«

»

Researchers Not Worried about Radiation

video preview image

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Researchers at Oregon State University say two and a half years after the Fukushima nuclear spill, they are not seeing any negative effects on the West Coast.

Kathryn Higley, a professor and the Department Head of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State University says her team has been monitoring the radiation levels not only in Japan but also in Oregon, Washington, Canada, and Australia.

“Immediately following the accident, right along the coast of Japan, right next to the plant, there were some elevated concentrations,” Higley said.

She says though studies in Japan are continuing to examine the effects on species living at the plant site, she says other species surrounding the plant likely will not be affected. Within the last few years, Higley says the radioactive material Cesium-137 has been seeping into the ocean, but it is chemically similar to sodium. She says once it is in the ocean, it dilutes and diminishes pretty quickly.

“We don’t expect any adverse consequences,” she said. “To the animals, to the marine species, to people consuming those species from the releases at Fukushima.”

Even in Japan, she says she is not anticipating any health consequences of the spill.

“Epidemiologists are saying that they don’t think they’ll ever be able to see an uptick in cancer in the population attributed to Fukushima.”

She says workers at the plant had more exposure to the radioactive material, but that their chances of cancer are only a small percentage higher. Thousands of miles across the coast, she expects the same.

“On the West Coast, no, there’s not going to be any negative effects,” she said.

Though Higley does not believe there will be negative health effects of the spill, she says the Fukushima spill is still an important one to learn from.

“It’s important for us to continue to understand how these accidents could progress to be able to respond to any sort of mixtures of radionuclides and continue to refine the designs so that the possibility of an accident is very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely.”

The research is ongoing. Higley says scientists will continue to test areas in Japan and in areas around the world.

 

13 comments

No ping yet

  1. greg says:

    Unbelievable. This is a poorly written piece of propaganda.

  2. Stephanie says:

    look at who funds the OSU nuke program:

    Following are the folks who fund her research:
    at http://ne.oregonstate.edu/content/industry-and-partners

    “Our research expenditures for fiscal year 2013 totaled $6 million. Our annual research budget is funded by international, federal, state, and private agencies including:

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

    Westinghouse Electric Corporation

    Portland General Electric Company

    Oregon Department of Energy

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)

    Ongoing collaborative research partnerships include:

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)

    Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL)

    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

    Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

    Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)

  3. Erik says:

    This is total B.S. I’d like to see her data and what exactly they are testing on. Can you explain any of the off shore die offs? Or the unusual behaviors of the sea life? Or the lesions on polar bears in Alaska etc etc etc….

    As Stephanie stated above, it’s evident this is PROPOGANDA based on the list of Bias funders who support her program.

    Kathyrn you probably bank @ JP Morgan Chase and voted for Obama and think he’s been a godsend since 2008.

    WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP…..TAKE THE RED PILL for crying out loud.

  4. Stephanie says:

    Higley says, “Epidemiologists are saying that they don’t think they’ll ever be able to see an uptick in cancer in the population attributed to Fukushima.”

    There is already a well-documented uptick in thyroid cancer in children…

    http://enenews.com/cancers-fukushima-children-mother-dont-whats-actually-going-trust-govt-tv-private-hospital-finds-cysts-after-official-tests-all-clear-video

    Ms Higley, how can you sleep at night?

  5. Stephanie says:

    last one….. :-)

    http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radchart.htm

  6. Stephanie says:

    oops, one more:

    from the american cancer society

    Ionizing radiation
    Ionizing radiation has enough energy to knock electrons off of atoms or molecules. This is called ionization. Ionized molecules are unstable and quickly undergo chemical changes.

    If ionizing radiation passes through a cell in the body, it can lead to mutations (changes) in the cell’s DNA, the part of the cell that contains its genes (blueprints). This could contribute to cancer, or to the death of the cell. The amount of damage in the cell is related to the dose of radiation it receives. The damage takes place in only a fraction of a second, but other changes such as the beginning of cancer may take years to develop.

    Types of ionizing radiation include x-rays, gamma rays, some high-energy UV rays, and particles given off by radioactive materials such as alpha particles and protons. These forms of radiation have different energy levels and can penetrate cells to different extents, but all are capable of causing ionization.

    Does ionizing radiation cause cancer?

    Ionizing radiation is a proven human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). The evidence for this comes from many different sources, including studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, people exposed during the Chernobyl nuclear accident, people treated with high doses of radiation for cancer and other conditions, and people exposed to high levels of radiation at work, such as uranium miners.

    Most studies on radiation and cancer risk have looked at people exposed to very high doses of radiation in the settings above. It is harder to measure the much smaller increase in cancer risk that might come from much lower levels of radiation exposure. Most studies have not been able to detect an increased risk of cancer among people exposed to low levels of radiation. For example, people living at high altitudes, who are exposed to more natural background radiation from cosmic rays than people living at sea level, do not have noticeably higher cancer rates.

    Still, most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer risk, although by a very small amount. In general, the risk of cancer from radiation exposure increases as the dose of radiation increases. Likewise, the lower the exposure is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe.

    Although radiation exposure affects the occurrence of various types of cancer, it does not affect their aggressiveness (tendency to grow and spread).

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer

  7. GB says:

    When you listen to the interview on KEZI do note what surprises the Professor at 1:06.
    Radiation monitors at the disaster site!

  8. David says:

    If people believe the drivel that this women is spouting, then more fool them.

    She should be ashamed of herself, prostituting her position in this way.

    Let her eat fish from Fukushima bay with rice mushrooms and leaf vegetables fromthe exclusion zone.

    There has been a tenfold increase in thyroid cysts in children within the Fukushima area. Cancer rates will skyrocket in Japan.

    Cancer rates WILL rise on the west coast, as a result of Fukushima, no matter how much she tries to deny it.

    Marine species will be negatively impacted.

    There is no safe level of ionizing radiation. Period. End of story!

  9. stephen says:

    “Higley says the radioactive material Cesium-137 has been seeping into the ocean, but it is chemically similar to sodium. She says once it is in the ocean, it dilutes and diminishes pretty quickly.”

    – But that Cesium 137 is radoactiv! Not similar effects to sodium!

    Secrecy law approved in Japan — AP: Prison for ‘inappropriate reporting’ — Official: We’re on path to be fascist state — Fear Fukushima cover-ups to worsen
    http://enenews.com/secrecy-law-approved-by-japan-lawmakers-ap-prison-for-inappropriate-reporting-official-were-on-path-to-be-fascist-state-fear-of-more-fukushima-cover-ups

    Why is necessary the secrecy law? because there is something to keep is secret ,to hide from the people.

  10. Graeme says:

    YES, SHAME ON THIS ARTICLE AND WHOMEVER SUPPORTS IT, or ITS DISGUSTING FALSE CONCLUSIONS. How DO you sleep at night? Oh, yeah, big Pharma! Have fun on HERCULOBUS with the DINOSAURS when you reincarnate on a primal planet to LEARN HOW TO COEXIST PEACEFULLY AND CO-CREATE HARMONIOUSLY WITH OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and THE PLANET and the beautiful LIFE ON IT.

  11. Dingle says:

    Calm down, calm down.
    Prof. Higley’s just trying to secure her retirement fund with this one.
    Big checks will flow in from nuclear industry, construction, and, government to her on this whopper of distortion and grand propaganda.
    Ps. Rumor has it her next report will prove that black is really white and white is really black. Stay tuned.

  12. Wesley Sweitzer says:

    We in the Pacific Northwest should be eating food as if we were being treated for chemo, seaweed, nuts, and avoiding high contaminated foods like meats and milk poisoned by radiation. This is an epic disaster effecting all of us, especially children and elderly. Kezi should get a back bone.

  13. Tintin says:

    So no one believes this woman and everyone’s freaked “We’re all gonna die!” I’m just curious. I have friends who are freaked. It sells. But I know what you mean about being bought by funding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


6 + 4 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>