ENENews: “Shocking new study reveals true extent of global impact”

Everyone on Earth has been irradiated by Fukushima — “Shocking new study reveals true extent of global impact” — “Scientists are only just now confirming far-reaching effects” of nuclear disaster
Published: May 8th, 2017 at 6:54 am ET
By ENENews

New Scientist, May 5, 2017 (emphasis added): Fukushima accident gave everyone an X-ray’s worth of radiation — “We don’t need to worry,” says Nikolaos Evangeliou at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, whose team has conducted the first global survey of radiation exposure caused by the meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant… Evangeliou’s team has calculated the approximate exposure of everyone on Earth to two radioactive isotopes of caesium… He has estimated the dose that most individuals received to be 0.1 millisievert. “What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each,” says Evangeliou… But Evangeliou says that the effects on wildlife around the plant might be more severe. Already, he says, increased levels of radiation around Fukushima have been linked to declines in bird populations there between 2011 and 2014. “There have also been reports of declines in other species such as insects and some mammals,” he says…

Daily Star, May 7, 2017: Global cancer fears as it’s revealed WHOLE WORLD got nuclear radiation blast; EVERYBODY on Earth was dealt a dose of radiation by the Fukushima triple nuclear meltdown, a shock new study has revealed… And the plant continues to release radiation to this day, despite efforts to contain the leaking. Now a study from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research has revealed the true extent of the global impact. Lead author Nikolaos Evangeliou told New Scientist magazine: “What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each.” According to the NHS website, people exposed to X-rays face the risk of developing cancer “many years or decades later.”… Most people got 0.1 millisievert of extra radiation from the Fukushima disaster

BGR, May 7, 2017: Japan’s nuclear disaster gave everyone on Earth extra radiation — It’s been over half a decade… but scientists are only just now confirming its far-reaching effects… each human on the planet received roughly 0.1 millisievert…

Evangeliou et al. (pdf), European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017: Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects… A large number of fission products were released and transported worldwide. We estimate that around 23% of the released 137Cs remained into Japan, while 76% deposited in the oceans. Around 163 TBq deposited over North America, among which 95 TBq over USA, 40 TBq over Canada… About 14 TBq deposited over Europe… and 47 TBq over Asia… 69 TBq deposited in the Arctic, as well. An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months… in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray… However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.

See also: UCLA Researchers: Fukushima “not only affecting that local area, but also worldwide” — Gov’t Expert: “Immediately the Iodine-131 plume moved eastward reaching US West Coast [then] covering entire northern hemisphere… Significant concern on the safety of the population and environment worldwide” (VIDEO)

Biologist Explains: “THC, the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, induces tumor cell ‘suicide’ while leaving healthy cells alone”

Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide

(NaturalNews) The therapeutic potential of cannabis appears limitless, extending far beyond just relieving nausea or pain in the terminally ill. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist from Compultense University in Madrid, Spain, has been studying the molecular activity of cannabinoids for more than 10 years, and during this time she and her colleagues have learned that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, induces tumor cell “suicide” while leaving healthy cells alone.

This amazing discovery was somewhat unexpected, as Sanchez and her team had initially been studying brain cancer cells for the purpose of better understanding how they function. But in the process, they observed that, when exposed to THC, tumoral cells not only ceased to multiply and proliferate but also destroyed themselves, both in lab tests and animal trials. Sanchez first reported on this back in 1998, publishing a paper on the anti-cancer effects of THC in the European biochemistry journal FEBS Letters.

“In the early 1960s, Raphael Mechoulam from the Hebrew University in Israel categorized the main compound in marijuana producing the psychoactive effects that we all know,” explained Sanchez during an interview with Cannabis Planet. “After the discovery of this compound that is called THC, it was pretty obvious that this compound had to be acting on the cells, on our organism, through a molecular mechanism.”

Sanchez expounds upon this and much more in a five-minute video segment available here:

Human body designed to utilize cannabis compounds, research finds

Later research in the 1980s revealed that the human body contains two specific targets for THC: an endogenous framework that processes THC and other cannabinoids, known as the endocannabinoid system, and various cannabinoid receptors throughout the body that utilize them. Together, these two natural systems allow the body to benefit from the cannabinoids found in cannabis, some of which aren’t found anywhere else in nature.

“The endocannabinoids, together with the receptors and the enzymes that synthesize, that produce, the endocannabinoids and that degrade the endocannabinoids, are what we call the endocannabinoid system,” added Sanchez. “And we now know that the endocannabinoid system regulates a lot of biological functions: appetite, food intake, motor behavior, reproduction, and many, many other functions. And that’s why the plant has such a wide therapeutic potential.”

“Phoenix Tears” cannabis oil is already curing people of cancer

When inhaled or consumed, cannabis cannabinoids are incorporated into the body’s natural endocannabinoid system, binding to cannabinoid receptors in the same way as endogenous cannabinoids. The effects of this in terms of cancer, as demonstrated in animal models of both breast and brain cancers, is that tumor cells are thrust into a state of apoptosis, meaning they self-destruct.

“Cells can die in different ways, and after cannabinoid treatment, they were dying in the clean way — they were committing suicide,” revealed Sanchez. One of the advantages of cannabinoids… is that they target, specifically, the tumor cells. They don’t have any toxic effect on normal, non-tumoral cells. And this is an advantage with respect to standard chemotherapy, which targets basically everything.”

What Sanchez is describing here sounds a lot like what Canadian researcher and innovator Rick Simpson has been doing with his “Phoenix Tears” cannabis oil, which has reportedly cured many people of cancer over the years without harming them like chemotherapy and radiation do.

You can learn more about Phoenix Tears here:

“I cannot understand why in the U.S. cannabis is under Schedule I, because it is pretty obvious, not only from our work, but from the work of many other researchers, that the plant has very wide therapeutic potential,” emphasized Sanchez.





Interesting Read, Found at Majias Blog on “A Plant In Environmental Health Perspectives?” Not Like a Plant That Grows, But the Other Kind of Plant.

From: http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/plant-in-environmental-health.html

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012

A Plant in Environmental Health Perspectives?

I was reading my favorite health journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, which is published by the National Institutes of Health, and I came across a rather strange article: “Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation”

Online 26 Apr 2012 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104294
find it here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104294

The article looked at DNA damage to mice after exposed to 5 weeks of continuous ionizing radiation at 400X background level.

This was a strange study because it showed no effects at all: “These studies suggest that exposure to continuous radiation at a dose-rate that is orders of magnitude higher than background does not significantly impact several key measures of DNA damage and DNA damage responses.”

I’ve researched the effects of ionizing radiation enough that I know that effects are present even after extremely low levels of exposure.

In fact, a few weeks ago I posted information about the bystander effect, which explains how cell damage and repair can occur as a result of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. See my relevant posts at the end of this post.

So, I read the article carefully and I also did a background check on the lead author, Werner Olipitz.

What I found may be indicative of a “plant.”

I am defining a plant as an article that has been written deliberately to inoculate readers, either for, or against, a position.

An article that is a plant structures the research methodology so that results support a preconceived conclusion. The release of the article is timed to inoculate readers.

An experiment that is set up to prove a point may have internal validity, but not have ecological validity; that is, the experiment results may not be generalizable to the real world environment it purports to represent, even if the internal experimental conditions are valid.

Here is Wikipedia’s definition of Ecological Validity: “Ecological validity is a form of validity in a research study. For a research study to possess ecological validity, the methods, materials and setting of the study must approximate the real-life situation that is under investigation.[1] Unlike internal and external validity, ecological validity is not necessary to the overall validity of a study” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_validity

Majia here: Drug research paid for by pharmaceutical companies is notoriously problematic in this regard.


Examination of ecological validity for “Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation”

The study on irradiation of mice explicitly claims to have relevance for humans, but does not have ecological validity for our current conditions (i.e., Fukushima fallout) because the exposure pathway was purely external and only examined photons (i.e., gamma radiation).

The mice did not eat or drink radionuclides.

Furthermore, the research did not follow the mice across time beyond the experimental condition.

“the human body absorbs iodine and caesium readily. “Essentially all the iodine or caesium inhaled or swallowed crosses into the blood,” says Keith Baverstock, former head of radiation protection for the World Health Organization’s European office, who has studied Chernobyl’s health effects.” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html)

The exposed mice were killed immediately after the 5 week exposure period. Consequently, there was no follow-up investigation of long-term effects.

The effects of exposure to ionizing radiation include both acute and long-term effects (Elgazzar & Elsaid 2001).

Past research has documented delayed effects on genomic instability from exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (see Huang, Nickoloff, & Morgan, 2007; Sahina et al, 2009).

This study did not address long-term effects, only acute effects.


Studies that have examined actual people exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation have documented effects at low-levels of exposure (see Little, Wakeford & Kendall, 2007; Sermage-Faure et al.,)


“This work was supported primarily by the Office of Science (BER), U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FG02-05ER64053). This work was partially supported by R33-CA112151 and 1U19AI68021-06)…”

See http://science.energy.gov/ber/

This is where things get very strange.

The lead author identifies his institutional affiliation as the Dept of Biological Engineering at MIT; HOWEVER, he is not listed as a faculty member or research assistant of this department and his name does not come up when searched at the MIT “people search” function at the university of home page.

I called MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering and he is not on staff or faculty. The assistant I spoke to says he may have been a graduate student in the program.

According to this site he was a post-doc at MIT in 2009

His profile here does not give any locations, nor contact info.

According to google scholar he has had only 2 articles plus the one above published since 2009 (which is not very many).
In 2011 he had a study published in final edited form as:
Development and characterization of a novel variable low-dose rate irradiator for in vivo mouse studies. Health Phys. 2010 May; 98(5): 727–734.
doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181d26dc5 PMCID: PMC3020895
NIHMSID: NIHMS198669 Linked here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020895/

He puts MIT’s Dept of Biological Engineering as his address and also acknowledges grant funding from the DoE (http://www.federalgrants.com/Low-Dose-Radiation-Research-Program-Molecular-Mechanisms-and-Pathways-2582.html).

He had one other article published in 2010 and it also refers to MIT’s Dept of Biological Engineering as his address

Yet, he isn’t there! A google search finds no current institutional affiliation. Institutional affiliation is everything in the world of academe.

The correspondence is supposed to be directed to the article’s last author, B.P. Engelward, at the Dept. of Biological Engineering at MIT. She was probably the faculty advisor http://web.mit.edu/be/people/engelward.shtml

Even stranger, Engelward’s latest research study “Methyltransferases Mediate Cell Memory of a Genotoxic Insult” in Oncogene demonstrates precisely the type of effects that Olipiitz’s study is refuting. Here is an excerpt from her study:

“that a single exposure can lead to long-term genome-destabilizing effects that spread from cell to cell, and we provide a specific molecular mechanism for these persistent bystander effects” (p. 751)…

“It is becoming increasingly clear that indirect mechanisms of mutation induction that involve
changes in cellular behaviour, in addition to the directly induced DNA lesions, can lead to an increased risk of disease-causing mutations for months or even years after exposure (Pant and Kamada, 1977; Mothersill and Seymour, 2001; Lorimore et al., 2003; Morgan, 2003; Maxwell et al., 2008). Furthermore, at least one study suggests that the extent of bystander-induced DNA damage can be as great as that of the original exposure (Dickey et al., 2009)….” (p. 754).


I strongly suspect that this article (“Integrated Moleculary Analysis” by Olipitz et al) is a plant that is aimed at debunking concerns about our exposure to Fukushima fallout.

Although the study may have impeccable internal validity, its ecological validity is highly suspect.

However, the article can be cited later by authorities wishing to trivialize Fukushima fallout as non-important.

There is of course considerable research that directly CONTRADICTS the findings of Olipitz’s study of irradiated mice (apparently including research by his adviser).

I’ll include some in my list of references and link some of my previous posts on the subject.

I am very unhappy because Environmental Health Perspectives is one of the leading, if not the leading, outlet for research on environmental effects.

The idea that this journal may have been hijacked in order to spread dis-information about radiation’s effects on human health is TREMENDOUSLY DISTURBING on many levels.

It would indicate that scientific inquiry and publishing are far more compromised than I ever knew.

The external reviewers should have called into question the study’s assertions about the generalizability of findings to human exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.


Let us hope that my analysis and concerns are inaccurate or misdirected.


Averbeck, D, Towards a New Paradigm for Evaluating the Effects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis Volume 687, Issues 1-2, 1 May 2010 pages 7-12.

Elgazzar, A. H., & M. Elsaid (2001). The pathophysiologic basis of nuclear medicinein Biological effects of ionizing radiation A.H. Elgazzar (Ed.), pp. 369–370

Huang L, Kim PM, Nickoloff JA, Morgan WF. 2007. Targeted and nontargeted effects of low-dose ionizing radiation on delayed genomic instability in human cells. Cancer Research 67:1099–1104

Little, Mark, Richard Wakeford and Gerald M Kendall. Updated estimates of the proportion of childhood leukaemia incidence in Great Britain that may be caused by natural background ionising radiation Journal of Radiological Protection Volume 29 Number 4 467 10.1088/0952-4746/29/4/001
Sahina, A., Abdulgani Tatarb, Sıtkı Oztasb, Bedri Sevena, Erhan Varoglua, Ahmet Yesilyurtb, Arif Kursad A. (2009) Evaluation of the genotoxic effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure on nuclear medicine workers. Nuclear Medicine and Biology, 36(5), 575–578
Sermage-Faure, D. Laurier, S. Goujon-Bellec, M. Chartier, A. Guyot-Goubin, J. Rudant, D. Hemon and J. Clavel. Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants – the Geocap study, 2002 – 2007,” International Journal of Cancer study by C document is online in English at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.27425/pdf.


Research Demonstrating Significant Effects at Low Dose Rates of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. April 18, 2012

Propaganda Alert April 2012

Estimating Dose and the History of Radiation Research

Is Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation from Fukushima a Risk to Health?