental method is placed next to their previously observed poor
result and high morbidity with this type of treatment in a 'variety of neoplasms' I think it is clear
that the study as proposed should not be done.

I have the uneasy suspicion, shored up by the revised statement of objectives, that this revised
protocol is a subterfuge lo allow the investigators ... to test the ability of autologous m a mto
'lake' in patients who have received high doses of total body radiation. This latter question may
be an important one to answer but I can't justify 200 rad total body radiation simply for this
purpose, 'even in terminal case material".
- Thomas Gaffney MD - 1967

... "the acceptability of our general consent form for human volunteers participating in research
was questioned" - Evelyn Hess MD - 1969 commenting on the reason for rejection of two grant
applications by the National Institutes of Health.


In my statement I will cover four areas

1. What were the experiments?
    The whole body radiation (WBR) experiments conducted at the University of Cincinnati (UC)
    were designed to provide information to the military. They were not in any way cancer treatment
    or palliation. Some of those studies resulted in the deaths of their subjects.

2. Were the experiments conducted according to the ethical standards of their time?
    The answer to this question is a firm no.

3. Why did it lake until 1994 for these activities to reach the national consciousness?
    There was a lack of oversight and we are all responsible.

4. I would argue that this necessitates taking several long and short-term steps, including the following:
     A. We must document and assess what happened.
     B. Those harmed should receive compensation.
     C. Appropriate actions should be taken against researchers who acted improperly.
     D. We must establish permanent mechanisms to assure that this type of experiments will not occur again.

Why did these experiments occur and continue over a considerable period of time?
We must do our best lo right past wrongs and prevent this from happening again
In my opinion, they could occur again, they may occur again, and we need to establish a system
of checks and balances to assure that hearings such as these are not held again. Never again.

The full PDF (36 pages) can be found here:  https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16006520-57UaoV/16006520.pdf
Please download before it goes into the memory hole.

[Satyagraha]

December 28, 1993
1950 Note Warns About Radiation Test
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DB143FF93BA15751C1A965958260&pagewanted=all
By KEITH SCHNEIDER

The American Government official who directed radiation experiments on human subjects was warned soon after the program began that the research would invite public criticism and comparison to Nazi experiments on concentration camp inmates, a private memorandum declassified by the Government shows.

In a 1950 memorandum to Dr. Shields Warren, a senior official of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Joseph G. Hamilton, a top radiation biologist who worked for the agency, warned that the medical experiments might have "a little of the Buchenwald touch." At the Buchenwald concentration camp near Weimar a number of human experiments were done, including one that killed about 600 people exposed to typhus bacteria.

He warned that commission officials "would be subject to considerable criticism" for conducting experiments in which human subjects were exposed to potentially harmful doses of radiation.

The memorandum, which was declassified in the early 1970's, has been known to a handful of independent investigators interested in the early history of the Atomic Energy Commission. It has been publicly circulated in recent days as Government investigators and reporters have examined an extensive experimental program that involved at least 1,000 people in a variety of radiation experiments in the early years of the atomic era. One official said that number could go much higher Flood of Calls

The memo sheds light on what one of the Government's leading radiation researchers was thinking as the Government prepared to finance and direct the experiments.

This month Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary directed her agency to determine how many studies were conducted, to find participants and their survivors and to investigate the propriety and legality of the research.

As part of the project, which could take years, Mrs. O'Leary has set up a toll-free telephone line, (800) 493-2998. Yesterday, hundreds of callers swamped the agency with questions about experiments they said might have involved them or family members. Peter Brush, the department's principal deputy assistant secretary for environment, safety and health, said the volume of calls was so intense that this week the department would triple the number of specialists answering the telephones to 9 or 10, from 3.

"We've had an unbelievable response to the hotline," Mr. Brush said. "It's a much greater volume than we anticipated."

The Boston Globe disclosed on Sunday that 19 mentally retarded teen-age boys at a state school in Waltham, Mass., were exposed to radioactive iron and calcium in their breakfast cereal. The experiments, from 1946 to 1956, were intended to help researchers understand nutrition and metabolism, the paper said, though consent forms mailed to parents never mentioned that radioactive elements would be involved. It is not known if the subjects were harmed by the test. Tests onf Newborns

The Albuquerque Tribune, which in November published a series of articles on an experiment in which 18 patients were injected with plutonium, reported last week on another study conducted in Memphis. In that research, sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1953 and 1954, seven newborn boys, six of them black, were injected with radioactive iodine. Those studies were intended to understand better how the thyroid glands of newborns functioned. Mothers agreed to the research, but some babies were later given up for adoption, according to The Tribune.

One of the issues the Energy Department is studying is whether any of the radiation experiments violated the 1947 Nuremberg Code, which was established after the Nazi war crimes trials, and is regarded as the universal standard for human experimentation. The code requires full, informed and voluntary consent for all experiments involving human subjects, along with demanding that test subjects be protected "against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death."

"We want to make sure the work was consistent with whatever ethical guidelines existed at the time," Mr. Brush said. "Certainly some of the stuff I've read leads one to question whether it could have been consistent with any established ethics of the time."

The Hamilton memorandum suggests that medical researchers associated with the Atomic Energy Commission were aware of their ethical responsibilities. The memorandum, dated Nov. 28, 1950, was addressed to Dr. Warren, the director of the division of biology and medicine, the unit of the Atomic Energy Commission that commissioned and oversaw virtually all Government research related to radiation after the war.

Dr. Hamilton, under contract to the Atomic Energy Commission, summarized the limited knowledge then available about the risks military personnel faced should they be exposed to high levels of radiation, presumably as a result of nuclear war or military exercises involving atomic bombs. Dr. Hamilton urged the Atomic Energy Commission to conduct additional research to expose living organisms to intense radiation fields.

"For both politic and scientific reasons," he wrote, "I think it would be advantageous to secure what data can be obtained by using large monkeys such as chimpanzees." But Dr. Hamilton warned: "If this is to be done in humans, I feel that those concerned in the Atomic Energy Commission would be subject to considerable criticism as admittedly this would have a little of the Buchenwald touch."

The memorandum, made available to The Times by Dr. David S. Egilman, a physician from Rhode Island who teaches at Brown University and has investigated instances of human experimentation by the military and the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. Egilman said the memorandum was a clear indication that the Government's own nuclear scientists knew they were working at the very edges of medical ethics. Both Dr. Warren and Dr. Hamilton are dead.

"Based on their own documents and the history of medical ethics, they knew clearly at the time that the studies were unethical," Dr. Egilman said. "They called this work, in effect, Nazi-like. The argument we hear is that these experiments were ethical at the time they were done. It's simply not true."

Mr. Brush, said the memorandum would become part of the extensive review of human radiation experimentation called for by Secretary O'Leary.

[egypt]

I guess, for some reason, radiation is the choice means of death to humans.

Now they have the radiation chambers set up in airports with intention to put them "everywhere" right down to the entrance to the store you need to shop in for food.

My conclusion is the radiation experiments, which are obviously not meant to cure cancer, are conducted to find the most efficient "dose" that can be given to cause death -- while, at the same time, no one noticing that the radiation is responsible.

Three workers at the Japan nuclear power plant were taken to the hospital due to radiation exposure.  There is doublespeak in the Japanese news.  A statement was made that:  1. The hospitalized workers are showing no signs of illness & 2. It is not certain that the exposure to radiation occurred from the nuclear power plant.

[Satyagraha]

I guess, for some reason, radiation is the choice means of death to humans.

Now they have the radiation chambers set up in airports with intention to put them "everywhere" right down to the entrance to the store you need to shop in for food.

My conclusion is the radiation experiments, which are obviously not meant to cure cancer, are conducted to find the most efficient "dose" that can be given to cause death -- while, at the same time, no one noticing that the radiation is responsible.

Three workers at the Japan nuclear power plant were taken to the hospital due to radiation exposure.  There is doublespeak in the Japanese news.  A statement was made that:  1. The hospitalized workers are showing no signs of illness & 2. It is not certain that the exposure to radiation occurred from the nuclear power plant.

In tests on the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, researchers found that the effects of radiation exposure did not 'show' right away... the effects came later in the form of birth defects. I'll post that info shortly with links. This is the perfect eugenics weapon: it affects all future generations of the person who is exposed.

[Satyagraha]

Initial studies claimed that although there were deaths of children in utero as a result of radiation from the blasts in
Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they saw no increases in leukemia in the same group.  They tested only those people who
were in sight of the blast/flash from the bombs. 

But these studies were flawed: the exposure was more deadly for those outside the area where the flash of the bomb
could be seen: the fallout was blown out into the suburbs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Once they began studying those
populations, they discovered a sharp increase in the number of leukemia cases in the years following
the blasts at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

So when Japanese news reports "the hospitalized workers show no signs of radiation damage" they are misleading
people into believing that the damage is something that can be 'seen'. No, it is not. It won't show up for years.

==========================================


SECRET FALLOUT
LOW-LEVEL RADIATION FROM HIROSHIMA TO THREE-MILE ISLAND
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36547448/The-Secret-Fallout

The Hidden Tragedy of Hiroshima
From page 36: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36547448/The-Secret-Fallout

... But there remained one major difficulty in accepting the evidence for an increase in
leukemia, and that was the fact that the studies of the children conceived after the atomic explosions
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had shown no such increase in leukemia, or in any other radiation
effects, for that matter.

There had, of course, been very serious effects on the infants who were in the womb at the time of
the explosions. A large fraction of these infants were lost through premature death, while among the
few that survived more than a year, many suffered from congenital malformations and mental
retardation. Of those unborn children who had been about one mile from the explosions and received
estimated doses of 10 to 20 rads, nearly a third were found to have reduced brain size and mental
retardation.

But among the many children conceived after the explosions, there appeared to be no effects, as
opposed to the situation in Troy.

Late in 1966, I was given a copy of the preliminary results of a Yale University study of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki carried out by Dr. S. Finch and a group of colleagues and sponsored by the Atomic
Bomb Casualty Commission. The study involved an examination of the incidence of leukemia among
some 17,000 children whose parents had been within 2000 meters of the explosions. Radiation doses
ranged from about 3 to 30 rads, with a few as large as a hundred. These were certainly much larger
than the doses from typical pelvic X-rays received by the mothers in the study by Dr. Saxon Graham,
doses which increased the risk of childhood leukemia among the children conceived many years later
by as much as 100 percent.

The control group used for comparison purposes in the Yale study consisted of the population in
the suburbs farther than 2500 or 3500 meters from the explosion, where the radiation from the bomb
was calculated to have been less than that from natural background. With such a tremendous
difference in doses, there could be no question that there should be a substantial difference in effects.
Furthermore, since there had been virtually no fallout in the two cities, the doses had been calculated
from the instantaneous flash of the bombs alone. Such a flash was similar to the way in which the
dose from diagnostic X-rays is delivered, so, if anything, the results of Dr. Graham’s study should
have been even more applicable to this situation than to Troy, where the fallout dose was delivered
over a period of months or years.

Still another study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had also found a similar lack of effect. This study
had been conducted over a period of nearly two decades by Drs. J. V. Neel and W. J. Schull of the
Department of Human Genetics at the University of Michigan. The puzzling nature of the results was
emphasized by Dr. Neel himself during the course of a lecture series in 1963: "In view of the vast
body of data regarding the mutagenic effects of radiation, it can scarcely be doubted that the survivors
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sustained genetic damage." To this he added: "The question is not ‘Is
there damage?’ but rather ‘Can the damage be detected?’"

It was clear that, unless this problem could be resolved, any evidence on the Troy incident would
always be subject to this serious criticism. Accordingly, one day I decided to look up the original
data on the radiation dose measurements for the two Japanese cities, collected by E. T. Arakawa of
the AEC’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories. And as I examined Arakawa’s figures, I noticed that
while there had indeed been little fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki proper, the fallout had drifted
down on the suburbs a few miles away.

But if there had been fallout in the suburbs and beyond, and this fallout was far more damaging to
the ova, the embryo, and the infant than anyone had realized when the studies were set up, then the
so-called nonexposed control populations beyond about 3000 meters, the groups used for comparison
purposes, had in fact also been affected by the radiation. And just as in the case of Lade’s
comparison of the leukemia rate in the Albany-Troy-Schenectady area with that in nearby areas of
upstate New York, a search for a difference would fail to indicate any effect.

The fallout doses were by no means small. Arakawa reported that in the western suburbs of
Hiroshima, namely Furue, Takasu, and Koi, about 5000 meters from the blast, the external radiation
dose from the fallout in the environment alone probably amounted to several rads—at least twenty
times what Dr. Clark and his students were to estimate for the Troy population eight years later.

In the case of Nagasaki, the fallout had been even heavier, giving external doses as high as 100 rads in
the suburb of Nishiyama. This was a thousand times greater than in Troy. Such doses would greatly
increase the leukemia rate for the children born all over the nearby regions that had been supposedly
free of radiation, completely masking the effect if one looked only for a comparative difference, and
not for an increase over the rate for preceding years. It seemed incredible that the possible effects of
such large doses could have been overlooked in the two major studies of the effects of atomic
warfare, yet they had been.

A few months later, in the spring of 1967, after I had taken up my new position as professor of
radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, I came across the evidence that
confirmed this conclusion. It was contained in a paper published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, bringing up to date all the findings on leukemia among the survivors of the two Japanese
cities. One glance at the first figure told the story.

As compared to the rate for the preceding years, not only had there been a rise in leukemia incidence
among those who were less than 1500 meters from the explosions, but there was a similar though
somewhat smaller rise for the population beyond 10,000 meters who could not possibly have received
any of the direct radiation from the flash of the bomb.
Both rises followed the characteristic pattern of radiation-caused leukemia.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36547448/The-Secret-Fallout

[Satyagraha]

Initial studies claimed that although there were deaths of children in utero as a result of radiation from the blasts in
Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they saw no increases in leukemia in the same group.  They tested only those people who
were in sight of the blast/flash from the bombs. 

But these studies were flawed: the exposure was more deadly for those outside the area where the flash of the bomb
could be seen: the fallout was blown out into the suburbs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Once they began studying those
populations, they discovered a sharp increase in the number of leukemia cases in the years following
the blasts at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

So when Japanese news reports "the hospitalized workers show no signs of radiation damage" they are misleading
people into believing that the damage is something that can be 'seen'. No, it is not. It won't show up for years.

Radiation levels rise above limit at quake-hit plant: Kyodo
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/us-japan-quake-tepco-radiation-idUSTRE72B3PJ20110313

(Reuters) - Radiation levels have risen above the safety limit around Tokyo Electric Power Co's (TEPCO) nuclear plant hit by a massive earthquake and the company has informed the government of an "emergency situation," Kyodo agency reported on Sunday.

It did not mean an immediate threat to human health, the company said.

The company said earlier that it had started releasing steam from a reactor at the plant. A similar rise in radiation levels occurred after the company released radioactive steam from another reactor to let go of pressure. Then again the company was obliged to inform the government of an "emergency situation."

(Reporting by Chisa Fujioka)