Dangerous Myths About Radiation, Diet and Health
by Lorna Salzman
Most of what we read on the internet about health is dubious, speculative and based on anecdotal evidence, not clinical studies. Yet how does one persuade those who distrust government and traditional medicine to consult credible scientific and medical research bodies? A first step is to check out the sources given by an author; often an author will simply use his own studies as sources for his article. Rely on peer reviewed journals. Check the author's background, university and technical degrees and institutional affiliations to make sure these are not inventions of the author, which they often are.
Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, all kinds of foods and herbs are being promoted as protection against radiation, but these foods are completely useless with regard to whole-body radiation and ingestion of fission products like iodine. Gamma is whole body and once you have gotten the exposure, nothing can be done. Your cells have absorbed the gamma rays, period. If they hit the DNA, there could be adverse consequences. If they miss the DNA and go right through the cell, you are lucky. This is usually the case with medical Xrays. Repeated or prolong exposure increases the risk proportionately; there is no dose that doesn't produce some effects in the population, statistically. You just don't know who will be affected or when. There is evidence that DNA can repair itself (obviously our ancestral cells evolved with ultra violet rays and other kinds of radiation) but this probably depends on lots of other factors.
Beta emitters like cesium 137 and strontium 90 are dangerous due to their half life of about 30 years and their deposition on soil and crops that are consumed by animals and humans, especially strontium 90 in milk, which then goes to the bones and teeth. Cesium goes into muscles and organs.
Alpha emitters: plutonium. Alpha particles cannot penetrate intact skin or tissues. That's why you can hold solid plutonium in your hand (unless you have skin cuts). But if plutonium is in the form of fine particles and there is an explosion (as with meltdowns of nuclear fuel or spent fuel, nuclear weapons or bombs), the particles go into the atmosphere and can be inhaled into your lungs or gonads. And that's where they stay, forever, irradiating the tissue around them. This is probably happening now with the mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium fuel from one of the Japanese reactors. And when the particles fall on the ground they remain there and can be picked up in dust or soil which can then be disturbed and redistributed.
There is absolutely no clinical evidence showing that radioactive particles can be flushed from the body. There is a dangerous treatment called chelation, which involves injecting some serious chemicals into the body with the hope that they will bind with radioactive particles. Whether or how much this has succeeded I don't know; you need to consult the medical literature. In any case it is a desperate measure with its own risks.
If there truly were such a thing as detoxifying radioactivity, it would already be in use widely and regularly. The fact is that the only thing that can "de-toxify" radioactivity is TIME: the radioactive elements decay according to their half life. Iodine 131 has an 8 day half-life so it gives off intense radiation as soon as it is produced. That is why it is of immediate concern in an accident. For example, if a finite amount of iodine is emitted in an accident, and the emission stops within a day, then in 8 days, half of it will have decayed. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay, and so forth.
Generally for nuclear waste storage and "isolation", they aim for ten to twenty half lives for any given element. This includes plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,400 years. So it has to be isolated from the biosphere for at least 240,000 years, or 480,000 years. There are lots of authoritative sources available on radiation doses and exposure. Take the time to do the research. Or consult Dr. John Gofman's book, Radiation and Health.
One other point on another topic. In this country the NRC and others have responded to concerns about reactors in regions subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. However, the real risk, which is common to all reactors, is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). And there are many possible events besides earthquakes that could initiate a LOCA such as sabotage or terrorism, or even routine flooding and hurricanes which we are now experiencing.
And by the way, the NRC chair stated that existing operating reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude "usual" for the region in which they are located. But so were the Japanese reactors. Design-basis earthquakes are not the only kind possible; Japan just discovered this. The impact of the recent earthquake there subjected the reactors to stresses 1.5 times what the reactor was designed to cope with. It is of course only a question of money: how much do utilities want to spend for those extra safety features? As little as possible.
SNICKERSNEE
The Many Disguises of Anti-Semitism
by Lorna Salzman
An article of faith among critics of Israel is that such criticism in no way is anti-Semitic, that is, directed against Jews as opposed to Israelis. It is more than an article of faith, however. It can and does provide cover for anti-Semitism. While subtly appealing to the public appeal of freedom of speech and dissent, it simultaneously ignores the very real examples that undermine this claim. It is useful to recall what Natan Sharansky says are such signs: demonization, double standard and delegitimization. All of these abound in virtually all criticism of Israel.
The grotesque exaggeration of Israeli treatment of Palestinians as "apartheid" is classic demonization. Descriptions of Israel mistreatment of Palestinians that do not contain this word or do not make comparisons to Nazism are almost nonexistent. Israel has many misguided policies, including its stubborn expansion of settlements and development in Arab sections of Jerusalem, its concessions and privileges to the often violent ultra-orthodox Jews, and it may be making life harder for Gazans than Hamas itself is doing, but they are not slaughtering Palestinians in cold blood, unlike the situation in other countries in Africa and the middle east. They have a free press and freedom of speech and an admirable legal system whose like is nonexistent elsewhere the middle east.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians and their supporters in this country continue to use demonizing language, thus inflating the Israel-Palestine conflict to a size exceeding that of far worse conflicts and genocides elsewhere. Legitimate charges by human rights groups against Israel that are free from vilification are almost nonexistent. When the enemies of Israel "cry wolf" and use language of hyperbole and vituperation, it is hard to identify legitimate grievances or take them seriously.
The double standard used to judge Israel is unprecedented in modern times. Were Israel not a Jewish state, the world would probably ignore its conflict with the Palestinians. On the map of world conflict, it is a tiny blip. The really huge blips involving state-sponsored genocide, ethnic wars, assassinations and the rape, pillaging and axe murders of women and children that are still occurring in Africa and elsewhere (such as Haiti) get almost no attention. Except for Darfur where a coalition of Jews, blacks and Christians was formed to confront the murder by Muslims of animists and other minorities in the south of Sudan, the world has kept its eyes closed to the slaughter of at least three million people in Darfur alone, plus millions more in Congo, Rwanda and their neighbors. Bluntly: the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis (always in self defense ) probably numbers in the hundreds compared to the millions of victims in Africa at the hands of their own governments. Yet it is this conflict that monopolizes world attention.
The enthusiasm of the left for radical Islam and terrorists is unceasing and makes leftist accusations against Israeli suspect even when they may have substance. Impartial and independent judgments against Israeli treatment of Palestinians are almost impossible to find. It is puzzling to see American leftists aligning themselves with movements whose historic enmity towards the left is well documented, while ignoring the disdain of Gazans and Arabs for women's rights and civil liberties. Much of this arises from the long-standing hatred for the US, fueled by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, and spearheaded by groups like ANSWER (an ally of north Korea), the Revolutionary Communist Party and Workers' World Party (sponsors of the "World Can't Wait" campaign), and Clark's National Action Center, to mention only a few.
A major contributor to global anti-Semitism was the frenzied gathering in Durban, South Africa in 2001, known as the World Social Forum, and in particular the separate NGO forum and statement produced by its eight thousand participants. Despite attempts at the main conference to address racism in a global context, somehow the topic at hand always ended up as Israel and "Zionism" (code word for Jews) and their purported racism and apartheid. Trans-Atlantic slavery was addressed but mysteriously the enslavement of black Africans by Muslims from the Arab world was not mentioned.. As a result, the final documents were not signed by many western countries or, to their credit, by the major human rights organizations, although some of their subsequent actions on Israel were deplorable, such as the Human Rights watch report on the Israel-Gaza war, which had no more credibility than the infamous, now-discredited Goldstone report.
Onto this list of the neo-fascist left are now added many "useful idiots": naive American peace groups wrapping themselves in Hamas scarves and identifiable by the use of the term "peace and justice" somewhere in their name. Beyond their anti-Americanism, though, they see an opportunity to vilify and demonize Israel, the Jewish state, and by implication all Jews. Many closet anti-Semites are now able, through these groups and movements, to hang their hat on these campaigns without being identified as anti-Semites.
Delegitimization involves the major falsification of history, of Israeli history and territory and the identity of those who call themselves Palestinians. No such ethnic group ever existed before today. Jews were there two thousand years ago and so were scattered Arab tribes with no cohesion or national identity. The creation of Palestine as a Jewish state has been turned on its head by those making unprovable claims about priority ownership of lands. While it may seem absurd to base territorial claims on three thousand-year history, the fact is that present day Palestinians, being of many origins, did not exist as an ethnic group or even a political one until the anti-Israel campaign started to heat up in recent times. More absurd is their demand for the "right of return" for all those who were forced out of Israeli territory during the various wars that began in 1967. At that time perhaps 700,000 Arabs left; today their descendants number over five million. There is no chance whatsoever that Israel or any of its neighbors would allow them back. Indeed, none of Israel's neighbors have offered to take them in.
The double standard can be easily verified by comparing the number of anti-Israel resolutions introduced into the UN and those introduced against the real criminals in Congo, Rwanda and Sudan. The former outnumber the latter by a factor of ten. The UN and the media are still ranting over the Gazan war but you will hear no mention of the atrocities being committed right now in Congo nor of those that were committed in Rwanda when the cowardly UN refused to arm its "peacekeepers" to allow them to protect the people. Here is a comment on this for the UN General Assembly: released by Wikileaks:
Sunday, February 6, 2011
DEMARCHE DELIVERED: ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS AT UNGA
Reference ID 08BRASILIA1538
Created 2008-11-28 16:04
Released 2011-02-06
Classification CONFIDENTIAL
Origin Embassy Brasilia
VZCZCXRO1839
RR RUEHRG
DE RUEHBR #1538 3331618
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 281618Z NOV 08
FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3001
INFO RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 8759
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 6936
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 3132
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0281
C O N F I D E N T I A L BRASILIA 001538
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR IO/UNP ANDREW MORRISON
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/26/2018
TAGS: PREL UNGA IS PA LE SY BR
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED: ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS AT
UNGA
REF: STATE 123081
Classified By: Political Counselor Stephen Liston for REASONS 1.4 B AND D.
¶1. (C) On Tuesday, November 25, poloff delivered reftel demarche to Secretario Ricardo Rizzo from the United Nations Division of the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations. Rizzo sincerely thanked poloff for the detailed information breaking down the number of anti-Israeli resolutions compared to other countries and added that, although he was aware that there was a disproportionate level of anti-Israeli discourse at the U.N., he never realized its extent until looking at the figures. Furthermore, he noted that he was unaware of the continuing existence of the three U.N. bodies charged with protecting Palestinian rights or monitoring Israeli practices and candidly admitted that it showed a "lack of maturity" in the international system that would have to be overcome in order to achieve progress towards peace in the region. He noted, however, that he could only take the points presented under advisement for the moment and that he would have to consult with the regional desks involved with the issue in order to provide a reaction to the demarche points. Post will monitor and report any further reaction.
Between 1948 and 1991, the UN Security Council passed 175 resolutions regarding the middle east. Of these 97 were anti-Israel; 4 were anti-Arab states.
The UN General Assembly passed 322 resolutions against Israel and none against Arab states.Why is Israel the main target of anger and righteousness rather than the tyrannical regimes in Africa? Or Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Burma or Libya? Because Israel is comprised of Jews. The singular attention to Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, depicted in leftist propaganda ad nauseum, is never counterbalanced by attention to Hamas atrocities against those considered Israeli sympathizers or collaborators, the sharia oppression of women, the absence of a secular civil legal system and a free press. Hamas recently arrested peaceful Palestinian demonstrators calling for a unified governance of Gaza and the West Bank and journalists who covered the demonstration. The arrests got little attention in the American press.
Simultaneously, the unprovoked firing of missiles by Hamas against Israeli civilians and settlements, the use of Palestinians as human shields, and the deliberate use of homes, hospitals, schools and public buildings for Hamas weapons storage, go unacknowledged even by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch, as well as the infamous and now disgraced Goldstone report (parts of which have now been retracted by Goldstone). Such a wildly unbalanced response could only be fueled by those with a longstanding animus and bias. But there are other unmistakeable signs: the attack on "Zionism" by NYC councilman Charles Barron, beneficiary of a trip to Gaza and Hamas whom he praised; the banning by South African bishop Desmond Tutu of attorney Alan Dershowitz from speaking at any South African university and three similar bans imposed in Norway; Spanish polls showing 60% of its citizens distrust Jews even though most of them have never met one (20% of Spaniards have Jewish ancestors who converted to Catholicism to save themselves in the middle ages; these can be distinguished because they changed their name and took their profession or city as their name -----including the name Zapatero, the name of Spain's president, a vehement critic of Israel, which means shoemaker). Those who shout "Zionism is racism" mean Jews. No other answer is possible, logical or indicated.