Archives for posts with tag: Cancer

Fra en lang og grundig norsk e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) refereres:
Meget mere: Se
– – LNT eller “Liniar No Treashold” angiver at
– – “Lige hvor lidt så er stråling altid skadeligt”
1. Radon in homes: It is evident from this long paper that we can forget about most of the remedial actions for reducing the average radon level. This would save a lot of money for those involved.
2. Nuclear power: In the fight for reducing the CO2 release to the atmosphere, nuclear power could be a considerable contributor to the worlds energy supply. The world energy consumption increases annually by approximately 2 %. Also the use of fossil fuel with CO2 release increases. A significant contribution to halt and even reduce the CO2 release would be to increase the contribution from nuclear energy. It is a surprise to us that environmental organizations that worry about global warming – are not pro nuclear.
3. Reactor accidents We have had two major breakdowns of nuclear reactors which both have been treated according to the LNT-theory. For both Chernobyl and Fukushima consequences have been calculated using collective doses and LNT. In Chernobyl a number of people were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome and 28 died within 3 months. There has also been recorded thyroid cancer to children that was drinking contaminated milk (I-131). Altogether 11 deaths have been recorded. Whether these cancers have been caused by the Chernobyl accident is rather douptful since similar changes in the thyroid have been observed without radiation. Furthermore, the thyroid doses from I-131 after the Chernobyl accident have not been measured and they are very poorly determined. Cancer deaths in combination with the reactor accidents are based on LNT. No threshold and no hormetic region has been considered. However, the most significant and serious decision taken after the reactor accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima was to evacuate several hundred thousands of people. The decision was taken based on the LNT-theory and the use of collective doses. No attempts were made to compare the radiation level in the contaminated areas with the level found in the HBR (High Background Radiation) regions. If such a comparison had been made, the most negative of the reactor accidents could have been avoided.

Hej Thorkil

Sig du det til de pårørende…:

1. nov 2010, Radon slår kun rygerne ihjel:
Citat: “…
65.000 danske huse har højere koncentrationer, end de [Det er yderst lav radioaktivitetskoncentration men det er skadeligt! ->] 200 Bq pr. kubikmeter, der tidligere var verdenssundhedsorganisationen WHO’s grænse. Sidste år blev den sænket til 100 Bq/m3 som cirka 280.000 danske huse overskrider.

Torben Sigsgaard fremhæver konklusionerne om radon og rygning, der forstærker hinandens skadelige virkning, efter flere avisartikler har fået folketingsmedlemmer fra både højre- og venstrefløjen til at kræve en handlingsplan.

Kommer visse radioaktive stoffer (selv i lave koncentrationer) først ind i kroppen er det for sent – det skader, minsker livskvaliteten drastisk i fx årtier – eller dræber:

August 6, 2012, Fukushima’s Children Facing High Rate of Thyroid Irregularities:
Citat: “…
According to government research released in Japan, 36 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture — the area around the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown — who were exposed to radiation now have abnormal growths on their thyroid glands.

The survey examined more than 38,000 local children, and found that more than 13,000 had thyroid cysts or nodules, a rate that is much higher than the average population, where an estimated 0.5-1.0% of children have thyroid cysts. According to Japanese authorities, while they don’t know that the radiation exposure is the cause, they will be monitoring the effects on the area’s children in upcoming years.

The Japanese authorities’ downplaying of the risks to children is controversial, and is being covered by the English-language Fukushima Voice website, the Fukushima Voice site.

July 20, 2012, Fukushima Watch: Study Suggests up to 1,300 Could Die From Radiation Effects:
Citat: “…
The radiation toll from last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could eventually result in anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths, according to a study by Stanford University scientists.
[… ]
The researchers also calculate that about 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer illnesses could someday be attributed to the accident. Plant workers who were exposed to radiation on-site may account for another two to 12 cancer cases.

About 27% of the health effects expected in Japan will occur sometime in the next 50 years, the study said.

they mapped out the spread and concentration of the radioactive nuclides — iodine-131, cesium-137 and cesium-134.

July 16, 2012, Fukushima: West Coast cesium slam ahead, hair falling out, Tepco data flaw:
Citat: “…
As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim’s head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an “order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data.

“I didn’t know still some people remained in the town. “One of them told me, ‘My hair fell off,’ with tears in her eyes.

Hair falling out is one of the most common of the eight signs of radiation poisoning.

August 09, 2012, Lead shields masked radiation readings up to 30%:
Citat: “…
Lead radiation shields forced on workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to cover their dosimeters masked radiation readings by about 30 percent.

Jul. 25, 2012, Exec admits falsifying N-data / Lead-shielded dosimeters carried by workers in high-radiation areas:
Citat: “…
“I came up with the idea to use covers because the dosimeters’ alarm repeatedly sounded” when he first entered the site, said Teruo Sagara, a director at the subcontractor, Build-up, during a press conference Monday at its office in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.

Erfaringer fra Chernobyl. Bl.a. virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet radioaktivt nedfald fra Chernobyl:

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher.
The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science.
The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases.

Federation Of European Cancer Societies (2001, October 26). Cutting The Cost Of Fall-Out From Chernobyl 15 Years After The World’s Worst Nuclear Accident. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
Nearly 2000 cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the world’s worst nuclear accident which occurred in Ukrainian city 15 years ago – and the number is still rising.
Professor Dillwyn Williams, of The Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge University, told the meeting: “Four years after the accident, an excess of thyroid cancers was noted among children who had been exposed to fall-out from the disaster. That increase has continued and new cases are still being seen in those who were children at the time of the accident”.

JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, April 24). Radiation Exposure Associated With More Aggressive Thyroid Cancer, Worse Outcomes. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
[ Lang “latenstid”: ]
The average age at first exposure to radiation was 19.4 years, and cancers were diagnosed an average of 28.7 years later.

Følgende er virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet Chernobyl radioaktivt nedfald:

Aug. 17, 2007 Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants:
Citat: “…
The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday.

The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability.

Man kan også være turist i dele af Tjernobylområdet – men det er strengt forbudt at grave i jorden. Den slags forbud har Fukushima også:

In Chernobyl town. All pipes must run above ground – no digging is allowed.

7 July 2012, Chernobyl’s radioactive trees and the forest fire risk.
Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.
Citat: “…
Having said this, the berries are not uniformly harmful. In an average pint of them, perhaps only a quarter will be contaminated. The main thing is to make sure you do not put them on your cereal every day.

Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent.

Their equipment is very basic. They believe they know when they are fighting a radioactive fire – they experience a tingling, metallic sensation in their skin – but they do not fully understand the serious dangers of being exposed to superheated radioactive particles.

Sergiy says more big wildfires in Chernobyl like the one in 1992 would be catastrophic for Ukraine’s image, and potentially devastating for farmland right across Europe.

Chernobyl: A tourist guide to the death zone.
45000 people used to live here before the catastrophe. They were evacuated in less than 2 hours. Now this is a ghost town:
Citat: “…
When the ground is more severely contaminated a bulldozer removes up to 80 cm of soil, which is buried as well to “get rid” of the Caesium 137. Even though the sun has been shining for days, all the streets in the contaminated area are wet. Tank trucks are driving around spraying water non-stop to keep the radioactive dust on the ground so it won’t reach the lungs where it would probably cause cancer.

On our trip we pass by empty villages. Furniture can be spotted through the windows. The people who used to live here had to leave everything behind. Everything is contaminated!

The levels of radioactive radiation vary immensely in this maze of tunnels. There are tunnels you can stroll through – with protective clothing on – while there are others you have to sprint through. Suddenly there is a board that blocks the way down a staircase. It says, “Stop! 200 X-ray an hour!” Not even the workers are allowed to go there.

07.17.2012, Chernobyl Now. Are nuclear disasters the new normal?:
Citat: “…
Although Chernobyl contaminated half the planet with fallout, memory of the disaster had almost faded into obscurity when a tsunami swamped Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant last year. At the time, many observers resurrected the specter of Chernobyl as a reassuring example of what wasn’t happening at Fukushima—a nuclear meltdown. We know now, though, that three of Fukushima’s reactors did melt down, spewing radioactive contamination over parts of Japan and into the sea.

In fact, the global rate is about five times the baseline goal of U.S. regulators. If the rate of partial core melts holds true for the 353 light-water reactors currently operating, we can expect a nuclear meltdown to occur every six years on average.

Link virker ikke mere:

20 years after Chernobyl – The ongoing health effects -:
Citat: “…
Here you can see a picture from the Otto-Hug thyroid clinic in Gomel. Until 2002, 70.000 patients received extensive thyroid treatment at this clinic alone. For many children and adolescents, this means the removal of their thyroid glands and the lifelong dependence on medication and medical supervision.

Thyroid cancer can in fact be treated in most cases, but only under Western medical standards, which cannot be taken for granted in the region. In many cases, the only hope lies with private donations from the West. Nobody cares for the mental effects of cancer on the affected children.

Thyroid cancer is a very rare form of cancer – under normal circumstances it constitutes less than one percent of all cancer forms. That’s also why this increase is so remarkable.

The cancer rates increase with the rate of contamination in the soil: In the most heavily affected region of Belarus, in Gomel, the rate rose up to 55.9 percent. One can also observe a doubling of the rate of breast cancer in regions with notably high Cesium contamination. On average, women developed breast cancer 15 years earlier than usual – a similar phenomenon as with thyroid cancer.

The risk of leukemia in children in the affected regions is also three times higher than usual.

But the health consequences are not restricted to the Chernobyl region. Surveys in several European countries showed a significant increase in infant mortality in the year 1987 – probably as a result of a “Cesium-effect” – and in the beginning of the 1990s probably as a result of a “Strontium-effect”. It would take too much time to go into detail on these effects at this point. For the record, studies come to the conclusion that fatalities under infants in Europe related to Chernobyl are in the magnitude of 5,000. Because of different reasons, the actual effects could be much higher.

Numerous studies also document a significant increase in malformations in many European countries. According to a German survey, 1,000 to 3,000 additional cases of malformation were registered in the contaminated region of Bavaria alone. IPPNW scientists estimate a Europe-wide number of malformations of at least 10,000.

Children are also strongly affected. In 1996 in Ukraine, 70 percent of the children of afflicted parents were officially registered as sick. In comparison: in 1987, the figure was 20 percent. Children in the region of Gomel in Belarus are also very sick. From 100,000 children, 83,000 suffer from respiratory diseases, 7,000 from diseases of the nervous system and sensory organs, 7,000 from skin diseases and subcutaneous adipose tissue diseases, and 5.500 from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. In total, the number of infant illnesses diagnosed for the first time rose by a factor of thirteen.

These are the results:

Until today, several hundred thousand liquidators have become sick.

Several ten thousand liquidators have died as a result of radiation exposure.

In total, there must be far more than of 10,000 cases.

In the future, more than 50,000 children will suffer from thyroid cancer.

These are very conservative estimates. The Russian Environmental Ministry states that the number of Chernobyl-induced cases of diseases amounted to 1,3 million persons before the beginning of the 1990s.
Until today, 10,000 cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in Belarus alone.

Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. This represents an increase by a factor of 5.8 since Chernobyl and can certainly not be attributed to bad lifestyle or poor nutrition. Children which were breast fed were affected in particular. This study was ignored by the IAEA and WHO.

Just as they did with other, more up to date and unquestionable pieces of research. The IAEA/WHO study relies almost exclusively on studies from 1990 to 1998. Newer, more alarming studies were completely disregarded.

But there is further criticism of the IAEA/WHO study:

Several hundred thousand people were simply overlooked: Merely 200,000 of the 600,000 to 860,000 of the liquidators were considered in the surveys.

In the study, non-cancer afflictions were left out of the computation base for the fatality figures.

Of the 9,000 cases of cancer deaths forecast in the study, the IAEA only mentioned 4,000 in its abridged report. This means that 5,000 fatalities were simply left out of the report presented to the press and the public.

This lecture actively resists being taken in by these arguments. The Chernobyl case can not and must not be closed. Chernobyl began to kill 20 years ago – and has been killing ever since – slowly and unobtrusively. It’s an accident without an end. Nobody knows exactly what burdens will befall the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victims. A technology which has such consequences is irresponsible. Taking into account a study of the German Society for Reactor Security, the risk of a nuclear meltdown in the EU in the next 40 years lies at 16 percent.

April 2011, Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 years after the reactor catastrophe:
Executive Summary
Citat: “…
This paper evaluates studies that contain plausible indications of health damage caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The authors of this paper attach importance to the selection of methodically accurate and comprehensible analyses. Due to the already mentioned methodical difficulties, it is not our aim to present the “right” statistics in contrast to the obviously wrong ones given by the IAEA, since these can never be found. They can only supply us with indications as to the diversity and extent of the health effects we should be dealing with when we talk about the health effects of Chernobyl.

Disease/health damage is to be expected as a result of additional exposure to radiation because of Chernobyl

.a. Cancer. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 – 30 years. At present we are only just seeing cases of thyroid cancers, breast cancers and brain tumours In the population. But liquidators have also developed cancer in numerous other organs: the prostate gland, stomach, cancer of the blood, thyroid cancer

.b. Genetic changes: malformations, stillbirths, the lack of children

.c. Non-cancerous diseases. Many organ systems could be affected; brain disorders; accelerated aging process; psychological disorders

Despite this, the ICRP continues to give a dose limit of 100 mSv for teratogenic damage. This claim has been invalidated by numerous studies.

The lower the radiation level, the longer the latency period before the outbreak of cancer (established as early as 2000 by Pierce and Preston in the context of the RERF studies).

It was found that the incidence of non-cancerous disease had increased; mainly cardiovascular and stomach diseases, and cases of neurological-psychiatric illness were found to be a somatic effect of low-level radiation. The latter was observed mainly during research on liquidators and their children.

Riskovurdering Se her
Katastrofer Se her
Den indbildte frygt
– – – Frygten for stråling Se her
– – – – – Dødsfald – kraftkilder Se her
– – – – – Ubeboelige områder Se her
– – – – – Evakueringer Se her

Stråling og Cancer Se her
– – – Skader fra stråling Se her
– – – Næste generation Se her
– – – Why are you afaid ? Se her
Affalds”probloemet” Se her
– – – Men der er meget andet Se her
Linear No Treshold Se her
– – – Lidt Humoristesk Se her
– – – Absurde konsekvenser af LNT Se her

– – – – For sources and references:
– – – – Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
In the media you find numerous reports concerning an imminent danger that terrorists will gather radioactive material and use conventional explosives to spread it over a large area, which then will be uninhabitable for a long time.

Apparently nobody will take the trouble to go into details, except for example to tell:
“They [Isis] are working on a series of attacks with radioactive substance. A ‘radioactive tsunami’ of Europe which would remove millions of people from the earth. The largest religious Holocaust the world has seen. “

Although it has been mentioned many times, it is not possible.

Long time before this hopeful terrorist has collected just one % of the necessary, he will die a miserably, but not that glorious death from acute radiation poisoning.

Still you can find alarming reports that radioactive material has been stolen or “lost”.
It comes to eg 50 kg uranium – Not even enough to contaminate half a square meter.

Allow me to raise a number of questions, to which I unfortunately can not provide complete answers – but better than most.

But first:
The many confusing units is a recurring challenge.
Milli Sievert is the unit of biological effects of ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
There has never been found injuries after brief irradiation under 100 mSv
500 mSv is 100 times the normally permitted. This will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness, but does not call for shorter lifespans.
3,500 mSv will cause half of the irradiated will die and that the survivors will have an average life span three years less than the general population.
If the radiation is spread over longer time, it is less harmful.
1000 mSv per year will not be harmful if it is evenly distributed over the year.
Bq Becquerel is one radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit:
We all carry around with some 4,500 Bq from natural sources.

Unfortunately, there is no clear relationship between mSv and Bq
Alpha and Beta radiation would only be dangerous if the radioactive material eaten or inhaled.
Neutron radiation causes severe radiation damage, but is found only a short time after a nuclear bomb explosion.
Gamma radiation can be very harmful.

How dangerous is ionizing (radioactive) radiation?

  • It is known that populations have lived for generations in areas with fairly high natural radioactivity.
    Far more than the “permissible”.
    However, without the expected injury taking place.
    Most pronounced is the area around Ramsar in Pakistan:
    More than 200 mSv / year, mostly from radon.
  • I reject numerous, obvious fake atrocity stories, probably originating from Greenpeace or followers.
  • For political reasons there has been set unrealistically low values for permissible radiation. Both at Chernobyl and Fukushima.


How much does it take to make a large area uninhabitable?
And how many kg / ton material will be needed?
Here I can not give a precise answer.
But it will need much more than a terrorist can ‘just’ find in hospitals and the like.
My guess is that it will be necessary to empty a good lot of stuff out of a pair of nuclear reactors.
But now comes the real question:

How should this terrorist protect himself from radiation while this radioactive material is assembled and before it has been spread out?

  • Although you see pictures of “green activists”, wearing white suit with breathing apparatus, these very large amounts of radioactive material must be handled by remote control behind a wall of lead.
  • The white suit seen in many images is completely ineffective against radiation, but may give (false) credibility.
  • Do not forget that it is assumed that this radioactive material should be sufficient to kill “countless people” and that it will be necessary to get hold of something that is far beyond a mere bagatelle.

A realistic “dirty bomb”, that is not known to have been tried, is something quite different:
It is a ‘ordinary nuclear bomb’ that is surrounded by a second material, e.g. cobalt, that will be radioactive by taking up some of the neutrons that are left over from the explosion of the nuclear bomb.

But even this will not be enough to make a “Radioactive Tsunami”.
I wonder if we should leave all further talk about a dirty bomb to the professional horror prophets who ignore the realities, but uses the subject to spread fear.
More: See
Radiation and cancer.
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
And if you are not tired, then:
Check the facts.

Greetings from Thorkil Søe

If you, my unknown reader, have relevant additions, modifications or factually reasoned objections, I ask you to write to me at

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Med mellemrum beretter medierne om en overhængende fare for at terrorister vil samle radioaktivt materiale og bruge almindeligt sprængstof til at sprede det over et stort område, der derefter vil være ubeboeligt for lange tider.
Tilsyneladende har ingen gjort sig den ulejlighed at gå i detaljer, udover
fx at berette:

”De [Isis] arbejder på en stribe angreb med radioaktivt stof.
En ‘radioaktiv tsunami’ over Europa, som skal fjerne millioner af mennesker fra jordens overflade.
Den største religiøse Holocaust verden har set.”

Kilde: Jürgen Todenhöfe, der, ifølge Den Korte Avis, har været
“frivillig fange” i ti dage hos Isis for derefter at videregive fortrolige, men formentligt også udvalgte, “oplysninger”.

Selv om sådan en radioaktiv tsunami har været omtalt mange gange, bliver det ikke muligt.

Længe inden denne potentielle terrorist får samlet bare 1 % af det nødvendige vil han dø en kummerlig, men ikke særlig glorværdig død af akut strålesyge.

Således vil denne håbefulde terrorist blive det første og nok også det eneste offer.

Naturligvis er der flere beretninger om at radioaktivt materiale er stjålet eller ”forsvundet” og at det drejer sig om fx 50 kg uran.
Selv on uran ikke er det bedste materiale til en dirty bomb, ja så lyder det jo afskrækkende.
Hvis der skal laves andet end panik, så bliver der behov for meget mere end man ‘sådan bare’ kan finde på hospitaler og lignende.

Jeg tillader mig at rejse en del spørgsmål, som jeg desværre ikke kan give fyldestgørende svar på – dog bedre end de fleste.

Men først:
De mange forvirrende enheder er en tilbagevendende udfordring.
mSv Milli Sievert er enheden for biologisk virkning af ioniserende (radioaktiv) stråling.
Der har aldrig været konstateret personskader ved kortvarig bestråling under 100 mSv
Hvis bestrålingen spredes over længere tid, vil skaderne blive mærkbart reducerede.
500 mSv vil bevirke svage symptomer på akut strålesyge, men giver ikke anledning til kortere livslængde.
500 mSv er 100 gange det der normalt tillades.
3.500 mSv vil bevirke at halvdelen af de bestrålede vil dø og at de overlevende vil have en gennemsnitlig livslængde 3 år mindre end normalbefolkningen.
Bq Becquerel er et radioaktivt henfald per sekund og er en meget lille enhed:
Vi bærer alle rundt med ca. 4.500 Bq fra naturlige kiler.

Desværre er der ingen klar sammenhæng mellem mSv og Bq

Alfa og Beta stråling kan give alvorlige forbrændinger – som ved alvorlig solskoldning.
Men ellers vil det kun være farligt hvis det radioaktive materiale spises, eller indåndes.
Neutronstråling giver alvorlige stråleskader, men findes kun i forbindelse med en atombombe-eksplosion.
En dirty bomb skal således baseres på stoffer, der afgiver gammastråling.

Hvor farlig er ioniserende (radioaktiv) stråling?

  • Det vides at befolkningsgrupper har levet gennem generationer i områder med temmelig høj naturlig radioaktivitet.
    Langt over ”det tilladelige”.
    Dog uden at de har taget skade.
    Mest udtalt er området omkring Ramsar i Pakistan.
    Over 200 mSv/år, mest fra radon.
  • Ifølge The Guardian lever “tilbage-flyttere” (‘babushkaer’) i områder nær Tjernobyl der betegnes som strictly controlled.
    Her overskrider forureningen 555 kBq/m^2
    Antal opgives ikke.
    Men andetsteds tales om 270.000, der tilsyneladende inkluderer personer, der er flyttet til områder med kun 37 kBq/m^2
  • Ifølge vil 1000 mSv/år ikke være skadeligt hvis det gives jævnt fordelt og således giver organismen mulighed for at reparere skader løbende.

Jeg afviser utallige, oplagt forfalskede, rædselsberetninger der formodentligt stammer fra Greenpeace eller eftersnakkere.

  • Af politiske grunde har man sat urealistisk lave værdier for tilladelig stråling. Både ved Tjernobyl og ved Fukushima.
  • Men nu til sagen.
    Hvor meget skal der til for at gøre et stort område ubeboeligt?

    Og hvor mange kg eller snarere ton materiale vil være nødvendigt?
    Her bliver jeg svar skyldig. Men der bliver brug for meget mere end det en terrorist ‘sådan bare’ kan finde på hospitaler og lignende.
    Naturligvis vil man have brug for meget mere end 555 kBq/m^2
    Formodentligt det tidobbelte.
    Hvis man vil forvolde skade inden folk har nået at flygte – ja så bliver der brug for endnu meget mere.
    Mit gæt er at det vil være nødvendigt at bryde ind gennem den to meter tykke reaktorindeslutning og hente flere ton høj-radioaktivt materiale.

Men nu kommer det egentlige spørgsmål:

Hvordan skal denne terrorist beskytte sig mod strålingen medens dette radioaktive materiale samles sammen og inden det er blevet spredt ud?

  • Selv om man ser billeder af ”grønne aktivister”, iført hvid dragt med åndedrætsværn, så skal disse meget store mængder af radioaktivt materiale håndteres med fjernbetjening bag en mur af bly.
  • Den hvide dragt, der ses på mange billeder, er helt uden virkning overfor stråling, men vil måske give (falsk) troværdighed.
  • Man må ikke glemme at det forudsættes at dette radioaktive materiale skal være tilstrækkeligt til at dræbe ”utallige mennesker” og at det vil  være nødvendigt med noget, der er langt udenfor småtingsafdelingen.

Endeligt spørger man:
Hvorledes vil denne terrorist sprede sit materiale således at det kan komme ud og dræber mange i stedet for at være koncentreret på et begrænset område?


En realistisk ”dirty bomb”, der så vidt vides aldrig har været prøvet, er noget helt andet:
Det er en ’almindelig atombombe’ der er omgivet af et andet materiale,
fx kobolt, der vil blive radioaktivt ved at optage nogle af de neutroner, der bliver tilovers ved sprængningen af selve atombomben.
Men selv dette, vil ikke være nok til at lave en “Radioaktiv Tsunami”.

Hvis nu denne terrorist på mystisk vis får samlet tilstrækkeligt meget højt beriget uran eller plutonium af ‘våbenkvalitet’ kan det samles og man kan få en ‘criticality’, der vil medføre mindre skadevirkninger end man vil få
ved at detonere en almindelig håndgranat.
For at få en atombombe til at virke, vil det være nødvendigt at have en meget speciel tændsats (Initiator)

  • På et senere tidspunkt var der nogle “fornuftige mennesker”, der fandt ud af at biologiske eller kemiske våben er nemmere at fremstille og nemmere at håndtere end radioaktivt materiale.
  • Muligvis er skrækværdien af radioaktivitet større.
    Men biologisk krig er måske en reel fare.

Mon ikke vi herefter skal overlade al yderligere tale om en dirty bomb til de professionelle rædselsprofeter.
De, der ser stort på realiteterne, men benytter emnet til at sprede frygt, hvor alt der omhandler stråling eller atom forvrænges til at være en stor risiko.

Herved er naturligvis ikke sagt at vi skal negligere indsatsen mod brug af atombomber.


Fra Wikipedia: Om nuclear safety and security.
Greenpeaces torværdighed er en myte.
Og hvis du ikke er træt, så også:
Stråling og cancer.
Tilbage til virkeligheden.

Hilsner fra Thorkil Søe

Hvis du, min ukendte læser, har relevante tilføjelser, ændringer eller faktuelt begrundede indvendinger, beder jeg dig skrive til mig på


  • I et forsøg på at finde et modsvar er det fremført at bare truslen om radioaktivitet kan skabe panik og vil på den måde være en endnu mere forfærdelig ”dirty bomb”.
    På en måde er det rigtigt. Men her er det let at påpege de skyldige.
  • Men alt dette er intet i sammenligning med de tusindvis af børn, der må gå ind i voksenlivet som blinde fordi – – – –
  • Eller de millioner af forældreløse børn, der må leve i en tilværelse, der ikke er værdig for mennesker fordi – – – –

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

About influence from radiation.


From nuclear bombs to knowledge and dogma

Long before we knew anything about radioactivity and radiation, energetic “health-enthusiasts” visited baths, which later turned out to be with high concentrations of radon.
Radioactive WaterOf course, the impact is not known.

Around 1915 radioactive water became the fashion as a cure against all sorts of diseases.

The pendulum swung the other way when some wealthy enthusiasts overdosed and died a horrible death.

After the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan, we began to get some factual knowledge about the effects of ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
Quickly the following was identified:
– – – Lethal dose is about 3000 mSv
– – – The death proces could be very long and painful.
– – – The healing of burns was strongly inhibited.
– – – Some children, who had been irradiated during pregnancy, showed
– – – serious birth defects.

Before long flourished an understandable fear of everything just containing the word “nuclear” or “radiation”.

Since we did not have sufficient knowledge about the effects of lower doses of ionizing radiation, it was natural to assume that no matter how little, then it is harmful.
So you were hopefully on the safe side.

Harm was thus calculated from the LNT hypothesis.

lnt-radiationOr more precisely: We had gained reasonable good information on the adverse effects of large doses and drew a straight line between this and the zero point, which of course was no impact – no damage.
This assumption makes it possible to “calculate” the number of future deaths in greater populations, who have been exposed to low load of radiation.
At times these “calculations” gave completely absurd results.

A humorous, but strictly factual, assessment is  found here:

This time the pendulum came so far out that any talk of anything else was silenced.


As time went on, we got new information. However, it was largely ignored:

  • Against all expectations, it turned out that children born to parents who had been exposed to even very strong irradiation had no more birth defects than the normal population.
  • Populations who for generations had lived in areas with high natural radiation, had no more cases of cancer.
    It gave rise to the term “The Rasmar Paradox”.
  • In 2006 and later in 2015 we can se how the animals who had taken over the forbidden zone at Chernobyl, live successfully and even had fewer cases of cancer than elsewhere.

Radon and Cancer

It is found that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between radon and cancer in the United States.

This, and much more, shows that moderate exposure to ionizing radiation is not harmful. Probably  it acts like a vaccination against cancer.


When the survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks begin to grow old, more information came to light.

  • Thus, it was discovered that people who had been exposed to 500 mSv or less, had no shorter life span than normal population.
    (500 mSv will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness and is more than 100 times than what one would normally accept.)
  • Individuals who barely survived the acute radiation sickness, on the other hand, had an average life span, which was three years less than the general population.
    Reference and a little more: see here.
  • It became easy to see that the original asumption (LNT) was a wild goose chase.

Regardless of this, the doomsayers continues to explain that we need to keep us far from everything with nuclear:

  • The accident at the Chernobyl was, unjustifiably, touted to show that all nuclear power is dangerous.
    (Strictly it may be argued that this accident showed that even a very serious accident at a completely irresponsible reactor did not cause the often trumpeted enormous damage.)
  • Natural Radiation EU

  • After the tsunami and the accident at Fukushima the politicians went into panic and set unrealistically low limits for permissible radiation.
    So low that we soon have to believe that the Danish island Bornholm should be evacuated and the residents of Helinski and other sites have long overdue died.
  • Especially in Germany it is preferred to have pollution and high cost. Just to get rid of nuclear power.

One wonders, of course: Why can this unfounded fear close of for a logic assessment?
I dare to think that some of the answer can be found below:

  • The business model for the “green organizations” is to appear as those who protect us from danger.
    If a real danger can not be found, then radiation and nuclear power will be seen as an obvious candidate.
    This is easily seen if the attentive reader tries to study sites, especially from Greenpeace.
  • The old scaremongering has been waged for so long, so intensely and so skillfully that almost all journalists and politicians can not imagine anything else.
    Or they do not dare say anything else.
  • At many universities it unfortunately applies that you should ‘just’ write something about something and get it published.
    Or give room for another at the next ’round of sackings’.
    It is obviously unwise to ‘pee against the wind’.
    So better continue to make something out of nothing.
  • Unfortunately the same applies for many journalists.
  • It will be an economic disaster for Greenpeace and others if they should “go back” and recognize that some of what they have been fighting against, anyway, is not dangerous.
  • Of course it will be a political death sentence for a politician if he can be accused of exposing people to danger.
    Better to howl with the wolves you are among.

But no matter what, so in “the West”, we continue to run out of an expensive astray.

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

Om Virkningen af Stråling


Fra atombomber til viden og dogmer

Længe før man kendte til radioaktivitet og stråling besøgte energiske  ”sundhedssøgere” bade, der senere viste sig at være med høje koncentrationer af radon.
Radioactive Water

Naturligvis ligger virkningerne hen i det uvisse.
Omkring 1915 kom radioaktivt vand på mode som et vidundermiddel mod alle mulige sygdomme.

Pendulet svingede den anden vej da nogle rige entusiaster overdoserede og døde en frygtelig død.

Efter atombombeangrebene i Japan begyndte man at få faktuel viden om virkningen af ioniserende (radioaktiv) stråling.
Hurtigt konstaterede man følgende:
– –– Dødelig dosis var omkring 3500 mSv (milli Sivert)
– –– Dødsprocessen kunne være meget lang og pinefuld.
– –– Heling af brandsår var stærkt hæmmet.
– –– Børn, der havde været bestrålet under svangerskabet,
– – –udviste alvorlige skader.

Inden ret længe florerede en letforståelig frygt for alt der bare indeholdt ordet ”atom” eller ”stråling”.
Da man ikke havde tilstrækkelig viden om virkningerne af lavere doser af ioniserende stråling, var det naturligt at forudsætte at lige meget hvor lidt, så er det skadeligt.
Så var man forhåbentligt på den sikre side.

lnt-radiation Skadevirkninger blev således beregnet ud fra LNT hypotesen.
Eller mere præcist: Man havde et rimeligt kenskab til skadevirkningerne fra store doser og trak en lige linje mellem dette og til nulpunktet, der naturligvis var ingen påvirkning – ingen skader.
Denne forudsætning giver mulighed for at ”beregne” antal af fremtidige dødsfald i en større befolkningsgruppe der individuelt har været udsat for mindre belastning af stråling.
Til tider gav disse ”beregninger” helt absurde resultater.

Tilsyneladende, og helt uden saglig begrundelse, blev kræft “udnævnt” til at være årsag til de mange beregnede dødsfald.

En humoristisk, men strengt taget saglig, vurdering findes her:

Denne gang kom pendulet så langt ud, at enhver tale om andet forstummede.


Efterhånden som tiden gik, fik man nye oplysninger, der stort set bliver ignorerede:

  • Imod al forventning viste det sig at børn født af forældre, der havde været udsat for endog meget kraftig bestråling, ikke havde flere medfødte skader end normalbefolkningen.
  • Befolkningsgrupper, der for generationer havde levet i områder med høj naturlig stråling, havde ikke flere tilfælde af kræft.
    Det gav anledning til udtrykket “The Rasmar Paradox”.
  • I 2006 og senere i 2015 kan man læse at dyr, der har overtaget
    den forbudte zone ved Tjernobyl, klarer sig udmærket og endog hævdes at have færre tilfælde af kræft end andetsteds.

    Radon and Cancer
  • Det konstateres at der er en NEGATIV korrelation mellem radon og kræft i USA.

Dette, og meget andet, viser at moderat påvirkning med ioniserende stråling ikke er skadelig, men tilsyneladende virker som en vaccination mod cancer.

Da de overlevende fra atombombeangrebene begynde at blive gamle kom der flere oplysninger.

  • Således konstaterede man at personer, der havde været udsat for 500 mSv eller mindre, ikke havde kortere livslængde end normalbefolkningen.
    (500 mSv vil bevirke svage symptomer på akut strålesyge og er 100 gange mere end det man normalt vil acceptere.)
  • Personer, der kun lige netop overlevede den akutte strålesyge (3500 mSv) havde derimod en gennemsnitlig livslængde, der var tre år mindre end normalbefolkningen.
    Kildehenvisning og lidt mere: Se
  • Det blev efterhånden let at se at den oprindelige beregningsmetode (LNT) var et vildspor.

Uden hensyn til dette fortsætter dommedagsprofeterne med at forklare at vi skal holde os langt fra alt med atom:

  • Ulykken ved Tjernobyl bliver, helt uberettiget, udråbt til at vise at
    al atomkraft er farlig.
    (Det kan strengt taget argumenteres at denne ulykke viste at selv en meget alvorlig ulykke på en uansvarlig reaktor ikke medførte de ofte udbasunerede enorme skader.) – – – – – – – – Natural Radiation EU
  • Efter tsunamien og ulykken ved Fukushima går man i panik og fastsætter urealistisk lave grænser for tilladelig stråling.
    Så lave at vi snart må tro at Bornholm skal evakueres og at indbyggere i Helinski og andre lokaliteter for længst skulle være døde.
  • Ifølge rapport fra UNSCEAR, er der “Sizeable population groups”, der modtager 10 – 20 mSv/år.
    Sådan bare ti gange det der defineres som farligt i Japan.
  • Specielt i Tyskland foretrækker man forurening og store udgifter. Bare for at slippe af med atomkraft.

Man spørger naturligvis: Hvorfor skal ubegrundet frygt lukke af for saglig vurdering?
Mon ikke noget af svaret kan findes i nedenstående.

  • Forretningsmodellen for de ”grønne organisationer” er at fremstå som dem, der beskytter os mod en fare.
    Her kan stråling og atomkraft betragtes som et oplagt emne.
    Dette ses let hvis den opmærksomme læser giver sig tid til at studere hjemmesider, specielt fra Greenpeace.
  • Den gamle skrækpropaganda har været ført så længe, så intenst og så dygtigt at næsten alle journalister og politikere ikke kan forestille sig andet.
    Eller ikke tør sige noget andet.
  • På mange universiteter gælder det desværre at man ‘sådan bare’ skal skrive et eller andet om et eller andet og få det publiceret.
    Eller give plads til en anden ved næste ‘sparerundte’.
    Det er er naturligvis uklogt at ’tisse mod vinden’.
    Så hellere fortsætte med at lave en fjer til syv høns.
    Spørg bare professor Henrik Møller, der blev fyret fra Ålborg Universitet.
  • Noget tilsvarende gælder desværre også for mange journalister.

Og, hvad der måske lyder som konspirationsteorier.

  • Det hævdes og begrundes at kul- og olielobbyen, støttet af Rockefeller Foundation, var de førende i bestræbelserne for at sprede frygt for radiation og derigennem standse uønsket konkurrence.
    Man fandt en god forbundsfælle i Herman Muller, der allerede før krigen havde vist kromosom-ændringer i bananfluer, der havde været udsat for røntgenstråling.
  • Meget tyder på at russisk støttede “fredsbevægelser” var førende i kampen mod alt med atom og derigennem også kernekraft.
  • Det vil være en økonomisk katastrofe for Greenpeace og andre, hvis de skulle ”gå tilbage” og erkende at noget af det, man har kæmpet så ihærdigt imod, alligevel ikke er farligt.
  • Naturligvis vil det være en politisk dødsdom hvis en politiker kan beskyldes for at udsætte befolkningen for en fare.
    Så hellere hyle med de ulve man er iblandt.

Men lige meget hvad, så fortsætter vi i ”Vesten” med at køre ud af et dyrt vildspor.

Hilsner og god tænkepause.
Thorkil Søe